Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 April	24 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Youth Cup

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

Contested prod - no reason given. Non notable tournament for amateur youth teams. Article is completely unsourced and appears to easily fail WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a non-notable junior sports tournament. Mattlore (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just thought it would be worthwhile to have it brought to a wider audience, as multiple people had edited the article. No strong feelings on it either way, just thought it being speedily deleted would not be the best way to go.Fleets (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's just no sourcing for this. A NN youth team tournament. Dloh cierekim 18:48, 30 April 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 Deleted as a hoax DES ^(talk) 07:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surinamese Radical Party

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

Appears to be a WP:HOAX, no results in google search Soman (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Taj

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

non-notable sports person. does not pass Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cricket Saqib (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not demonstrate notability required to meet WP:GNG, nor does a rudimentary Google search reveal anything to indicate that he might. Harrias ^talk 10:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, could not find RS. There was a paucity of info on the Cosmos Cricket Club. This is, according to the article, a US club, but I saw more hits for Canada. The BLPProD was decined, but bless me if I can see the sourcing. Oh, there it is. It was removed becomes it was deemed "unreliable" info from US Cricket News. Dloh cierekim 18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCRIC.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 30 April 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. Per WP:G7 by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Coins In Coin Roll Hunting

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

As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply a list of coins that different people have found. Not a single RS. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Uh, yes, utterly trivial, unencyclopedic. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly indiscriminate. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they missed some of the cool stuff I've found. Better for a coin forum. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTLINKFARM as the references are almost all youtube videos. Ajf773 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clear A7. *puff of smoke* — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7 North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Chris Adventure TEam

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

Accidental — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandtWP (talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Gair

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

WP:NFOOTY. The highest level of football he has played at is Scottish League Two, which is not fully professional. He plays for Edinburgh City, which is a semi-professional club that draws crowds of under 500. eg 378 for yesterday's match There is some coverage of him in the media, but this is of the routine nature (e.g. match reports). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant. It gives a presumption that a subject meets WP:GNG, not a requirement for a subject to have an article. So here, we have to look if the requirement from GNG, received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, is met. The Alan Temple articles and Ross Pilcher articles meet this requirement. Nothing in those are routine. Maybe you could call the BBC articles routine, but I would ask if the same article was written about teams in the Scottish Premiership, would we be calling it routine? BBC is national coverage - a match report in the Edinburgh papers is probably routine, but I don't know about the BBC. Irregardless, I think the Temple and Pilcher articles along show the sources need - the BBC coverage is icing on the cake. Nothing about those two bodies of articles are routine. Also, consider the metadata - the subject is the star player, captain, and prominent goal scorer for the first promotion into the Scottish Professional Football League. The lack of such promotion was a criticism for years of the old Scottish Football League. Edinburgh City's promotion, and the role of Dougie Gair, gained a lot of coverage based on that. Its was not routine, but a relatively historic event. This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Shaw (footballer). While not on that scale, a case where the coverage was there even though WP:NFOOTY was nowhere near met. The guidelines are just that and what always matters if GNG. Here, it is met. Any argument that the guideline is not met has no merit, the sources are what matter. If someone wants to argue the Temple and Pilcher sources are routine, then that is where the discussion belongs. But from where I sit, those are far from routine coverage. For example, I know of no other Edinburgh City player gaining such coverage - if they did, then it would be routine. The lack of such coverage for other players shows that this is not routine. RonSigPi (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: RonSigPi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

A few points about this. Most of the articles are based on copy from Deadline News, which is an Edinburgh-based news agency. Some of their copy is picked up by Scottish newspapers, most often the main local paper (Edinburgh Evening News). Edinburgh City, and its players, have gained more coverage this year because they were promoted into the SPFL. But the reality is that they are still playing at a semi-professional level, with crowds of under 500. To say Dougie Gair is a "star player" is something you have made up, based on absolutely nothing. To compare him with Wayne Shaw, whose pie-eating antics gained worldwide coverage (because it was in a televised match against Arsenal) is ludicrous. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true, and under WP:GF I will take it as such, then I will retract my position. If its really from just one source, then it fails GNG. I do take issue with your other two points - I agreed that this was not on the level of Shaw, but used it for comparison. I think calling the comparison ludicrous is a bit much, even bordering on WP:CIV concerns, especially considering I even said it wasnt on the same scale. Far as the vilification of the term "star player", I stand by it and explained it. No other player on the team has gained this kind of coverage from what I saw. The term chosen may be a colloquialism, but the context it was used - in stating that he gained more coverage than anyone else on the team - it is taken out of the opinion realm. All of this is moot however, if its from one source and not the three I determined, then GNG is not met. RonSigPi (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Player has received some level of coverage at a city level, but wider coverage is of a purely routine nature restricted to match reporting on his team. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league. Although there is some local coverage of his career, it falls short of meeting WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The limited content of the article relates almost entirely to the 2016 playoffs. Of course these matches are significant, but they can be covered in articles on the club and the season, they don't need an article on someone judged to be a "star player" by one editor's WP:OR opinion. The subject clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and to justify inclusion under WP:GNG I would want to see sources that provide significant coverage of his whole career, not just these games. Jellyman (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the references do not provide enough in depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet the requirements in WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:33, 30 April 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. It's been userfied to User:David Tornheim/FBI surveillance already. Mkdw ^talk 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fbi surveillance

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

Personal essay. Wikipedia is not a place for academic papers. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 21:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy This subject is clearly notable. I'm amazed the page didn't exist. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have made a copy to my draft space, deleted all the opinion, and started working on assembling WP:RS on section for Don't be a Puppet (New York Times) and for article on the larger scope of the subject. Here: User:David_Tornheim/FBI_surveillance. I don't think it would take much work to make this into a stub article. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Although, the creator should had more time to improve the article to comply with NPOV. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 23:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article itself says it isn't notable: "Not one major news company has produced any information on this story." Bennv3771 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Surveillance is not notable? You have to be kidding. Do a google search and you immediately come with great WP:RS like this: [1], [2], [3]. We even have this article: List_of_Americans_under_surveillance (many, if not most, related to FBI). I confident there is a staggering amount of WP:RS on this subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim:: Calm down. I wasn't suggesting "FBI Surveillance" isn't notable, I was suggesting "Fbi surveillance" (i.e. this one particular surveillance story that the article is about) isn't notable according to the article itself. I stand by my opinion that this article should be deleted, and if someone wants to write a proper article on "FBI Surveillance" they are welcome to do so. None of the sources you've provided on this are about this particular surveillance story. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space or draft space: This virtually source-free essay is not balanced and does not belong in article space (NOTESSAY etc.) but can be returned to user or draft space. There is a notable topic in here but finding it and making it policy compliant is not appropriate in article space when this essay is the starting point – allowing a blank-piece-of-paper starting point is preferable. EdChem (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't userfy. This is too far from a proper article, it's an opinion piece. Userfy only encourages this kind of stuff and will lead to another deletion discussion later. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a bit of an essay. It's also a bit newsy. Maybe a dash of negative point of view. I would not userfy as then we would be webhosting a non article essay not related to running Wikipedia. The coverage is not sufficient to achieve notability. Dloh cierekim 19:06, 30 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeroen Tel

