Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 18 (Wed) September 17 (Tue) September 16 (Mon) More...

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

< 16 April	18 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. – Juliancolton | 02:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nitasha Sharma

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

Delete: copy/pasted resume. Quis separabit? 23:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BIO1E. Her book Hop Hop Desis has received a reasonable number of reliably published academic reviews . One more like that and I would probably change my opinion, but I think just one notable book and no other evidence of notability is not enough, and the reviews don't help support the actual content of the article. I'm also not particularly swayed by the minor awards and accolades listed in the article; none rises to the level of WP:PROF#C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Only achievment appears to be one well-received book. WP:Too soon now but that may change. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC).
Delete fails WP:PROF.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak Delete Fails WP:BPL, WP:GNG, Though some reliable academic references found, doesn't meet notability. WP:Too soon to create an article about Sharma --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; multiple non trivial reviews & decent library holdings. Sample reviews:

Hip Hop Desis: South Asian Americans, Blackness, and a Global Race Consciousness. By Scarimbolo, Justin. Notes, Sep 01, 2011; Vol. 68, No. 1, p. 67-69

Hip hop desis: South Asian Americans, blackness, and a global race consciousness. By Qureshi, Kaveri. Contemporary South Asia, Jun 01, 2013; Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 186-187

Hip Hop Desis: South Asian Americans, Blackness, and a Global Race Consciousness by Nitasha Tamar Sharma. By CODRINGTON, RAYMOND. American Ethnologist, Aug 01, 2012; Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 640

Also enough mentions in Google books to indicate that her research has had an impact on the cultural studies in general: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

delete as WP:TOOSOON, does not pass WP:PROF. Given time, impact will very likely make her WP:NOTABLE. But sources are just not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

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 result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sameer Khan (author)

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

WP:BLP of a writer, with no strong claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. The most substantive claims here are that he just published his debut book a couple of weeks ago and that he "has been featured on nurdd.com", but the first is sourced entirely to his own self-published website and the book's sales pages on online bookstores like Amazon and Pothi, and nurdd.com is a clickbaity Buzzfeed-type thing, not a reliable source. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username is "Awarriorofart" and the subject is the "owner" of something called "Thy Warriors O Art". As always, Knowledge (XXG) is not a free publicity platform on which a writer is entitled to an article just because he exists; reliable source coverage in media has to support something that actually constitutes a notability claim for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

For added bonus, the creator started this in draftspace and then immediately copy-pasted it into mainspace without actually submitting it for AFC review. But that's not how draftspace works. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete yon non-notable creative person, O sysop of yore. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete-Fails WP:AUTHOR .FITINDIA (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Besides failing WP:AUTHOR it also fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either not independent or not reliable. nurdd.com is a blog and goodreads is an open wiki. The author profiles are written by the authors themselves. Also as the nominator pointed out the username indicates it could very well be promotional. --Rogerx2 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Masoud_Minaei

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NKICK ShadessKB (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete I had tagged this article for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed. No evidence of general notability provided in the text of the article and no evidence of having meet the notability requirements of the kickboxing subsection. KDS4444 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers and some routine sports reporting isn't sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SNOW joe decker 16:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hand finishing

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

No sources, little context (so it doesn't qualify for CSD) and no structure. ɯɐɔ 💬 22:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I had originally PRODed this article for the same reason, but it was removed by the creator. — Chevvin 22:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC).
Delete WP:NOTMANUAL and unsourced. freshacconci (✉) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced and hardly understandable. Also reads like a personal essay. Velella 07:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I'm sure an article on this could exist on wiki, but this is not encyclopaedic. Porphyro (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as an unsourced personal essay (failing WP:NOTESSAY). -KAP03() 14:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was merge to Milifandom. – Juliancolton | 03:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Abby Tomlinson

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

Person that is not notable past one event that happened two years ago. The article reads mostly as a CV past outside of this. Propose to redirect to Milifandom, the majority of the non-CV content of the article. Inops (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep The suggestion by the nom that Tomlinson is only notable for one event is completely false. She has repeatedly received independent, in-depth media coverage separate to the Milifandom. Tomlinson therefore meets WP:GNG. She has written for national newspapers and appeared on national television. She has continued to receive coverage completely independent of the 2015 general election. As recently as late last year she was appearing in reliable sources. The Observer listen Tomlinson as one of their "Faces of 2015" which published a lengthy interview with her. She appears in several books such as Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election and Political Marketing and the 2015 UK General Election amongst others. AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

All of the references in the articles are either (1) discussions of "Milifandom" before or immediately after the election or (2) retrospectives in the form of interviews on "Milifandom" -- none of these establish Tomlinson as notable outside of the event. That Huffington Post reference might contend as an indication of notability, given its removal from the event, if it was more than a one off. As far as I can see, it isn't. --Inops (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not true at all. In September 2015 Tomlinson was writing for the Daily Mirror. She has been interviewed by Channel Four News on an unrelated issues. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we have articles on other guest web journalists in the Mirror, or other guests on Channel 4 programmes, because of where they appeared? I don't see why this can't just be added as a sentence in the Milifandom article. --Inops (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to Milifandom. Seems like ONEEVENT problem is valid. All the coverage of her - and I grant, it is reliable and in-depth otherwise - is from September of 2015, when Milifandom movement gained visibility, and she, as a media-eye-catching high profile activist/founder, got profiled. But that is still ONEVENT/WP:TOOSOON. I suggest a merge to Milifandom where a section on the founders/notable activists would not be out-of-place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Milifandom because we really only have that one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:GNG guideline. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge to Milifandom. Entries on every person that has a ONEEVENT on any media platform is not scalable for Knowledge (XXG) and does not provide meaningful historical data; detailed data concerning persons with little historic significance is not the purpose of Knowledge (XXG), that is the purpose of Facebook. The overall impact of the ONEEVENT will most likely be limited to granting Milifandom a relatively small increase in media exposure for a short while in 2015. If the event’s impact is found to be greater than this, a new article can always be created detailing the event. 07:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Suggest the editors above read WP:NOTAVOTE. The WP:BLP1E issue has been addressed and rejected. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No it hasn't. You may have rejected it, but the other editors and I haven't. Tomlinson is not notable enough outside of her connection to Milifandom to have an article. --Inops (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:BLP1E. BLP1E only applies if all of the following criteria are met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. & 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Those criteria simply are not met. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to Milifandom. If her political career ever takes off beyond what is basically a single event then it can always be recreated. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Notability proved per above. This fails WP:BLP1E, number 3. It is implausible to suggest that Tomlinson's role in the Millifandom event was non substantial or well documented. How is it that she still writes and appears on TV, but this is not well documented or substantial. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Appearing on TV is not a notability claim in and of itself, and neither is writing content for newspapers. A person has to be the subject of media coverage, not a soundbite giver in or the author of coverage of other things, for that "coverage" to count toward notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Being on TV being interviewed is being the subject of media coverage. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If she's talking about herself, then she's making self-published claims — and if she's talking about other things besides herself, then the thing she's talking about, not her, is the subject of that piece. Only one type of coverage is acceptable for demonstrating notability: coverage in which a third party, not herself, is writing or speaking about her in the third person. An interview can only be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been met by stronger sourcing, and cannot count toward the initial meeting of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 03:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Adrian Țofei

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | 03:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ivana Horvat

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak delete the fact that she won the national Croatian award confers some notability, but a lot more sources are needed. Given her nationality, if sources are out there they'd most likely be in another language. White Arabian Filly 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources. A couple blogs talk about her engagement to another actor but articles are really about him. I can't find any source to confirm that she won a theater award for "acting, writing and directing". Also, seems to be two Ivana Hovat's floating around the internet and it's not clear who is who. Overall, doesn't seem to meet basic notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(From a native speaker) – she doesn't seem to have received any award. It seems she was noted for her appearance at the 2012 award ceremony but she's not listed among award winners . I haven't dug too deep into sourcing, but I'm leaning delete on what I saw – most of coverage around is tabloid-ey, and revolves around her relationship and marriage rather than around her own acting. No such user (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Albina Kazanzhi

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

Non-notable subject who took part in the Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2015, an inaugural contest (WP:GNG failed) and placing 5th does not guarantee notability (WP:MUSICBIO - point 9). Wes Wolf 21:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete we need much better sources to justify having an article on an 11-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete Nothing found about her notability. Fails Knowledge (XXG):GNG, Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music).--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Kiran Dabhi

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

This is an article in talkspace, which is why I list it here rather than at MFD. It's about a non-notable body-builder, with no reliable sources. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

DELETE Fails even WP:GNG, agree with nominator. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable, independent sources exist Spiderone 11:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page, but so far no consensus has formed in favor of that (or really any) result. – Juliancolton | 03:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mars race

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

Unnecessary article based on the notion that there is a "real-life space competition" called the Mars race, rather than a casual vernacular usage. Much of the article is speculation based on low grade references - e.g. Virgin Galactic's "interest" in providing a service to Mars comes from a single casual remark by a Virgin executive - there's no evidence of any company policy or activity. Blue Origin "may" be aiming for Mars which "may" give rise to competition. And so on. Speculation, synthesis and original research. Andyjsmith (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not original research since it all comes from the sources. The statements of competition also comes out of the sources, so it isn't synthesis. The speculation comes out of the sources, so it is referenced material. Deletion cannot be based on these rationales, since they are coming out of the references. Deletion should be based on other criteria, not simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That the mass media is speculating on a Mars race is evident from the sources. Casual Virgin executive? I suppose the founder of Virgin would be an executive, but not "just" an executive. I wouldn't say that the "Christian Science Monitor" or "Bloomberg" are a low-grade reference, and they are references showing the press is speculating on this topic. This is a business topic, and high quality general news and business news sources are clearly high grade sources. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep I am the author; reasoning provided above -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Very messy article (MoS). Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If the article is "messy" but the subject is encyclopedic, then the proper action is cleanup, not deletion. —Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You try that - the "owner" reverts. Anyway, when cleaned up there's nothing left.Andyjsmith (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not the "owner", rather, your edits seemingly are unreasonable with your edit comments. I left some of your edits. Your claims about MarsOne being a scam is seemingly for the deletion of that article, not relevant to this one. Whether something is a "scam" or not is not related to whether it contributes to a competitive environment or not. Whether something has died or not is not relevant to this article either, since they exist in the history of the competitive environment. Inspiration Mars article still exists, but you deleted the content because it is "dead", which does not mean that it never contributed to the competitive environment. Indeed many "dead" companies and "scams" have greatly impacted business environments, so those are clearly impactful. The crash of 1929 was full of scams, and are clearly relevant. A pyramid scheme brought down the economy of Albania. Studebaker is a dead car company, but is highly relevant to the development of the American car industry. So dead and scam are unreasonable rationales left for removing content that The Guardian itself considered part of this competitive environment. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The article talks about Inspiration Mars in the present tense. At best it could be described as moribund. It certainly does not play any active role in the "Mars Race". Nor are any of the other "competitors" paying any atttention to MarsOne. Andyjsmith (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The article does not speak of it in the current sense. Did you not see the edits after your PROD nomination? In any case, the historical fact of it participating and being a competitive factor in the market is still there, unless you think Knowledge (XXG) is a newspaper and the only thing that should be documented is the current state of the market. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep This competition between various entities may be in its early stages, but when it has been covered in thousands of media sources, it certainly is not an "invented" topic as the deletion nomination makes it out to be. —Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a "real-life space competition" called the Mars Race. X-prize, yes. Mars Race, no. Absent that hook, this is just a rehash of the other articles about attempts at Mars. . Andyjsmith (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that a competition needs to be formalized as a "sport" with judges/referees that assign points to decide a winner and award a prize in order to exist, which is absurd. There is no formal judging panel awarding prizes in natural selection or economic markets, arenas where competition is omnipresent. A competition is any contest or rivalry between two or more parties, regardless of whether it is formalized as a contest with prizes officially awarded or not, and when such a competition has thousands of hits in media sources reporting on it, then it clearly exists. —Lowellian (reply) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no official "race" in either the Space Race or Race to the Moon either. It was still a real-life geopolitical space competition. Just as most economic and technological races are competitions that re not formalized into "sports". The stock market is a real-life competition without an X-prize at the end, just profits, gains and losses. Just as the race to most South was a competition between explorers and nations to the South Pole, and the one before was for the North Pole, which was neither formalized nor had a prize, but were still races.

National Geographic: "race to the pole" -- the race to the South Pole which was not formalized and did not have a prize

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Also arms race, such as nuclear arms race and the Cold War nuclear arms race. Which are not formalized with prizes at the end. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no "Race to the Moon" article, only "Space Race".

There was a "Race to the Moon" though, in real-life. Exactly what are all these books talking about then? . -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a huge distinction between "competition" (a mass noun with the sense of rivalry) and "a competition" (a count noun referring to an event). By stating that there is a "real-life competition" you are claiming that the Mars Race falls into the second group, which is obviously nonsense. The Space Race was not "a real-life geopolitical space competition" as you state above, but it was "geopolitical competition" without the indefinite article. The X-Prize was a space competition. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That is simply not true. There is a distinction between the two forms of the word, but it is not the distinction that you are making. Not requiring any formal judges or prizes applies to both forms of the word. Neither (generalized) "competition" nor (specific) "competitions" require any formal judges or prizes. There are no formal judges or prizes in natural selection or economic markets, but species filling the same niche are both "in competition" and "in a competition" with the others, and sellers of the same product in the same area are also both "in competition" and "in a competition" with the others. —Lowellian (reply) 03:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete – Any content that is compliant with policy is redundant with Exploration of Mars, Human mission to Mars, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with nominator and and editor directly above. Any relevant content should be added to the preexisting Human mission to Mars, or elsewhere. This is an unneeded fork that doesn't help navigation, by arbitrarily splitting off or duplicating certain things in a so-called "race" article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep this is legit - one of the sources is " Are We Losing the Space Race to China?. Space Subcommittee Hearing" - strong source that beats the "casual vernacular usage" argument Seraphim System 18:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Are we losing the Space Race..." not "Are we losing the Mars Race...". Was Mars even mentioned in the hearing? This is not a "strong source" for the use of the largely invented phrase "Mars race" Andyjsmith (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 39 times. Mars is mentioned 39 times. Space race to Mars has been used by everyone from National Geographic to the Guardian. The space race currently is the space race to Mars - not to be flippant but what do you think it's about? Seraphim System 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In what way is this article not a rather weak and opinionated fork of existing articles? What does it add that's not already covered better elsewhere? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment The article Space Race correctly or not, seems to be about a historic Cold War conflict between the USSR and USA. This is about a separate issue between China and the United States for Mars. I don't see any other article that covers this. The fact that it needs expansion, does not mean it is not notable. Seraphim System 23:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep or merge with Human mission to Mars. --pmj (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept Merge. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have undone your bolding of "merge" in my above comment. Cf. WP:AFD's prohibition on conflicting recommendations. --pmj (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep as per User:Seraphim System and User:Lowellian.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep I vote also for keep, as per User:Seraphim System and User:Lowellian.FFA P-16 (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge material into Human mission to Mars. This would make a good conceptual sub-heading in that article; it is too informal to stand on its own.--Elmidae (talk · contribs)

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Gait Asymmetry in Hip Osteoarthritis Patients

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

Original research. This appears to be an attempt to publish what should be a journal article at Knowledge (XXG). WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to hip or osteoarthritis article. Some of this should be verifiable via medical journals, but even if this wasn't mostly OR, I don't think it's notable enough to stand alone. White Arabian Filly 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

All references are from scientific journals that have been published. Thanks.Chhuang0906 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (@White Arabian Filly:)

Comment @Chhuang0906: Yes, that is clear. But it appears you have used the available sources to synthesize new conclusions, which is not how Knowledge (XXG) is intended to operate. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 12:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment @WikiDan61: Ok, I delete the part that I used the available sources to make the new conclusion. (@WikiDan61:)
Delete - we are not a free web host for scholars looking to cash in on their research, either financially with grant money or by getting more income via tenure. We are a charity, and to abuse our status under 501(c)(3) is to risk our tax-exempt status. We also do not publish original research ever, and not even synthesis of such. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment @Bearian:this is not original research, nor is it an attempt "cash in " as suggested by the previous comment. It is an effort to summarize a content area for others who may be interested in the same manner as many other Knowledge (XXG) pages such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/Degrees_of_freedom_problem.