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

Despite all the refs, I can find nothing that speaks to notability. Plenty of (self made ?) videos on YouTube and similar but nothing reputable and independent that talks about him. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now some references on the article to third-party sources (Tel Me More received coverage in the technology/gaming press). Many refs are non-English-language but they're still valid. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm puzzled as to why you don't think the Next Generation article I added a year ago qualifies as "reputable and independent". Anyway, we have at least the bare minimum of notable/reliable sources in the article, and given that Tel is one of the most prolific composers on the Commodore 64 scene I'd be shocked if there weren't a lot more out there. For starters, surely Retro Gamer has done a feature on C64 music by now?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep barely notable via coverage. Dloh cierekim 00:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vitrified sand

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable enough to pass the WP:GNG. The article has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} since September of 2009 and a WP:BEFORE search only found trivial mentions of the subject (vitrified sand). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is this source ^[1] but that is not enough for meeting the WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/03/is-the-lycurgus-cup-evidence-of-roman-era-nanotechnology/

Keep Useful hub article for the various natural and artificial varieties. References can be easily appropriated from any or each of the well-developed specific articles.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful, and effectively, a dab page. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it may be useful, but it is not a dab page. See WP:CONCEPTDAB. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and it seems to me that it should simply be changed so it's not a disambig page. I'll add to the disambiguation deletion discussion, as it is currently a disambig. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep small but useful. Dloh cierekim 16:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary (Train song)

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

No sources since February 2012 (5 years). Infobox does not have a cover or sources for genres. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteKellymoat (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this was released as a single, there appears to be extremely limited coverage on this song. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Parmelee

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

May work in the film business but unable to locate any sources that aren't self published or just passing mentions that confirm he was involved in a production. Detailed discussion of him or his work seems to be absent. Nthep (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are either not WP:RS like YouTube or iMDB or just include his name as author of the included pictures. No in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.--Rogerx2 (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has not received significant critical attention. Mduvekot (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be mostly promotional for a commercial photographer. The references that seem credible (L.A. Times, NYT) are simply photo credits. Netherzone (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:34, 30 April 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ssa2

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

This article only cites one source, which is a store (iTunes). This is a violation of WP:ALBUMAVOID. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found and added ten English language citations, and feel this article can be expanded further with Korean language citations, which will take more time to add. Although the controversy surrounding this particular 2nd album of Psy's placed it in lots of media attention, I think more about the lyrics and development of the songs would be insightful. Some of the articles talk about Psy's contributions as a social critic and he is not seen as a "one-hit-wonder". I think the development of his history and musical style should include these first controversial albums he put out, even if they remain as stubs that will be further developed someday, as they tell the complete story of this complex artist and imperfect man who eventually succeeded with "Gangnam Style".--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recent addition of sources demonstrate article passes, slightly, GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keepgiven the expansion of the article and addition of sources. Aoba47 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 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. It's snowing here, and the nominator has !voted keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Airlines Flight 779

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

Article was previously deleted following an AfD in 2013. created for discussion to occur as to whether it passes inclusion criteria. Nominally the nominator, I have not yet !voted, and will probably not !vote unless I a) have to, or b) see aparticularily good vote that I will per. L3X1 (distant write) 19:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The old version of the article is nothing like the current version. The old version that was deleted in 2013 is terrible. (It can be read here;http://www.rc135.com/0011/ALASKA_A.HTM) There is no reason to delete it now; notability is established on the talk page; (Civil accident fatalities, civil accident hull loss, civil accident that changed aviation) Secondary sources are provided, despite the fact that they are hard to come by for and accident in the time. The cause of the accident was rather unusual, not an ordinary case of pilot error, making it all the more noteworthy. The old article should have been deleted in 2013 because it was crap; it contained numerous factual inaccuracies that led to the notability being misunderstood, as well as numerous grammar errors and poor formatting. Keep in mind that guidelines are present to keep thousands of air crashes in combat from having their own article, not a crash of a chartered airliner.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Aircraft owned and operated by Alaska Airlines and flown by civilians. Big aircraft like a DC-6 destroyed and 6 fatalities meets notability IMHO. If the article survives I'll be happy to make some improvements. Samf4u (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the original article at 1st AfD is not that different to this one and crew-only cargo flights are not normally considered as noteworthy for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Really: The original article is here: (http://www.rc135.com/0011/ALASKA_A.HTM) note the lack of sufficient citations, length, topics covered, grammar, weird wording... As for "crew-only cargo flights are not normally considered as noteworthy for an article" that is blatantly false. In fact, there is a whole list dedicated to mostly crew-only cargo flights: List of fatal accidents to commercial cargo aircraft There are plenty of articles on crew-only cargo flights, including FedEx Express Flight 80, FedEx Express Flight 14, FedEx Express Flight 647, FedEx Express Flight 910 (which didn't even have fatalities), FedEx Express Flight 630 (no fatalities), UPS Flight 006, UPS Flight 1354, Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460, Flying Tiger Line Flight 282, United Airlines Flight 2885, Flying Tiger Line Flight 66, Korean Air Cargo Flight 8509, Korean Air Cargo Flight 6316, MK Airlines Flight 1602, Avient Aviation Flight 324, AeroUnion Flight 302, Asiana Airlines Flight 991, National Airlines Flight 102, and Sun Way Flight 4412.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The incident clearly satisfies the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents (not policy on notability, I know, but helpful). It can be improved, but is a neutral and sourced article with sufficient details on what happened and why. EdChem (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a large commercial airliner was lost with all on board. Changes made to operation of airfields in the USA as a direct result of this accident. I oppose the argument that being a cargo flight equates to a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. L3X1 (distant write) 14:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines though much more is in print as opposed to online. This article is not vastly different from other widely accepted airline crash article. It was a major airline, flight number assigned, everyone died. In 1961, a Douglas DC-6A was a large and significant aircraft, much like if a Boeing 757 crashed today (the 757 is discontinued but not considered ancient). If there is a desire to delete, the reasoning was not clearly explained. It is customary for the nominator to advocate deletion, not for the nominating editor to be neutral or pro-keep. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia 'Calum'