delete This is an effort by someone to create a review article here in WP which is WP:OR in Knowledge (XXG). We summarize secondary sources here; we don't create secondary sources here. This belongs in Wikiversity, not here. 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of schools in Indonesia. – Juliancolton | 03:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

SMP Kristen 7 BPK Penabur

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

Non-notable non-secondary school, with only primary references. Onel5969 11:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to List of schools in Indonesia and add it to that. Don't see how a redirect to Jakarta would be that useful since the city is massive. The list article makes more sense for this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Psych (rapper)

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

WP:BLP of a rapper, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no evidence of reliable source coverage in media. Pretty much right across the board, the referencing here is to unacceptable primary sources, like his own Facebook and Instagram and Soundcloud accounts, or WP:BLOGS that cannot carry notability -- and the one thing here that's even marginally closer to an acceptable source than anything else is, Buzzfeed, is to the user-generated "community" section of Buzzfeed and not to content written by any actual employee of Buzzfeed. (Which is, obviously, not to say that Buzzfeed could actually carry a GNG claim all by itself at the best of times, but Buzzfeed Community counts for even less than Buzzfeed proper.) As always, Knowledge (XXG) is not a free publicity platform on which any musician is entitled to have an article just because he exists -- he must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media, which verifies passage of a specific notability criterion, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03() 14:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is the first official relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Boomer Vial 07:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete The references are not valid according to Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources.--Rogerx2 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete All the references are from social media sites and self created material fails WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NMUSIC. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Mahobiya

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

The similar main article namely Banaphar is already existing along with the specific articles like Alha and udal. Is this article really needed, contents of which are not supported by Releable Source. MahenSingha (Talk) 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete This is only a one sentence entry lacking any source material. I feel it could be deleted.TH1980 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - @Mahensingha: Why is this submitted to AfD and not merged straight away, as was discussed and more or less agreed to on the article's talk page? Smmurphy 00:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Smmurphy (talk · contribs)'s comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second official relist; Smmurphy's comment should be replied to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - There are no refs with content to be merged. --Rogerx2 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Weak Keep I believe, article can be kept but need to work and FIXIT. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete for utter lack of sources, none on page an google is blank although people with this surname do turn up. This is one of the many AfDs I have seen for brief, unsourced articles on sub-clans in the sub-continent. Certainly we can have articles on small ethnic groups, clans, sub clans, even the Hatfields and the McCoys, but we can only keep such articles if they are well-sourced. Nothing worth merging or redirecting in this unsourced article. In fact, merging is against policy because there are no sources, ergo, no confirmation that the term itself is at all related to any merge target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. North America 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Travis Collinson

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

B GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been presented. -KAP03() 14:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Sorry. Newbie at listing these. Please don't bite. Reason is non-notability and created by account that seems purely commercial in nature. The article is an advertisement. GetSomeUtah (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't read like an advertisement, whether you're right or not about the article creator's intent. He's clearly a notable painter, loosely speaking: whether he is by our definition of the term...? His work is certainly known and exhibited and written about. The weeklies SF Gate and OC Weekly that are on the article aren't bad -- they're not solely devoted to him but they're much more than passing mentions. And I wonder if some of those exhibitions -- we have solo, group, curated, public -- don't combine to meet WP:NARTIST: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." Combining the coverage that we do have with all his exhibitions, I'd say weak keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep Artist seems to be notable as extensively exhibited and covered offline. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

* Delete, too soon. Artist has shown in two minor regional museums. Not really notable. Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Colson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeff Colson

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

Not notable. Commercial in nature. Created by user who has created several of these pages. GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:ARTIST4d at a minimum: is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Probably meets every single other criterion as well, but this should suffice. The promotional nature of the article has no bearing on the notability of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Preventing the log of April 1 from overfilling
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03() 14:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep This nomination for deletion is devoid of knowledge of the field of visual art. The Colson brothers have been known and notable for several decades. Netherzone (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

* Comment according to the award announcement for his 2012 John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation fellowship, Colson's work is in these permanent collections: Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles; Frederick R. Weisman Museum of Art, California at Pepperdine, University; Samllung Rosenkranz Foundation, Wuppertal, Germany; and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. See here. His work is also in the collection of the California Museum of Photography - see here. Netherzone (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

* Keep Passes WP:NARTIST, but require to make the article neutral. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

*Comment. I took out extraneous fluff from Solo exhibitions and Group exhibitions, and changed the formatting from resumé style to narrative form. Still needs some inline citations, if anyone else is interested in improving this article. Netherzone (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayanta Roy

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

Non-notable music composer. I found no sources that provide significant coverage of Roy himself, nor does he seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:COMPOSER. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: The below comment was posted by the author on the talk page of this AfD, so I have moved it here. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This page is significant and should be in wikipedia. Roy has worked with National Award Winning Singer Rupankar Bagchi who is very much famous public figure in West Bengal. He worked with Gopika Goswami who has done playback in many highly popular bengali films such as Jamai 420, Shororipu, Not a Dirty Film, Sathiya. Sundeep Gosswami (who has sung Dil Kyun on Roy's compostion) has worked singer and music director as Sundeep-Surya (previously was known as Sandeep-Surya) duo in Bollywood movies such as Bhindi Baazaar Inc., Blue Mountains (2017 film) and Suraj Jagan, Roop Kumar Rathod, Sadhana Sargam, Tochi Raina have sung on his composition. Roy also worked as painter in Tui Bolle Project ( an Indo- Bangladeshi relationship project) with one of the top artist of Bangladesh Shayan Chowdhury Arnob.Jiami (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jiami: Notability is not inherited. A person who is the subject of an article has to be notable in their own, and I can see no evidence that Jayanta Roy is. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: Sir, Roy has been referred several times in Bangladeshi newspapers for Tui Bolle project in many renowned Bangladeshi newspapapers as it can derived from online sources. Tui Bolle project is very much significant in the sense that it has been done to enhance Indo-Bangladesh cultural relations in that atmosphere where Indian music is banned in Bangladesh. Its also a fact of significance/notability for Roy being mentioned in a lot of Bangladeshi National newspapers for that project where other persons in that project (like musicians who played for that and others involved in song production) except composer and lyricist were mentioned nowhere (so far links I have had from internet search).Roy has been covered multiple times in West Bengal state level newspapers and regional ones and also televison channels whose onlie links expire in few days and a number of them don't have online links, so it will remain as a fact of ambiguity from the view of wiki until any user as well as me can't give further online sources and I or any other user can give reference of online links of news coverage in recent future when any online link of his next coverage will generate on net or will be covered in English newspapers whose links don't expire. I have come on wiki to be an wikipidean editor and so I made the article short rather than using any info from the offline newspapers where from I read many about Roy Sir. So, its my request to you is to keep the page making it recommended for improvement following rule of not deleting in case of doubt. Please go for inclusionism. Jiami (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said above Notability is not inherited. To have a Knowledge (XXG) article, the subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to demonstrate it's notability and the available sources are either unreliable or trivial passing mentions. Nothing I've seen suggests that this person meets GNG and I don't see any indication of passing WP:COMPOSER. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@GSS-1987: What I can say about this, the sources are reliable enough. An article can be made for a single event too if the event is significant and there are multiple coverages of event along with the person's role WP:BIO1E. Anyways, I shall agree with any decision you would take. Regards. Jiami (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: No notability shown. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep: Reference 15, 16, 17, 18 show his coverage in significant reliable Bangladeshi Newspapers independent of the subject. Jiami (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jiami (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

@Jiami: Are you serious? As I can read Bangali language a litle bit and with the help of Google translate I found that all sources are about Shayan Chowdhury Arnob and Roy's (জয়ন্ত রায়) name is there becasue he designed the logo for Arnob's song(s) and it reads:

15: Bengali: গানটির লোগোর নকশা করেছেন জয়ন্ত রায়।

16: Bengali: জয়ন্ত রায় গানটির লোগো ডিজাইন করেছেন।

17 and 18: Bengali: ‘তুই বললে’র লোগো ডিজাইন করেছেন জয়ন্ত রায়।.

So can you please explain how it's independent of the subject? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete A non notable artist, who has merely worked for any notable project., fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:NARTIST and no significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested, see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Murtaza Khojami

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

WP:BLP of a singer and record producer, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no quality reliable sourcing to support it. The only "references" here are his music's buy-it pages on online music stores, not media coverage about him -- and going back further in the history, the only other references that have ever been here at all are a Spotify stream and a Vevo videoclip. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Knowledge (XXG) article just because the presence of his music on iTunes or Spotify proves that he exists; he must be the subject of media coverage, verifying passage of at least one specific NMUSIC criterion, for a Knowledge (XXG) article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nominator, no claim of notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Prashant Girkar

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

Applied a prod with the reason: Does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. The tag was removed, but the article was not improved in terms of adding content to show notability. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Production Manager is totally different category, prashant girkar is main director of film he is not a production manager, i provided some references please go through it. wikibot 18:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- an under-developed CV / TNT / unremarkable subject. This content is not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Farnborough, Hampshire#Town centre. – Juliancolton | 14:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Princes Mead Shopping Centre

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

No claim or indication of notability for this shopping mall. WP:CSD#A7 nomination declined by administrator, so bringing here. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Farnborough, Hampshire#Town centre as that is where it is already mentioned. Ritchie333 19:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete WP:MILL shopping mall with 37 stores. No indication it's notable. MB 04:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it an invalid or implausible redirect term, though? Ritchie333 10:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No objection to a redirect, but the relevant section isn't even sourced. I wouldn't say the proposed target article has a "subtopic" on this subject per WP:POFR; it is barely useful. I wouldn't create this one myself. MB 14:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Princess Mead shopping centre is part of farnborough's history Mathew James Hall (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep this article - it is of significant notability and Knowledge (XXG) users would be much the poorer for its removal. --92.25.88.162 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment @92.25.88.162: That's kind of an WP:ILIKEIT argument: it doesn't speak to why the mall is notable. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is notable for those interested in the retail make-up of the great town of Farnborough. The fact it may be a more minority pursuit than fishing is neither here nor there. --81.178.191.76 (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment @81.178.191.76: Its notability does not arise from you saying it is notable. Its notability arises from the existence of significant sources, which have not yet been produced. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 15:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW, at least four attempts at self promotion, now salted to try to stem his vanity project Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Flesher

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

A Google News search doesn't show much, thus failing to meet GNG. J 947 20:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Fails to demonstrate WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: Why should we have go through all this for a third time? This contributor's self publicity has be deleted twice already. If he wants to have articles about himself and his business he should request it at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for creation. Is this not time for any more self created articles about and by Andrew Flesher to be SALTED to prevent this? Aspro (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: There's already an draft of this article at Draft:Andrew Flesher and looks like it's copy-pasted from the draft. Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 22:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ravi's International

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

Don't quite think this is notable enough. - the only two sites that bring something back from the references in the article is the Bangkok Post article, and the website's alexa listing. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete – Nothing found in a Google News search. J 947 20:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael Ross George

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

Apparently does not meet our notability criteria for business people. There were 600 people named in Forbes 30 under 30 in 2017, so that can hardly be seen as a "a well-known and significant award or honor" as understood at WP:ANYBIO. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete as a run of the mill music exec. We usually delete producers and their ilk unless they have music chops. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Craig B. Johnson

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

This individual does not meet notability criteria. While local politicians are not inherently non-notable, Johnson does not appear to meet the standard set forth. Mpen320 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Elk Grove Village is not large enough that being its mayor would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — if the article had enough substance and enough reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG, then it could still be kept anyway, but it can't claim an automatic keep just because the word "mayor" is involved. But of the sources here, nearly all are stacked onto once breaking his collarbone in a biking accident, and his son being arrested for dangerous driving, so none of them are providing any substance that would aid his notability as a mayor — for that, we would need a lot more than just one source about the political substance of his mayoralty. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
'Delete Elk Grove Village is not large enough or otherwise important enough to make the mayor default notable, and there are no other claims to notability for this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn. GNG and NACTOR now meet. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Barnett

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

BLPPROD removed by an editor saying IMDB is reliable but isn't reliable either per WP:CITEIMDB. Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 19:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 19:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep - IMDB isn't a reliable source, but it can be useful in finding them. It took about four minutes to get an actual source for the award he did win, and it's probably just as easy to find sources for the half dozen other's he's been nominated for. TimothyJosephWood 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep has won a number of significant awards, the sourcing of the article is being improved. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

P. J. Washington

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

High school basketball player that fails WP:NBASKETBALL. A412 (Talk • C) 18:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Has actually gotten quite a bit of press as a high school player and as a result he meets WP:GNG. Examples are here and here and here. 02:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Noah Dyer

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

This individual is not notable. The individual is only a candidate for public office. Please see here for more detail Mpen320 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Dyer received some media attention relating to his "openness about his sex life" however that coverage relates only to his candidacy for office. He fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get articles just for being candidates, but are notable enough for articles only if either (a) they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of their candidacy, or (b) they can be sourced to an extremely broad degree of coverage that shows their candidacy as significantly more notable than the norm for some reason (i.e. the Christine O'Donnell scenario.) But this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability, and the media coverage about his polyamory just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Not quite enough to overcome WP:BLP1E, with the coverage of his sex life and also fails WP:NPOL, but if news coverage counties to be substantial, no evidence of this currently, and meets notability, article could be re-added (see ex. Joe Miller (Alaska politician), Christine O'Donnell). ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Martha Kuhnhenn

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

Article about a junior academic who doesn't appear to meet the requirements of Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics) or WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, tiny citation counts on Google scholar mean she does not yet pass WP:PROF#C1 and the article does not indicate any other source of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as far WP:Too soon. 5 cites on GS in a highly cited field when well over 1000 would be expected to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- I would suggest waiting for the outcome of the deletion discussion on de.wiki: link. It it's deemed non notable over there, it would be a easy choice. Right now I'm on the fence. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: The German discussion has closed as a delete. However, the German Knowledge (XXG) appears to use different standards than ours, so even if the outcome were different I don't know what the relevance here would be, unless the Germans somehow turned up different sources than what we have already found, which they didn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was merge to merritt k. Sandstein 11:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