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

Name of a variety of Tillandsia plant genus - for instance, BSI lists several hundred cultivars like this one of this genus alone which are being constantly created by various growers.[4] No indication this variety is notable per se. Natural plants of course are notable – artificial varieties not really sure. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion I agree that, unlike species, cultivars are not intrinsically notable, and so the normal criteria for notability apply. This cultivar doesn't meet them. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Plantdrew (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 25 April 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 Ivan Šarić per WP:SNOW. There is clearly consensus that this title (and for that matter all various spellings of Ivan Šarić with and without diacritics) should be listed on one disambiguation page, with the others redirected there. Although the editors all think this should be accomplished in different ways, nobody disagrees that should be the result. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Saric

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

No one on this disambiguation page is named "Ivan Saric" and its content belongs within the Ivan Šarić dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close This exact nomination was closed earlier today! Ping closer KGirlTrucker81. Please stop wasting our time and read the recommendation from the closer. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that you consider this deletion nomination to be a waste of time, but I suggest that it should be up to our fellow editors to decide whether this entry remains or is eliminated. As for the contention that this nomination is an exact duplicate of the previous one, I suggest you read the content of that previous nomination and compare it with the content of this one which is a straightforward deletion nomination, not a redirect request, and belongs exactly where it is, not on the talk page, where only WP:Requested moves are !voted upon. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This kind of ridiculousness is why you are banned from editing disambiguation pages - you just keep getting it wrong. You are not proposing deleting this page, you are proposing it is merged to another page. This title at absolute worst would be a redirect and is a valid dab with several entries, either with articles or meeting MOS:DABMENTION/MOS:DABRL. Your suggestion to merge its contents belongs on the talk page. Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ivan Šarić and expand that to include the less common spelling of Ivan Sarić, then cleanup hatnotes. PamD 08:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have boldly gone ahead and tweaked the dab page and hatnote - now we just need to close this misguided AfD and create the redirect. PamD 08:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PamD, I undid the redirect, as I realised that Roman Spinner - who is topic banned from editing dabs - had deleted two valid entries from this dab while nominating it for 'deletion', making it look like a completely invalid dab. It is not as clear as a redirect as there are 2 dabs with enough valid entries. However, I would personally support a merge and redirect. Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Where's the topic ban? We need to report this clear breach and prevent any future such timewasting. PamD 09:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Now to ANI. PamD 09:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Roman_Spinner_editing_dab_pages_in_breach_of_ban. PamD 09:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalanayani

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

I had prodded the article with the reasoning that there are no reliable sources that confirm the claim of the subject being the daughter of Hindu God Krishna. The prod was removed with a bevy of sources provided. I have checked all the sources, including the offline one which coincidentally was available in my university library. There is no such name connected with the god Krishna in the sources provided. Irrespective, the subject fails GNG and does not qualify for SNG. In case sources confirming existence of the subject and relation to Krishna are found, I propose a redirect to Krishna. Otherwise, as the current situation is, deleting this seems to be in order. Lourdes 18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first source in the article is pointing to a Wikipedia article so it does not meet WP:RS. I searched the sencond and fourth and they do not include the name Kamalanayani. Since Lourdes also checked the ofline version, we either have a hoax or a BLP without references. in any case it should be deleted. --Rogerx2 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable character from the Mahabharata? Not quite sure she is a character there. Cannot source. Purported fictional character. Not BLP. Dloh cierekim 00:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted g12. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Boccaletti

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

Advertisement. Burning Pillar (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nongoloza cult

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

This is a hoax. The only references to a "Nongoloza cult" on google are a series of blogs and now deleted wikinews.org articles authored by the same person making this article (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michel Sher) Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Hoax Legacypac (talk)
What is hoax? News of Cape Town or Books. It's Vandalism on your part Jeremi AI (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith from other editors. Skepticism is not vandalism. The book citations in the article are too vague to verify. Independent searches for references about this cult bring up low quality hits. Readers need to be able to verify the article content and trust that it is free of original research. That is a problem with the current article. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I saw you have already made an observation to the Justeditingtoday. Note that the same situation is repeated here. Jeremi AI (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the original warning applies here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am emphasize on the act of Vandalism on the part of Justeditingtoday. And therefore I ask you, as an administrator, not to give the opportunity to violate the rules of Wikipedia. Jeremi AI (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalism to nominate something for deletion, and you should stop making such accusations as per WP:NPA. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my statements, I am guided solely by the Wikipedia rules. Justeditingtoday did not give evidence of his point of view.(See the types of vandalism #Abuse of tags)Jeremi AI (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This does not appear to be Wikipedia hoax article by strict definition, but the cult appears to be a blogosphere hoax that real people have acted upon.[5] That said, I do not yet see evidence this is a notable hoax like Pizzagate. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable source I can find discussing this (alleged) religious group is the news article cited by Gene93k. Whether it is real or a hoax, either way it has received insufficient coverage in reliable sources for notability. SJK (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, I still have not received an answer, where is a lie? The news, about what is happening in Cape Town? But aside from the news, I cited four more books that were used on the creation of the article. - Jeremi AI (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, we have a WP:Verifiability problem. The online references are about gang-related knife fighting. They do not even mention this secret society. The four books listed under "Information sources" are not specific enough to verify. The content about the society itself appears to be based on one book. A Google Books search for "Nongoloza cult" yields multiple hits, so this is probably not a hoax, but we need specific references (esp. page numbers) in the books, so that people with library access can find the books and verify that the citations are not misinterpreted. Even with that issue solved we still have the issues about substantial coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: I added books with page numbers Jeremi AI (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremi AI: Can you add relevant quotes from those pages of the book? Just a couple of sentences or a paragraph or so, will do. We specifically want to see where they use the phrase "Nongoloza cult". SJK (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with SJK, there is not enough coverage by reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Rogerx2 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you constructive criticism. I respect your position. I made some improvements to the article and added sources. If there are any specific comments, I will take note of them. - Jeremi AI (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Justeditingtoday: I added sources. I supplemented the article with an information. I took into account the wishes of the community, according to the rules. I would be grateful if you would help me to make an article and remove the mark for deletion. - Jeremi AI (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremi AI: The sources you've added don't actually support the key contention of the article, which is there is a group called the "Nongoloza cult". For example, sickchirpse.com article never mentions "Nongoloza cult", it does talk about The Numbers Gang but there is already an article on that. Also, I am not sure if "Sick Chirpse" is actually a reliable source or not. You also cite a paper from the Southern African Journal of Criminology–while that is undoubtably a reliable source, I don't see any mention of a "Nongoloza cult" in that paper. So I don't think this gives any reason for myself (or anyone else) to change their recommendation for deleting this article. The problem the article has is there is a lack of references specifically talking about "Nongoloza cult". Adding references which talk about South African criminal gangs or religious movements, etc, doesn't help solve that problem unless those references specifically mention a Nongoloza cult. None of the references do, except for the IOL article on the bomb threat, but that by itself is not enough for an article on this group–it mentions such a group was claimed to exist by the person making the bomb threat, but gives no further information on the group, it doesn't even confirm that the group definitely exists (as opposed to being a myth or hoax or legend.) SJK (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Heather Parker Lewis points out in her book, that the church often became an asylum for members of the Nongoloza cult from the persecution of the authorities" - this book speaks directly about the Nongoloza cult – Jeremi AI (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added quotes with links to the source. I see no reason to consider the article a lie. - Jeremi AI (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremi AI: Okay, so you have added a quote from Heather Parker Lewis' book "God's children". And yes, that quote uses the phrase "Nongoloza cult", which is good. You haven't supplied the page number for the quote, but hopefully you can fix this. And I'm going to trust your quote is accurate. The bigger problem is, I believe that her book is a self-published book (see WP:SELFPUBLISH), and hence not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. Note the publisher is "ihilihili Press". ihilihili Press doesn't appear to have a website, but it does have a Facebook page, which talks openly about the fact that it is a self-publishing operation. I can't find any books published by "ihilihili Press" except those written by Heather Parker Lewis. She also wrote a book they published called "Successful Self Publishing In South Africa". It is pretty clear that "ihilihili Press" is simply Heather Parker Lewis' label for her self-publishing operation, which means her book is self-published and hence can't be used as a source on Wikipedia. Can you provide quotes from non-self-published books which use the phrase "Nongoloza cult"? SJK (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if it is not a hoax there is no in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:GROUP. just mentions don't help to meet the requirements for notability. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sufficient coverage in RS. Dloh cierekim 01:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex D'jamirze