(ASMR) Vin Diesel DMing a Game of D&D Just For You

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

Non-notable game, fails WP:N. All the references are passing mentions, lists, or "this a a thing" type WP:NOTNEWS stories copy-pasted from one another. There is no in depth coverage or critical analysis of the game. Leigh Alexander saying, "my friend made a cool thing" is not enough. - hahnch e n 18:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep refs 3, 7, 8 in the existing article are independent nontrivial RSs. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
For quick reference -
- 3 - https://www.yahoo.com/news/let-vin-diesel-dungeon-master-000002269.html (this is a duplicate of reference 2)
- 7 - http://boingboing.net/2015/05/27/having-vin-diesel-as-your-dung.html
- 8 - https://socialmediacollective.org/2015/12/02/17-games-that-showcase-gaming/
  - I reviewed these before I made the nomination. - hahnchen 23:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    - Then I disagree with your assessment of these three sources, and find them sufficient to demonstrate notability where you do not. Mind you, I have no problem with editorially merging this somewhere else, but the argument that the article, as it stands now, violates policy and must be prohibited from existing as a standalone article... is uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
      - I'd like to hear your take on "Social Media Collective". To me, it looks like a WordPress blog that presents little more than a sentence and a download link... Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
        "Hosted for Microsoft by Wordpress". It's a list, has a mention and a bit of commentary: independent RS, could be more extensive, but certainly counts. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
        Theres a bit of leeway in defining "significant coverage" but a single sentence on a one-of-17-entry listicle is pretty definitively not "significant coverage". It's pretty much the definition of a "passing mention". Sergecross73 msg me 10:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete not a notable game Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jon Kolbert - I'm leaning that way myself, but can you explain why? Stances given without any real reason are usually discounted by the discussion closer. Just saying WP:NOTNOTABLE isn't worth much here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While the fact that this game exists has been mentioned in a couple places, that in itself doesn't make it notable. Nearly all, if not all, of the sources treat it as if "oh, that's neat" and move on. Heck, there's probably quite a few news articles/blog posts floating around about that Redditor who ate a vinyl record milkshake because Kendrick Lamar didn't drop a second album - but that definitely doesn't in itself merit an Knowledge (XXG) article on him because he did something out of the ordinary, and neither does this game. As Czar states below, the best solution is just to include it in the game creator's article. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding your rationale. I think I prefer Czar's specific approach, but you definitely expanded your stance into something policy-based and helpful. Thanks for that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to merritt k. I started to write a complete source analysis but why bother when there is an article for the game's creator? Write about it there and spin it out summary style only when warranted by the sourcing, which is currently thin. The best sources are Offworld (Boing Boing) and Polygon, neither of which go into enough depth to do justice to this game as its own topic. Nerd Approved (which is not a reliable source) repackages BB. The other sources are either primary to the topic or don't say more than a sentence about the game (passing mentions). Easy merge candidate. czar 05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge per Czar. There's enough sourcing to verify basic details, but not write an article accurately depicting the subject. We do have a plausible merge target, plausible search term, and a source to give a basic definition at least, so I think merging is preferrable to outright deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- How much of it would you keep in the parent article? The appropriate weight for such a lightly covered work seems to me a list entry or at most a 1-2 sentence blurb. That already exists in the article. I don't really see the reasoning for merging what is left, rather than just removing it. - hahnchen 17:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  - I agree that what exists in the article as of now is sufficient given the weight of the work. Any further expansion isn't really merited in this case. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    - I'd keep as much as pertains to the developer from the mentioned Offworld and Polygon sources. czar 02:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    - Unless I'm glossing over something, Merritt's articles doesn't even define the game other than "a game about caring". I think we could at least add a sentence defining the game a little better than that, right? And as Czar mentioned, neither of the two actual RS sources discussed above (Polygon/Yahoo and Boing Boing) are used in the article. It's not like I'm advocating a special subsection for it or something. Just a better defining sentence or two written according to a third party source or two. Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
      - So if there are "two actual RS", then you should be !voting keep, and then having a non-AfD discussion about how to clean up the article, including merging it. WP:DINC Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
        @Jclemens: Merge is listed as an appropriate outcome at WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes. --Izno (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
        Yes, merge is an acceptable stance at AFD, and nothing at DINC essay says otherwise. Come on, Jclemens, you're talking to a number of experienced editors here, not some newbies. Saying things like that is tantamount to WP:DTTR. We know how AFD works, thank you. Two minor, short sources about a subject is not some sort of obvious, "knock it out of the park, of course this subject is notable" type scenario. It's, quite frankly, teetering on the barest of bare minimums possible. Both sources are very short, and don't provide enough content to write much of an article. There's also a plausible merge target. Don't try to tell me merge isn't a valid choice here. It is. WP:DELETIONPROCESS clearly shows merge as a valid and common outcome at AFD, and WP:MERGE shows that it's a very clean-cut example of WP:MERGEREASON #3. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
        Sure, merge is an acceptable outcome... if GNG is not met. GNG is met, and none of NOT is triggered, therefore the right venue for a merge discussion is a talk page, not an AfD. Unless there's a reason articulated at WP:DEL-REASON to be here in the first place, and I contend that there is not, then any AfD outcome other than a closure without action is 'wrong'. Sure, the process has been applied incorrectly and inconsistently for so long by so many people with so many admins going along with it that regulars have come to accept 'merge' as a valid AfD outcome in many, many situations where it was never appropriate. Don't get me wrong, that's a ton better than deleting potentially encyclopedic content; that still doesn't mean it's a policy-compliant process and outcome. DTTR is a poor analogy, but if you think I'm talking down to you or anyone in the debate, you have my sincerest apologies. The fact is, the AfD culture is part of how Knowledge (XXG) drives away editors, and by reminding experienced editors that when what we do isn't what we say we should do, there's a problem. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
        The whole basis of your argument is extremely shaky to begin with though - the premise that a mere two short sources establish notability is not a commonly held one. Even ignoring the fact that 2 isn't very many, they're also not particularly long, nor do they actually say much of substance about the subject. The rest of your argument is...nothing more than a personal theory - there's a long-running precedent to merge articles like this when they're short on content and sources, again, per WP:MERGEREASON. It's pointless to argue about venue anyways, it's equally likely to be merged at AFD or a merge discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
        
        I would not have nominated the article if I believed GNG had been met. I clearly do not believe the "this is a thing" style news articles constitute significant coverage. The coverage is on the level, as Kolbert argues above, as the viral reddit vinyl drinking guy. AfD culture rewards effort rather than addressing the subject, had this article been a stub with the same sources, I have no doubt that there would not calls for a merging. - hahnch e n 13:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge per Czar. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge per above. When actually looked at, the sourcing being used is very thin, with most of the linked sources given only passing, one or two sentence mentions of the game. There just isn't enough significant coverage to support an independent article, but since a valid Merge target exists, that seems like the best outcome. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted by The JPS per CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Green Raver). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The green raver

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

I find no reliable sources online with substantial coverage of this person. One might expect that the story of the eBay sale indicates a pre-existing notability such that someone might actually cough up $14,999—on the third bid!—for the first copy of the album. But take a look at the sources given: (1) the eBay listing itself; (2) Spotify, i.e., social media; and (3) top40-charts-com, but the article is identical to this one, which is expressly a Green Raver press release. And there are virtually no Google hits for "Green Raver" "not for human consumption", and none at all for "sid bostwick" "not for human consumption". So there are no independent sources verifying that this actually happened. Therefore, fails WP:N, and possibly WP:V as well. Largoplazo (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If you look up 'Green Raver Not For Human Consumption' as suggested, the first and second links on Google are for the album and another article referring to the Ebay site. It's insane to me that you can't look at the Ebay link itself and see the evidence. The Ebay link is literally the second reference I've given. I also provided a link to ANOTHER article. But look at the Ebay link, and EBAY shows the price that the album was sold for. Not sure who could dispute that this actually happened.

Is a similar debate being made about Wu-Tang Clans album which was sold under bizarre pretenses to Martin Shkreli for two million dollars? I doubt it, therefore the argument for deletion is fallacious and based purely on the pretense of assumed credibility.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siditious (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)‎

Just because something happened, doesn't mean it gets an article on Knowledge (XXG). Ab eBay sale would need coverage in secondary sources to be reported on Knowledge (XXG). The Wu-Tang Clan sale was reported in reliable secondary sources such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the point. Wu-Tang Clan is extremely well known. There isn't any evidence that The Green Raver is particularly well known in the first place, so in the second place one wouldn't expect a Green Raver album to go for the same sort of price that a Wu-Tang Clan album would go for. Showing an eBay listing itself proves nothing, since one could (I'm not at all saying this is what happened, but it could happen, and certainly would explain an apparent anomaly of this sort) stage an auction in which one creates separate eBay logins and "buys" an item from oneself while making it look like an arms-length transaction. That is why the eBay page isn't proof. And even if it makes it look plausible, it doesn't alter the fact that this amazing sale has apparently gained no attention, which means that you have a notability problem whether or not you also have a verifiability problem. Largoplazo (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tui Amar Rani

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM FITINDIA (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 18:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A3: That article only contains an infobox and no evidence of notability is present. KGirlTrucker81 19:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
DECLINED SPEEDY "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox." There is sufficient content to see that the subject is a film produced and directed by Pijush Saha from Prince Entertainment P4. Was previously deleted via PROD. Perhaps it can be sourced this time. Let the AfD proceed. Dloh cierekim 10:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: An unreleased film and my searches are finding nothing relating to a film of this name. Fails WP:NFF, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable unreleased film Spiderone 11:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFILM. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Abdul Aziz Lutfi Akbar

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

never played in a fully professional league, in 2016 until 2017 he plays in the Indonesia Soccer Championship A and Indonesia Soccer Championship A is not a professional league, competition that replaced the temporarily-suspended Indonesia Super League. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - User:CAPTAIN RAJU. I've been trying to discuss the status of the Indonesian top league at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#2016 Indonesia Soccer Championship A. If it's the same teams, playing under a different league name, why isn't it fully professional? What about 2017? Nfitz (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Liga 1 (Indonesia) is considered a professional league. Even though yes it was suspended it has resumed operation now as of this year. The 2017 Liga 1 has just started and there is good indication that he will make his debut soon. He has already appeared in a match for Borneo. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bloodrock 'n' Roll

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

Article about an album that does not meet the general notability guidelines or any of the album notability criteria. The article has existed since 2007 with relatively little edit activity. Sjrct (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Ciottone

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

Article created and primarily edited by WP:SPA. Based largely on self-published works, it fails notability as to academics in that reliable, third party sources are few. Geoff | 17:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The article does not fail notability as to academics. According to the criteria of notability as to academics, only one of the nine listed criteria must be met. Dr. Ciottone meets at least three, all of which are supported by reliable third party sources:

1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources:

This has been met by his textbook, also named in his honor, being cited as "the leading textbook in Disaster Medicine" by the prestigious journal Annals of Emergency Medicine, as well as his over 250 citations on google scholar

2)The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions:

His textbook being named "the leading textbook in Disaster Medicine" affects every academic medical institution in the world.

3) The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity: By being named a "medical expert" by CNN and appearing on a number of their national broadcasts, Dr. Ciottone has clearly had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity.

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete The sources do not show coverage that rises to the level of GNG. One text book and a few citations are not enough to pass any academic criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete as a promotional CV. And what the heck is counter-terrorism medicine? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. SPA-created a few years back and full of WP:OR. EM is not an especially highly-cited branch of medicine, but even so, citations are pretty low for someone to be considered notable in this field. Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Notability not credibly established. Even some of the "keep" comments admit the subject is not yet known... – Juliancolton | 14:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

André Savetier

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

The subject has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The article is entirely based on primary sources. Mduvekot (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: I can't find enough independent coverage to establish notability. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. (The article may also be autobiographical, as the creator also marked Savetier's signature as 'own work'). Mortee (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep: The article is not autobiographic, though I know Savetier personally. He gave me the permission to use the signature. Sorry, I am new to Knowledge (XXG) editing and am not accustomed yet to the rules here. But I have to point out that the article is not solely based on primary sources, there is the interview with Flux magazine and the mentioning by AtSeaCompilations. Savetier was also mentioned on Italian television, where they talked about his documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pi3vUN84Ws (from 2:20). Savetier has a relevance in the scene he writes about, therefore, I plead for "keep". Weltengeist (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep: i first heard about andre savetier in flux magazine then i found out about his page/blog of which i am an avid reader. as a fan of dark synth i also follow the music he publishes, either on youtube or as a part of a compilation. It is good to see a wiki entry to keep track of all this. Therefore I say keep hsimhsihs (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)— hsimhsihs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments should be grounded in Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Savetier not very known yet but produced good music and has potential, also his genre is not easily covered by press. Tzsagan (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments/! votes should be grounded in Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 16:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete There are not enough independent and reliable sources with significant coverage to satisfy notability. Facebook and Youtube should not even be included as references, since they are not reliable sources. Edison (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Literary Trendology

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

This appears to be original research, with a search for sources discussing "literary trendology" not revealing anything. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be transwikied to Wikiversity. I can confirm that no one else uses the term Literary Trendology or anything close. The general topic of trends in literature does appear to be notable, and absent an article here. But the content here does look like original research and so unsuitable to retain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. A quite unusually non-notable topic: no hits on Scholar, no hits on JSTOR, even no hits on Gbooks might perhaps be expected; but no hits whatsoever on the web is surprising. A redirect to Pavel Bělíček might be a possibility, except that that author has exactly two cites on Scholar, and that that unreferenced and autobiographical article is also nominated for deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Seems like we're generally satisfied with at least some of the new sources that were introduced. – Juliancolton | 14:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

TeamCity

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

Contested PROD. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete: Fails GNG and NSOFT after checking notability. KGirlTrucker81 21:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Fails GNG/NSOFT. No external coverage. South Nashua (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete not even an article, just a few bullets marketing the product. W Nowicki (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Maintain it is one of the main actor in CD products like Jenkins, why deleting one and not the other ones? probably should be improved but not deleted. 27/03/2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.14.33 (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment because Jenkins (software) has some secondary sources and a bit of content. We don't keep or delete content because other stuff exists, we judge each article on its own merits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete complete lack of secondary sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete Lack of sources and a breach of multiple Knowledge (XXG) policies. Probably not a good idea to keep. Cheers, FriyMan 06:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Poor state of article is not an argument for deletion, the question is whether or not there exist references to demonstrate the notability of this topic, even if article currently doesn't use any of them. And you can find quite a few books on Google Books and papers on Google Scholar discussing TeamCity. Just to give a selection, not an exhaustive listing:
- Manoj Mahalingam S (26 August 2014). Learning Continuous Integration with TeamCity. Packt Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84969-952-5.
- Volodymyr Melymuka (1 January 2012). TeamCity 7 Continuous Integration Essentials. Packt Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-84969-377-6.
- Kyle Hodgson; Darren Reid (23 January 2015). ServiceStack 4 Cookbook. Packt Publishing Ltd. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-78398-657-6.
- Mikael Lundin (20 February 2015). Testing with F#. Packt Publishing Ltd. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-78439-441-7.
- Kyle Baley; Donald Belcham (2010). Brownfield Application Development in .NET. Manning. ISBN 978-1-933988-71-9.
- Yuksel, H. Mehmet; Tuzun, Eray; Gelirli, Erdogan; Biyikli, Emrah; Baykal, Buyurman (2009). "Using continuous integration and automated test techniques for a robust C4ISR system": 743–748. doi:10.1109/ISCIS.2009.5291914. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Larsson, Claes (2012). "Running and Monitoring": 55–68. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23932-8_6. ISSN 2191-589X. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Callanan, Shane; O'Shea, Donna; O'Regan, Eoin (2016). "Automated Environment Migration to the Cloud": 1–6. doi:10.1109/ISSC.2016.7528471. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
SJK (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree that poor state of the article is not a reason to exclude, but self-published works and books that don't specify the subject are not reasons to keep either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting this because the last comment was a substantial contribution of sources which I feel could plausibly affect the views of the previous contributors, especially given some were adding a !vote on the basis of a lack of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 1. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I believe TeamCity is also discussed by Ebert, Christof; Gallardo, Gorka; Hernantes, Josune; Serrano, Nicolas (2016). "DevOps". IEEE Software. 33 (3): 94–100. doi:10.1109/MS.2016.68. ISSN 0740-7459. SJK (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Easily enough coverage in GBooks to establish notability. The nomination appears to solely focus on article state, and there is no evidence of searching for coverage behind any of the other Delete !votes. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Articles don't determine notability folks; subjects do.

Keep - It's Greek to me but if there are multiple entire books written about it, and there does seem to be, then there's probably plenty enough out there to write a fine article. and as we sometimes need a friendly reminder of, articles content doesn't determine notability. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Correction. There are two self-books that are written about continuous integration and TeamCity is one tool involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, there are also 300+ hits on Google Scholar, including a third book, 2,000+ hits in Google Books overall, and we'll just thrown in an an honorable mention in the news, (), and why not, a nice fluffy industry review piece (). And whatever continuous integration actually means, kindof makes sense that the software would be in books about doing what the software does. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per TJW, other should be pinged for reevaluation. L3X1 (distant write) 22:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Seth Rollins#Personal life. (non-admin closure) — Yash 16:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Zahra Schreiber

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

Non-notable professional wrestler, only known for one event which was actually about her boyfriend and some Nazi controversy which was quickly forgotten. Almost all sources are not about her.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, Redirect to Seth Rollins#Personal life.LM2000 (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect This has been a longstanding redirect to Seth Rollins for two years now. Nominator should have been bold and redirected it. GuzzyG (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I put a speedy delete on it but it was rejected and the admin recommended that I take it to AFD.★Trekker (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Seth Rollins - all of her coverage is about the controversy with him. Nikki♥311 08:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Women in Chinese Literature

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

The article was cut and pasted, in its entirety and without any changes, from Chinese literature. I was expecting User:Beckminster to expand it, but it has now been two weeks and they haven't changed anything.