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. The coverage is not in sufficient depth to meet WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 01:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Spivak

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an awfully brief nomination comment for a second nom, don't you think? Anyway, at the time of this article's creation and for many many years afterward, WP:NHOCKEY did not specify that a national team player had to play at the highest IIHF level to be presumed notable. Any player with an international cap was presumed notable. I assume the change to that guideline is fairly recent, probably intended to target articles exactly like this one. But I don't like the change, and I'm surprised it gained consensus. It's discriminatory against players who live in and play for countries that are not traditional hockey powers. Powers ^T 21:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I am surprised, when reading the prior nomination, that he passed so easily. For instance "they are playing at the highest possible level for the country they come from." which in fact is not true. Daniel grew up in Canada, and at 16 took the opportunity to play for the Israeli men's team because he was born there. That was not the highest possible by a long shot. Anyway if you wish to pursue GNG coverage, articles like this one would be a start, but not enough yet I don't think. The Canadian Jewish News has some passing mentions, but maybe with some digging there may be something more significant.18abruce (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. To answer Powers, no, the various changes in NHOCKEY were not made to "target" any articles. They were made to better reflect what every NSPORTS criteria is supposed to reflect: the likelihood of those who meet them to satisfy the GNG. Since Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for social engineering, we gave no shrift -- nor should we have -- to whether or not the NHOCKEY criteria was "discriminatory." Those countries which aren't traditional hockey powers have a common factor: their media doesn't pay much attention to hockey, and so do not generate the degree of coverage necessary to meet the GNG. Now if you think that this article ought to be saved, you have the means to do so ... just find significant coverage for the subject in multiple reliable sources. Ravenswing 10:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a strong opposition among sports editors on Wikipedia to taking into account institutional biases in coverage when evaluating the inclusion criteria. Women's sports and non-traditional sports in general tend to suffer from this problem. The last thing I feel we should be doing is further cementing that bias by slavishly insisting on the same levels of coverage for "non-mainstream" teams and leagues and players as we do for the ones who regularly appear in Sports Illustrated. Powers ^T 18:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason there's such opposition is simple, and I reiterate: NSPORTS criteria are based upon whether or not a subject can meet the GNG. There is no scope in Wikipedia notability rules and guidelines for waiving those guidelines in favor of of yours, mine or anyone else's subjective POV as to who's worthy of an article despite not meeting them. That -- for instance -- our culture doesn't care a whole lot about women's sports (beyond outliers like basketball, tennis and gymnastics) is regrettable, but if the coverage necessary to meet the GNG isn't there, it isn't there. Ravenswing 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~possible~~ weak keep I added some articles that focus on him to the article; I did not add routine coverage about being drafted and game coverage. In addition, there are ethnic press mentions as here [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked over those links highlighted. I believe we agreed in an earlier AfD that the Canadian Jewish Press constituted a reliable source, but what you highlighted were all casual and routine namedrops that we wouldn't have counted as meeting the GNG were they in the New York Times or The Hockey News. Ravenswing 19:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reputable ethnic papers are RS the way all reputable newspapers are. Look, I'm not gonna push very hard here, but to dismiss the stories I added as "routine namedrop" is inaccurate. Although they are local to cities where he played, the coverage and feature stories I added are precisely the kind of sourcing that does count towards GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthening my keep on the basis of news coverage already in article, more like this [7], [8], and the documented career in youth league, college and minor league pro hockey.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players. The rest of the coverage is not indepth enough to lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete not sufficient coverage. Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Dloh cierekim 01:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Storey

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

Not notable per WP:CRIMINAL Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Justeditingtoday. Refs are only about the crime and his death sentence. It should be deleted per WP:CRIME. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete murder committed in the course of robbing a gas station, brief local coverage, meager amount of further coverage around trial and sentencing, fails WP:NCRIME on pretty much every count.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERP. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:CRIMINAL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tilon Lashon Carter

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

Not notable per WP:CRIMINAL Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Justeditingtoday. Refs are only about the crime and his death sentence. It should be deleted per WP:CRIME. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS unremarkable crime, unremarkable criminal, small amount of coverage in Texas press not enough to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability requirements. This is an encyclopedia, not Rogue's Gallery or the crime news. Dloh cierekim 01:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 22:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Castillo (murderer)

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

Not notable per WP:CRIMINAL Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Justeditingtoday. Refs are only about the crime and his death sentence. It should be deleted per WP:CRIME. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable murder covered briefly in local sources, more recently mentioned in connection with the death penalty, but even in that context my search on "Juan Castillo" + "death penalty" turned up false leads like a NYTimes article headlined A Closer Look at Five Cases That Resulted in Executions of Texas Inmates that turned out to include discussion of a different Texas murderer whose father's name is "Juan Castillo." Fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about this murder rises to the level of notability and the coverage does not rise above routine news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 30 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 22:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Arthur

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

Not notable per WP:CRIMINAL Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable BLP that fails WP:NCRIME, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#CRIM and WP:BLP1E. Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Justeditingtoday. Refs are only about the crime and his death sentence. It should be deleted per WP:CRIME. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heinous, violent but non-notable criminal, fails WP:CRIME despite some mentions in the context of political battle over death penalty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERP. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:CRIMINAL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Eddie891 (talk) 12:10, 30 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 22:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosoul Chanthakoummane

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

Prod removed. Same argument applies: not notable per WP:CRIMINAL Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Justeditingtoday. Refs are only about the crime and his death sentence. It should be deleted per WP:CRIME. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIME for lack of sufficient sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERP. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails guidelines on notability of criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 30 April 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. Already mentioned along with the others at Capital punishment in Arkansas. Mkdw ^talk 22:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Jones, Jr. (murderer)

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

Prod removed. Same argument applies: not notable per WP:CRIMINAL Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Merge to Capital punishment in Arkansas: See comments below. Not notable BLP that fails WP:NCRIME, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#CRIM and WP:BLP1E.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) Otr500 (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability due to the Arkansas "conveyor belt" of executions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, he is scheduled as a "double execution". That's quite rare and notable. The nation's first "double execution" in 20 years. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable BLP that fails WP:NCRIME, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#CRIM and WP:BLP1E--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of offenders executed in the United States in 2017: Per above comment. 71.187.6.198 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Capital punishment in Arkansas. The subject is not individually notable, the double execution in Arkansas may be. WWGB (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP; Socially conservative editors have a concealed political agenda of minimizing the public profile of convicted offenders. Their personal views should not be indulged in editorial decisions. 174.89.104.170 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.89.104.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Per change of !vote above, there is coverage in the Capital punishment in Arkansas about executions, including Ledell Lee (article should be merged there as well as Marcel Williams), and these "events" are non-historical "contemporaneous news coverage" that centers on capital punishment in Arkansas. In cases like this we cover the "event" not the person.

WP:CRIME states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.".

Please note concerning what seems to be a Single purpose account, user: 174.89.104.170: These comments are simply personal attacks, as well as disruptive editing with no basis of policies and guidelines, and will very likely be discounted. Otr500 (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He crime was not particularly notorious or notable. The only thing notable is that he was part of an unusual double execution, so perhaps a footnote in the Capital punishment in Arkansas article is appropriate. Zerbey (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Rates a mention in Capital punishment in Arkansas. BIO1E that does not satisfy WP:PERPETRATOR. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Justeditingtoday. Refs are only about the crime and his death sentence. It should be deleted per WP:CRIME. There is no need to merge the content. The reference to the double execution is already included in Capital punishment in Arkansas. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable criminal at all, the meager notoriety he recevied is from his execution. PalmerTheGolfer (talk)PalmerTheGolfer
Delete my search confirms PalmerTheGolfer's assessment, secondary sources found are wholly inadequate. fails WP:NCRIME. The death penalty controversy can be included in an article about the death penalty controversy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep--Pediaorg (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dloh cierekim 17:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the mass executions carried out this April 2017 might be suitable as a stand alone article, but the individuals who are executed are not. It is not notable to be executed, thousands of people around the world are every day. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. On another note, 8 people in no way constitutes a "mass execution", but that is another issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 30 April 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. Already mentioned in a section at Capital punishment in Arkansas. Mkdw ^talk 22:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Williams

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

Prod removed. Same argument applies: not notable per WP:CRIMINAL Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Merge to Capital punishment in Arkansas: See comments below. Not notable BLP that fails WP:NCRIME, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#CRIM and WP:BLP1E. --- Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability due to the Arkansas "conveyor belt" of executions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone thinks the "conveyor belt" of executions is notable, make a page for that. That these three killers get pages and the victims don't is grotesque.
Comment: Also, he is scheduled as a "double execution". That's quite rare and notable. The nation's first "double execution" in 20 years. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Joseph A. Spadaro, this should not be merged nor deleted. Vwanweb (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The two preceding comments address a possibly notable series of events. The condemned men do not appear to notable independent of those events. Multiple executions are unusual in modern U.S. history, but they were routine in some states before the 20th century moratorium. If somebody wants to write an article about the current Arkansas execution spree, I would gladly support a merge. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the Arkansas events merit a separate article? I would think that the information can be incorporated into the Capital punishment in Arkansas article. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Capital punishment in Arkansas is reasonable here. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Capital punishment in Arkansas. The subject is not individually notable, the double execution in Arkansas may be. WWGB (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Per change of !vote above, there is coverage in the Capital punishment in Arkansas of current executions. In cases like this we cover the "event" not the person. Otr500 (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He crime was not particularly notorious or notable. The only thing notable is that he was part of an unusual double execution, so perhaps a footnote in the Capital punishment in Arkansas article is appropriate. Zerbey (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing notable about the offender, and in any event the focus should rightly be upon the victim (perpetrator policy of Wikipedia), who is not notable. If it should be kept, then make the victim the focus of the crime and the article. Wikipedia rightly refrains from becoming an 'honor roll' for criminals. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge him and the other ilk into a separate article about Arkansas executions this year since that's the only thread to notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.213.202 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Capital punishment in Arkansas and transfer salient data. Quis separabit? 15:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Capital punishment in Arkansas. Subject is not notable enough for their own article. Edwardx (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Justeditingtoday. Refs are only about the crime and his death sentence. It should be deleted per WP:CRIME. There is no need to merge the content. The reference to the double execution is already included in Capital punishment in Arkansas.--Rogerx2 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the mass executions carried out this April 2017 might be suitable as a stand alone article, but the individuals who are executed are not. It is not notable to be executed, thousands of people around the world are every day. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:09, 30 April 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.

2013 Paris attacks

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and note - I intend to write an article about the person behind this attack and another one in 1998. The reason to keep was partially based on this persons actions as a whole, not just this event. While that is an incorrect way to establish notability here, I do not feel like arguing if that is tolerated. I will propose a merger in the future since I still feel the person may be notable but not this single event.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was not an incident that received long-term coverage. It has not had writings from reliable sources following the initial news coverage nor any enduring encyclopedic value. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE fail. Here is a gNews search: [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC), here is the simple google: [10]. User:TheGracefulSlick, you wanna walk this back?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve article. This dude, with affinities to both anarchist and Islamist movements, is mentally disturbed, although not sufficiently disturbed to persuade judges to exculpate him. nevertheless, he has helped shoot up Paris twice, in 2013 and as part of the Rey-Maupin affair (better article at Affaire Rey-Maupin)[11]; the French sentenced to 4 yrs in prison for that. But they let him out of prison early, and in 2013 he walked into a newspaper office and shot a photographer. Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory then wouldn't it make sense to write an article about the person. We aren't discussing his notability here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Perhaps you could source a biography. I do think, however, that when a paroled convict with anarchist and Islamist ideas obtains a shotgun (not easy to do in France) and carries it into 3 major Paris institutions, shooting up 2 of them before hijacking a car and fleeing to London - and gets this much news coverage - it justifies a stand-alone article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per E.M.Gregory Jason from nyc (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Altaf

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." A single role doesn't meet this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are few references in the reliable sources on the subject, however I cannot see if she has had significant roles in multiple television productions. --Saqib (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete not sufficient coverage not WP:NACTOR Dloh cierekim 01:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from Our TV Shows