I'm sure the topic warrants a separate article, but the current version is very poor (it doesn't even have a lead section) and doesn't expand upon the text from Chinese literature at all. ~barakokula31 (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep but improve I think this topic is definitely notable (especially if you include literature like The Good Earth that wasn't written by a Chinese person but is about China and deals largely with women, particularly them being sold as slaves) but the article is in need of some help. White Arabian Filly 21:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It's an important topic and is certainly likely to attract the attention of other editors. One of the problems with the EN wiki is that we do not give enough attention to African and Asian culture. This is a step in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep but WP:TNT (just to be confusing!) This could have been Speedied under WP:A10 when it was created - however, the subject is notable and deserves an article. I'm sure a dedicated editor (not one who thinks pressing Ctrl+V makes them a competent article creator) will be able to make something worth reading. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment @White Arabian Filly and Ipigott: As I said, I'm sure the topic is notable, but the current article is very poor – too poor, in my opinion, for Knowledge (XXG). Keeping an improved version would of course be ideal. However, I don't understand why The Good Earth would be included. "Chinese literature" presumably refers to literature written in China, by Chinese people, in the Chinese language(s). The Old Man and the Sea, for example, is not a part of Cuban literature, is it? @Exemplo347: Yes, WP:TNT was the idea. I didn't want to nominate it for speedy deletion because I was expecting User:Beckminster (who created the article) to expand it, but they did not do so. (P.S. Not sure how deletion sorting works, but this should probably be included in the list of Women-related AfDs). ~barakokula31 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep The counter to a split is a merger, not deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. The topic has great notability and ought to be developed from the many sources available. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Notable topic, needs expansion. Should be tagged as such. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per above comments Seraphim System 05:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Discussions about editorial decisions like merging/repurposing/restructuring can continue on the article's talk page or elsewhere, but no clear consensus for such a result has formed here. – Juliancolton | 14:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Battle of the Pineberry Battery

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of the Battle of the Pineberry Battery, with no sources other than the general's short report. The fact that the lead refers to it as "a minor inconclusive battle" does not enhance prospects for notability. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Even the commanding general wrote a single report about three battles at once, and the entire content of this detailed report is what is quoted at the bottom of this page (for original see here. ). We should just consider ourselves lucky that the creator didn't also make articles for the Battle of Willstown and the Battle of White Point, the other two in the report. (Alternative - if we can figure out what Union Campaign this expeditionary force was part of, we could perhaps merge. There may also be a place for an overview of this campaign in South Carolina in the American Civil War, which says nothing of events in the state in 1862.) Agricolae (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The US Civil War has been exhaustively studied, written about, reenacted, etc. and I'm surprised that there is a battle of this size on American soil that is not mentioned in a main article somewhere. I certainly think a redirect and merge would be the way to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we seem to have a bit of a hole here, as I am finding lists of more than 50 skirmishes that happened as part of the blockade of Charleston during 1862, but none of our relevant articles seem to mention these low-level engagements. An individual article is not the way to go - we can't have an article on every time a soldier fires a gun. Maybe the background section of First Battle of Charleston Harbor would could be expanded to include this periodic activity by pickets and raiding parties associated with the blockade, but describing just this one encounter in that article seems undue, while having its own page unwarranted. Agricolae (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep - I've updated the article a bit, although there is a lot of work left to do. I can imagine a stand alone article on the skirmish. I could also imagine an article on Grimball's plantation (Grimball's diary seems to be a well used source on life in the area at the time), with this article merged into that. I could also imagine this merged into an article on the campaign which culminated with the Battle of Secessionville. A third hypothetical destination would be something like Edisto Island, South Carolina in the Civil War. Since none of those other articles exist, I think this one should stand for now, more or less. Another option would be to merge it into the article on the USS E. B. Hale (1861). Also, this article and any hypothetical articles about the Willstown and White Point engagements should all be combined, although I don't think redirects from the Battle/skirmish/engagement at Willstown/White Point to this article really make sense. Smmurphy 22:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I just read the current version of the article which is a reasonable, sourced article; if such can be written then the topic is notable. As Smurphy suggests, it could be absorbed into a larger article on military actions on and around Edisto Island, but that doesn't exist. Assertion of importance in an article is a matter of personal taste; I prefer understatement. --do ncr am 22:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Much improved, but the problem I have with its latest iteration is that any time the background is longer than the body, you really have to question the importance of the event being described. Even then, the body is actually not a description of one battle, but three. You could literally write the identical article as "Battle of White Point" and again as "Battle of Willstown". This all tells me that the namespace/focus is wrong, that it needs to be an article on the whole set of actions in the spring of 1862, though I am not sure what to call it, or else as a section on these actions in a higher level article. Agricolae (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the background is unbalanced. My thinking is that either this article should be renamed or that material should be moved once a destination is created. My proposed article title would be "Occupation of Edisto Island", which took place between February 11 and April 5, with a skirmish on April 19, and would include all skirmishes on the island from February until April (I count 5) and would not include this battle. The background section of this article would be paired down and it would be renamed, Engagements at Pineberry, Willtown, and White Point or possibly Battle of Pineberry Battery. The former matches the name given in Tucker 2013, as well as sources contemporaneous with the war, such as here. I'm not sure, though, so let me know what you think. Smmurphy 01:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: not a theatre I know as well as some of the others, so I could be out in left field, but . . . ) I would even prefer something broader that would include both Edisto and these actions as sections. There were thousands of skirmishes of this sort, on an almost daily basis, and I just don't think they are big enough on their own (or in this case as a threesome) to merit more than a paragraph in a larger article, rather than having a stub dedicated to each. As an example, if you look at one of the big cavalry raids, there were several of these demonstrations on the flanks every day, and we don't want an article on each of them, but rather a single article on the entire raid that mentions many of the daily skirmishes. Something like Blockade of Charleston that would then briefly mention the various probes and raids and foraging contacts, as well as linking out to the major actions. That being said, if it is to be its own page, I prefer the triple-barrel name, and I prefer Engagement over Battle - I don't know where to draw the line, but there is more than just a difference in scale between what I think of as battles, Gettysburg or Shiloh or even Glorieta Pass, and what happened here. The lists I saw, admittedly not WP:RS, used terms like engagement, skirmish, incident, or action for these things, not battle (although I am sure in some of the grandiose 1880s regimental histories every one of them was listed as a battle). Agricolae (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I agree with you, mostly. I think the most compelling aspect of the actions at Edisto Island are the relationship between those actions and the contraband colony there. The article on the Port Royal Experiment is a mess and instead of trying to squeeze this material into that article I've started a new article, Edisto Island during the Civil War. As for your point on a larger article to cover a number of different skirmishes, the article on the role of Edisto during the war seems like pretty good coverage for now. Regarding this article, I think what we now have passes the usual suspects (V, NPOV, NOR, N) and doesn't fit to be merged into the the larger article.