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

Unsourced since December 2009. DBZFan30 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After searching for RSes, this fails GNG and NALBUM overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alvin and the Chipmunks discography. While the lack of available sources does cause it to fail the notability requirements for a music album, the album does exist, and is already listed on the Chipmunk's main discography page, so a redirect there would be appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE no evidence of notability. No read to redirect. No need for more than a mention at Alvin and the Chipmunks discography. Dloh cierekim 01:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unique selling language

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

Minor neologism, supported only by a single link to a blog. There's no evidence here, nor can I find, that this term is at all in current usage. Note: don't mistake this for "unique selling proposition", a different term that is in common usage (in its technical field). So the article topic fails WP:GNG and the article fails WP:RS and WP:NOTNEO. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few hits via Google. Seems to be used by 2 or 3 organisations at most, and doesn't seem to have entered wider use. Lack of discussion in reliable sources: mentions are mostly from agency copy. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable neologism. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 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 Snow keep . No !delete votes other than the nominator, and consensus has essentially been reached to not proceed with the nomination on technical grounds. Nominator Babymissfortune is reminded to do a WP:BEFORE search, and also should instead nominate the affected articles individually. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L. V. Locsin Building

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

No claim of notability. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lepanto Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep/Close - Far too many varied articles to batch AfD for. There's not even a proper rationale for these. For example One Shangri-La Place Towers is the tallest twin towers in the Philipines and the 2nd tallest building in the Philipines outright. It seems the nom is simply looking at what article editor UnitedPhilippines created and AfD'd them without proper vetting or following WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: Mass AFD nominations are a bad thing and this should be closed and start individual AFD if still sought. Nobody can fairly !vote in blanket style like this. Otr500 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close. Some of these buildings may be non-notable but this mass nomination that also includes obviously notable ones is not an appropriate means for considering it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speedy procedural close per WP:SNOW can avoid a long drawn out affair.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 25 April 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. postdlf (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of German Racing Drivers

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

It looks like a test page. Also it doesn't have any inclusion criteria which will led to giant list which will be the clear case of WP:Indiscriminate. And it is important to mention that the author abandoned his editing activity after the creating of the lists (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian Racing Drivers) and the page wasn't improved since then. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOEFFORT, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:CLN. The topic is certainly notable. See German Racing Silver: Drivers, Cars and Triumphs of German Motor Racing, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every nation have a plenty of racing drivers (some of them has more than few thousands). And the lists which includes all of them is an absurd. I have no problem if list have inclusion criteria like Formula One drivers from Germany. But 'German Racing Drivers' is a clear violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Issues can be fixed, and if it gets too large, it can be split. --Michig (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of German Professional Racing Drivers which narrows the scope and identifies clear inclusion criteria. The topic is notable, a list is reasonable per WP:CLN, and while what is there is seriously imperfect, that is an editing problem to be fixed not a reason for deletion. The content is unsupported by references but plenty do exist as a simple search would show (in line with WP:BEFORE), or by looking to sources on the pages of wikilinked driver biographies. Content does not infringe on WP:BLP and an incomplete article is not the same as a G2-test page. EdChem (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN and Category:German racing drivers. It is indeed incomplete and WP:IMPERFECT but that's no reason to delete. It does offer readers some of the advantages of a list, with series, teams and notes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of German Professional Racing Drivers for more manageable criteria. Dloh cierekim 16:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Michael Schmitz

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject has not attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources to meet either WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE with nearly all of the sources cited being primary sources with the exception of the alumni magazine which is clearly of no use for determining notability. It appears as if the subject has been trying to promote themselves here for the last 8 years so I suggest that we delete and salt this title as well as Kevin M. Schmitz where this version was originally created to escape scrutiny. SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not for CVs. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not like Linkedin, not for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 30 April 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk (short film)

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was: Non-notable film; No coverage in reliable sources: [12]; fails WP:NFO as no broad critical coverage, awards, historical notability, or academic debate. The article makes various unsubstatiated claims but is little for than a puff-piece for the ?directors. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a purely promotional piece written by the film's director. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching found no reliable sources for passing WP:NFILM. Clearly a non-notable film. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious vanity article. - Bri (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable film and un-encyclopedic tone to article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See List of viral videos. A "List of viral films" can be created. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Edwardx (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable, WP:SNOW basically at this point. —JJ Be rs 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created by a blocked user. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching Trouble

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

Non-notable studio. Production is also non-notable. No references. Cahk (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedily if possible. Previously speedy-deleted as A11 (made up by creator). Almost certainly created by a sockpuppet of the original creator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superpilot123456, so probably eligible for G5 deletion as well. The "production company" is a group of young schoolchildren, who have won a school award for their work but that doesn't make it notable (or even significant). --bonadea contributions talk 09:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Millen

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

Not notable writer Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails SIGCOV. No notable sources. No indication that this comes close to GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete a lack of significant coverage to show he is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Burmese sentiment

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

Looks like an original research with many non confirmed claims. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of OR and a bit essayish. not sufficient coverage. No real subject to grasp. Dloh cierekim 01:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW delete. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 13:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z: Battle in the Two Worlds

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

CSD tags on various grounds (A11, G3 as hoax, etc.) were declined. However, a search reveals there does not appear to be any Dragon Ball film called "Battle in the Two Worlds". A search resulted in zero hits for the title, only resulting in a fanmade crossover "Clash Of Two Worlds: Dragon Ball Z vs. Bleach" and a "The Battle Of The Two Worlds" Dragon Ball AMV. Shigeyasu Yamauchi's Anime News Network profile does not mention this film either. There is a Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods movie (which does exist), but I don't think this article refers to that considering the titles aren't exactly close. At worst, this appears to be a blatant hoax, and at best this appears to have been a good-faith article that may have been written as some kind of misunderstanding.

Pinging DESiegel, Dlohcierekim, and GeoffreyT2000 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I deleted the thing as a test until DESiegel's note permeated my brain. I found nothing at google. Did not make so exhaustative a search as has been done. Am inclined to "delete". Dloh cierekim 05:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such movie exists, yet. Perhaps the creator of the article knows that this is the name of the next Dragon ball Z movie, in which case this is WP:TOOSOON Seasider91 (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the film actually exists. And yes, it might in fact be a hoax. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per my comment above and a result of my original inclination to delete as an AGF test or not-so-AGF hoax. Dloh cierekim 19:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it should have been CSD'ed if it's a hoax. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is indeed a hoax. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the CSDs should have been accepted. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 24 April 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 Wrong forum. Take it to the talk page. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Saric

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

This disambiguation page, which duplicates the content of disambiguation page Ivan Šarić, should instead be a redirect to Ivan Šarić, which cannot be directly accessed on the 26-letter English keyboard. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close Nominator is not proposing deletion. Whether it should be retained, or redirected to Ivan Šarić or Ivan Sarić should be discussed on the dab's talk page. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 23 April 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 CarniK Con. Folks can copy material over if they so desire Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dugan Ashley

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

Non-notable YouTuber, fails WP:GNG, not very notable Hawkeye75 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CarniK Con; from the material in the articles, that's what he's known for. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging from the above statement, I would support a merge with CarniK Con, as that's what he is most known for on YouTube. 81.106.47.116 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CarniK Con per User:DGG

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Yewchuk

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Not WP:NHOCKEY. Not WP:GNG. Not nearly indepth coverage. The one source in article is about steroid use. Dloh cierekim 01:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither WP:NHOCKEY nor WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to Stretching. Kurykh (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passive stretching

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

This is a series of three articles (Passive stretching, Dynamic stretching, Ballistic stretching). All three suffer from the same problems; lack of WP:Reliable sources, with a good dose of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. Of the three, only Dynamic stretching has any sources at all, but all five sources are basically blogs or web sites which I would't judge to meet WP:RS.

Possibly all three could be combined into a single article, or merged into an existing one such as Stretching, but such a merge needs to be done by somebody who is both a subject matter expert, and understands our sourcing criteria. Looking over this article histories, it seems various people have taken stabs at fixing them up over many years, but without much success. Maybe redirecting all three to Stretching would be the best alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (see above for details):

I also found

These latter two articles, share similar aspects of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. On the other hand, they at least they have some plausible-looking references, so the case for deletion is not as strong for them. It may make sense to include them in one multi-way merge into a single article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to stretching, they may be plausible as redirects but they add essentially nothing to the encyclopedia as nom says. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all sounds reasonable. Dloh cierekim 01:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr FijiWiji

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

Non-notable musician. Fails notability for music criteria. - TheMagnificentist 10:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has released 5 EPs on a notable indie label (Monstercat), which may pass criteria 5. - MicroPowerpoint 12:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MicroPowerpoint. Disclosing that I am the creator of the article. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 23:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do note that the above voters failed to prove how the article passes WP:GNG and/or WP:MUSICBIO. - TheMagnificentist 08:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with above, passes criteria #5 of MUSICBIO. South Nashua (talk) 04:15, 29 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 22:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fear & Loathing IX

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

Non-notable wrestling event. Relies mostly on primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all coverage is WP:ROUTINE or from a primary source. Doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Nikki♥311 08:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and reads like puffery. Sourced entirely from primary sources.LM2000 (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up Somebody should take up the job the clean up the article and add sources because they are out there the event was covered by every paper in the U.K. online including the Sun, and was significant for being the highest attended European independent wrestling event of the past two decades. Someone just needs to do the legwork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.16.89 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the event was covered by every paper in the U.K." - that is absolutely not true. Almost no newspapers in the UK give coverage to pro wrestling, and if they do it is to talk about WWE, not cover local indy events -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search reveals NO UK newspaper coverage and only generic sources such as Cage Match. No proof of attendance either. 101.182.45.178 (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:42, 30 April 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. WP:GNG has been demonstrated and WP:NMEDIA reflects the on-going community consensus. Mkdw ^talk 21:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libya Herald

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

fails WP:GNG. References provided are of an employee promoting the subject matter rather than independent sources establishing the notability of the organization. JadeBlue (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of this article has repeatedly and significantly been cited by other reliable sources which alone helps it meet encyclopedic criteria per media notability (point 4). Examples (not be considered in any specific order of significance) -
1. Huffington Post as a source of news and not for advertising or publicity
2. Metro.co.uk - again, as a source of news
3. Malta Today - link
4. Times of Malta - link
...and so on! A Google search made via terms "Libya Herald" -libyaherald.com (everything highlighted in BOLD) should be able to provide with further claim of significance.
Undoubtedly, the article requires a lot of details but definitely passes WP:GNG and has sufficient verifiable/credible sources to support the same. TopCipher (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per TopCipher. Also numerous citations in Google Books and Google Scholar. Bad-patches (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My delete will remain the same because those sources above just show reporting done by the newspaper and isn't about the newspaper. Per that page that was mentioned, it is presumed to be notable, but there really isn't a threshold for what is considered significant citations. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, that isn't even a guideline - "This page is intended to be an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.". SL93 (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SL93: I concur; my apologies in case my message seemed to indicate that I was referring to it as a set rule. In any case, I failed to provide with any links towards an 'about' of the subject (which is what I meant while indicating that the article requires a lot of details) as the subject came into being about half-a-decade ago and naturally, the first few searches would not support providing other sources talking about the subject per se on top of the results - given the fact that it's an online newspaper; ergo, I went with the point that referred to 'frequently cited by other reliable sources', providing sufficient base not to have the article deleted on the basis of notability (WP:ARTN) or verifiability (WP:NRV). Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you please cite the policy that supports your quote for "frequently cited by other reliable sources"? The ones you have cited so far do not mention that anywhere. JadeBlue (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @JadeBlue: Again, regret the confusion. Kindly allow me to classify -
        1. As assured, 'frequently cited by other reliable sources' is not a set rule or policy per se; however, it is an how-to and information page that I've cited to seek a level of consensus among the community.
        2. To address your query, you may further refer to other policy related guidelines over notability (WP:ARTN) or verifiability (WP:NRV) with which the subject of this article sufficiently provides base not to have it deleted.
        Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, so, to sum up, no policy supports your claim in bold letters. One last question, what specific text from WP:ARTN and WP:NRV do you claim to apply here? JadeBlue (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @JadeBlue: Sorry, I have no comment over your summation other than to say I'd have to respectfully disagree and this is what I'm referring to from WP:NRV - objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main rationale is media notability (point 4) Other major factors: Google scholar listings Many citations in Google Scholar and Many citations in Google books, Wikipedia should also encourage free press outlets like the Libya Herald since many countries have excessive control of the press. Even in developed countries governments have gone to great lengths the distort the reporting of the news. In the United States Operation Mockingbird was a big effort to manipulate the news media. Knox490 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The page you linked Wikipedia:Notability (media) says at the very top that "it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." Why are you using it then as a rationale? JadeBlue (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep NewsBank has 2,600 hits for "Libya Herald". I checked and the Libya Herald itself is not indexed in NewsBank, but they are a frequent source for the BBC Monitored International Reports which makes up 1,500 of their hits. Thus, only about 1000 of those are actual cites as opposed to just reprinting of their reports by the BBC. But still, just in April they've been cited as a news source by The Citizen in South Africa, Global Data News, African Manager, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. It seems they pass WP:GNG clearly as well as the consensus at Wikipedia:Notability_(media) (not policy, but a consensus worth respecting). For fun, I also did a Lexis search which turned up over 1000 hits, excluding BBC yielded 279 hits. Looking through these hits, they appear to be one of the best sources for international media on ISIS in Libya. Notability seems clearly apparent. (Note: Also have received profiles of them and their journalists in Al Jazeera and Committee to Protect Journalists). So: Keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Musician. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music artist (occupation)

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

Redirect to musician. I find myself profoundly unclear on why this concept would need a separate article from the existing one. While I'll grant that not all musicians actually make recordings per se, the distinction between "musician who records" and "musician who does not record" is not in and of itself a strong basis for separate articles -- this article as written tilts just a little bit too much in the direction of an outright WP:NOTHOWTO violation (what are performance rights? why do you need a manager?), and once all that stuff is pruned back what's actually left could quite frankly be dispatched with one brief subsection in "musician" itself. And the referencing here isn't incredibly strong, either, as it consists almost entirely of "how to make it in the music business" guides that don't adequately support a strong distinction between "musician" and "musical artist" either. There's just no particular reason to treat this as a separate standalone article topic — and even if there were, its correct title would be recording artist, not music artist. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a hairsplitting idea for an article that is very much a redundancy for the term "musician".Knox490 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing in this article which isn't said (and better) in the "musician" article, so no need to even worry about a redirect. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to musician. I agree that the potential useful content (and the topic in general) is insufficiently distinct to warrant a separate article. There's no harm in leaving the content in the history in case any editor wishes to merge content into musician. Deli nk (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bettine Moore Close

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

Notability is not inherited. I can't see many US news sources but unless there is stuff in those to support the socialite/philanthropy claims, this article should either be deleted or just perhaps redirected to Glenn Close. Practically everything in it is really about the subject's husband or Glenn Close, with asides for B M Close at best. Sitush (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Glenn Close, who is the main reason for the subject's "notability" anyway. Carrot official (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ("Close", but no cigar). A textbook case of WP:NOTINHERITED Clarityfiend (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete No independent notability. Not memorial. Dloh cierekim 00:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Althea Harper

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

Only Notability is Reality TV participant. Fails Notability. Jb45424 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Notability problems. Lack of reliable sources. No depth of coverage. Knox490 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediaorg (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Contactpage Dloh cierekim 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 28 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Molnar

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

WP:BLP, written like a prosified version of a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article, of a person with no particularly strong claim of notability and no particularly strong reliable sourcing. His notability as a businessman seems to boil down to "got named as a local business leader in a listicle"; his notability as a politician begins and ends at "district chair for a political party" and "non-winning candidate for city council"; and his notability as a writer is stacked onto self-published books and symposium papers metasourced to themselves. And the referencing here is extremely dependent on primary sources and blogs and Twitter tweets, with the number of reliable sources being nowhere near enough to constitute a WP:GNG pass. I can't actually prove anything outright, but this reads and sources an awful lot like the kind of puffed-up article that typically results from either a paid-editing public relations job or a person trying to WP:AUTOBIO themselves — a concern not exactly assuaged by the fact that its creator has never edited any other page on Wikipedia but this one. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CD, of the 29 references, 16 are primary, 12 secondary, and 1 tertiary. On analysis this article has been edited by numerous individuals and often edited -- removing empty references, puffing, grammatical errors by many contributors, etc -- both by myself and other editors. Not sure who the creator of the article is, but as the primary editor I have edited many other pages -- mostly political and LGBT-related. When editing articles, it is important to focus on 'circular references' to itself. Many of the articles referenced noted here are by reliable sources globally-recognized periodicals on the subject, and can't be considered puffing. Any references to Twitter tweets or Facebook posts should be deleted per policy, and many have been removed, although that doesn't nullify the notability of this subject and garners a WP:GNG pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasduncan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources in the article do you think are building a GNG pass? If I removed every source here that's contributing nothing toward making him notable per WP:GNG, literally all that would be left is two citations to OutSmart, offering no reason why he could possibly be considered more than just locally notable. Nearly all of the sources you're counting as "secondary" ones are mere namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him, blogs, listicles or routine profiles in business directories, not notability-assisting sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Molnar has interviews all over the world and is in periodicals in the US, Canada, and Europe for his work with the global charity Twainbow plus other work. This article definitely needs to be cleaned up, getting rid of listicles and routine profiles in business directories. It's gotten really wonky looking with too many people contributing and style inconsistencies. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. I'll work on this and update his secondary and tertiary sources. ChasDun (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't assist notability either. If he's talking about himself, then an interview has the same problems as any other self-published content (people can and do indulge in inflated advertorial bumf, such as a musician's PR kit hyping their current single as a "hit" regardless of whether it's actually charting anywhere), and if he's talking about something else then he fails to be the subject of the reference. The only type of coverage that assists notability at all is content written in the third person by somebody other than himself, in an array of publications geographically diverse enough to demonstrate that his notability is more than purely local. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong delete This guy is an unremarkable local politician with absolutely no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:03, 30 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Heidik

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

Delete: I posit that winning one series of Survivor makes Brian Heidik encyclopaedically notable. Can and should be redirected to the television program in question. Quis separabit? 04:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable per WP:notability (person). Fails WP:BIO1E. Otr500 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 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 deleted, as page was created by the sock of a blocked/banned editor RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Ibanez

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

Does being on TV make someone implicitly notable? This article is also the work of two accounts, ~~one~~both now blocked, that are suspicious for being paid WP bio promoters. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe having this page is fair giving users a chance to understand who the journalist is since they are reporting news. 24.46.32.138 03:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a derth of 3rd-party reliable sources that cover Ibanez.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete I think enough Notability. She is a prominent journalist in Fox news nowadays. Lubna.Iram (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a blocked sock of the article creator, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IMZahidIqbal#23_April_2017, you would say that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person who created this article is banned but article has strong notability. I see the topic of article strongly fall in category "Fox News people", "Journalists from Utah" "Quinnipiac University alumni". 103.255.4.1 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As another Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IMZahidIqbal sock, we can discount your vote too. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 26 April 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. Mkdw ^talk 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sennett

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

An unremarkable YouTube personality; significant RS coverage not found.

Appears to be part of a walled garden consisting of a number articles created in the past six months. See for example:

"Sennett has collaborated with other notable YouTubers such as Dawson Gurley,^[1] Justin Stuart and Andrew Scites from JStuStudios,^[2] Cody Strong,^[3] Garrett Garcia,^[4] and Jack Vale.

References

^ Secret Santa For Strangers"
^ Secret Santa For Strangers"
^ Secret Santa For Strangers"
^ "Taking People's Carts/Trolleys (Ft. OverboardHumor)"

Where only the last subject appears to be sufficiently notable per Wiki standards. The two have already been deleted, and some of the others are at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that satisfies WP:GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find significant sources on him.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 26 April 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.

[1] ttp://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/03/is-the-lycurgus-cup-evidence-of-roman-era-nanotechnology/

[2] Secret Santa For Strangers"

[3] Secret Santa For Strangers"

[4] Secret Santa For Strangers"

[5] "Taking People's Carts/Trolleys (Ft. OverboardHumor)"

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]