I know to some having an AfD result in the article being kept and a new article being written to better provide context may seem odd, but that is my !vote in this case. Smmurphy 00:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree on V, NPOV and NOR, but not N. Strip away all of the surrounding context, and there just isn't much there there, not what I would consider the "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail" of the GNG. I still think it needs to be a paragraph, if that, elsewhere - that it is noteworthy but not notable (and it definitely needs renamed). Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding notability, Tucker 2013 is titled "American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection" and the engagement (or, the three engagements) has (have) an entire article in that volume. Generally when another encyclopedia has an article about a subject, it is considered notable. In case you are curious, the encyclopedia's editor, Spencer C. Tucker, is a respected military historian. Smmurphy 14:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that argument for notability, I just don't agree with it. I am not questioning Tucker's qualifications, but an entry in a single specialist encyclopedia among more than 100,000 others doesn't convince me. I may well be in the minority here, but so be it. Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(unindent) The Pineberry Battery article has been considerably revised since I "!vote"d, and I stay with "Keep". It refers to the new Edisto Island during the Civil War article for background. Awesome development! I appreciate the quality of discussion here including civil disagreement, in great contrast to many AFDs. --do ncr am 21:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

At this point, Smmurphy has developed a whole lot, and is continuing, and I think we have to defer to their judgment of how they wish to develop. Smmurphy is/was flexible, for example I see them linking from the Edisto article to the Pineberry one by pipelinked name of "Engagements at Pineberry, Willtown, and White Point", suggesting they're considering renaming the Pineberry one. Whether that was before or after they remarked above that they prefer to keep Pineberry separate, I'm not sure, but whatever they want now, the rest of us should just stand aside. I think the original AFD was okay, but the situation is far different now and it would not be reasonable to butt in and open an AFD if this was not open. --do ncr am 21:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my link. I do intend to change the name of the article after the AfD, unless their is clear consensus not to (I don't like seeing non-trivial/obvious name changes during an AfD). As for the AfD, it will run its course, there is not much that can be done about it now - we've both had our !votes and made our cases and now have to wait (this is what i call the incredible lightness of editing wikipedia). In the meantime, if anybody watching this page could, I'd appreciate some help with the infobox. I like infoboxes (I know some people don't), but I'm not sure how to report "units invovles" and "strength". What I've done so far has a lot of overlap, and this seems like a complicated case; I'd appreciate some guidance or edits if there is a standard way of handling things. Smmurphy 22:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep: the recent work that has been done on the article indicates to me that the topic (the three skirmishes together) is probably now a viable topic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Potential keep -- The article is adequately referenced. My doubt concerns whether this Civil War incident, involving a very small number of troops was notable. I am not an expert on the Civil War, and leave others to judge its significance. If the engagement was notable, the article should certainly be kept. --User:Peterkingiron ([https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG)%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBattle_of_the_Pineberry_Battery&type=revision&diff=775694321&oldid=775487189 diff)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Surprised this was relisted, it is ready to be closed (Keep). In this edit i provided a missing signature above. --do ncr am 16:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - following recent work this article now seems sufficiently referenced to suggest the topic likely meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV / WP:GNG for notability. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

94th Regiment of Foot (disambiguation)

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

The two links that exist go to the same page. bojo | talk 15:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: Per changes made. bojo | talk 00:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I am writing a series of articles on British Regiments and have today written two more articles on regiments which were numbered the 94th: consequently this page now diambiguates at least three different regiments. Dormskirk (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It looks like Dormskirk is in the process of creating four articles, three existing so far. I presume the one redlink will turn blue soon. I revised at the disambiguation page to remove pipelinks so that it now shows the titles of the articles, in accordance with disambiguation page MOS / guidelines. --do ncr am 17:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the nominator was mistaken. In the version that they tagged, it looked like the first two links (which were then the only two bluelinks) went to the same page, because of pipelinking. It is understandable that the deletion nominator thought they went to one page, but in fact they went to different pages. Now there are four pages, all bluelinks, and the disambiguation page is clear about that. User:bojo1498, could you please withdraw your deletion nomination so that this can be closed, and so that other editors don't have to keep arriving and considering the merits here? --do ncr am 21:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment The deletion nominator responded and withdrew their nomination (thanks!), above, and there are no votes besides "Keep". This is ready to be closed by anyone. --do ncr am 04:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | 14:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jaise Jose

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actor who fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The said actor is a businessman who acts in blink and you miss roles in Malayalam movies. The last AfD was closed as having No consensus WP:NPASR due to lack of participation, and the one before that was a delete. All the references mentioned are about movies in which the said person has acted in, with just his name mentioned, for being a member of the cast. Since the last AfD, a single purpose account which uses the actor's name has even added his picture, indicating a possible case of COI. Jupitus Smart 04:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - I have updated my point last time as well. This actor is a familiar face of Mollywood now. I believe I have added valid references as well.Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You were the only one who commented last time as well, @Rajeshbieee:. Tell me which of the sources discusses the actor in depth. All the WP:RS sources you have added are about the movies in which the said person has acted in, and just mention that Jaise Jose was one of the cast members. You have also added some non WP:RS sources and an interview in a small channel as references, none of which are can be accepted as references. Per your own user page you have appeared as an actor in Manal Naharam and Sand City (both of which are dubbed versions of the same movie) indicating a possible case of WP:COI or maybe even WP:PAID in getting your co-actor a Knowledge (XXG) page.You have also waxed eloquent about Jaise Jose's performance in those movies as "Jose was noticed by the industry after his powerful performance as James, an arrogant expat getting reformed in Manal Naharam, the Tamil film directed by Oru Thalai Ragam Shankar". None of this is mentioned in the 2 online sources you have provided, both of which just mention that Jaise Jose is one among the characters. As for familiarity, I don't think anybody has seen Sand City (which didn't get the cash registers ringing though I heard that it was a good movie) to know about Jaise Jose's powerful performances. While I have watched most of the movies you have mentioned in the filmography, I don't remember his character in most movies, except Welcome to Central Jail. And familiarity or the lack of it is not the metric for notability, its the existence of proper sources. Jupitus Smart 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - I am aware of the actor Jaise Jose from his role in Manal Naharam. He is an actor acting in Malayalam cinema but his role in Manal Naharam was well noticed and even garnered praise in the Tamil screen4screen review ] that mentions his name and states that all actors have performed their roles well and he is one of the lead actors in the film. Venkateswaran Ganesan (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good to see an editor who has hardly edited in the last year turn up to vote for Jaise Jose. A look at your editor interaction with the user above (Rajeshbiee) indicates an almost 100% match - . I am however not interested in initiating an SPI and will discuss about your vote. You might know that Jaise Jose acted in Manal Naharam, and so would the handful of people who watched the said movie. However what you don't know is how references are added in Knowledge (XXG). Read WP:ICTF to know what are the sources considered as reliable with respect to Indian Cinema, and how blog sites like screen4screen.com cannot be considered as WP:RS. Read WP:BASIC to know how in-depth coverage in reliable sources is required to establish notability. Tell me which of the reliable sources in the Jaise Jose article cover the person besides mentioning his name. Most of them just mention that he was one among the cast members in some movies (I have discussed this in detail above). Anyway as I mentioned above, familiarity or the lack of it is not the criteria for notability in articles, but its the presence of proper sources which discuss the person.Jupitus Smart 22:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. He appears never to have had a major role in a film. The most impt seems to have been in Manal Haharam and it's not enough for notability. The refs seem to mention him only peripherially. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - The article currently does not contain, and searches do not turn up the type of in-depth sourcing needed to show he passes WP:GNG. And he certainly does meet the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 12:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jérémy Guillemenot

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

Seems to fail WP:NFOOTY. It would appear that he has never played in a league beyond second tier or youth leagues. bojo | talk 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, few footballers pass WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG before the age of 20. Article can always be recreated when the subject passes the guidelines. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Adya Jahagirdar family

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

Vanity page that talks about some land owning family in Karnataka who supposedly shaped the history of the state. The only reference provided is to a self published website, written by one of the members (even that does mention any of the puffery written in the article). Created by a single purpose account with a username suggesting COI. Searching also does not provide any relevant hits. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 05:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Probably WP:VANITY, no evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in source or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Singavarapus

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

Vanity page created for some Andhra Pradesh based family. Fails WP:GNG and the only reference provided is the family website. Searching provides hits about the story one of the members of the family (probably) who met with a sad fate. Created by a single purpose account with no other edits. Full of puffery and hear say. Jupitus Smart 05:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Probably WP:VANITY, no evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in source or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Bijpur A B High School

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

This article fails to establish the notability of Bijpur A B High School. Having no sources, it falls short of meeting Knowledge (XXG)'s standard: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Question for nom Teblick Can I just confirm that you have fulfilled the criteria set out at WP:BEFORE? Step D states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". Obviously the current lack of sources is not a basis for a nomination itself - only a lack of sources in existence is. Also, did you conduct any searches in Bengali? AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not. As I acknowledge that failure, I simultaneously submit my resignation from the new page patrollers. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably wise. AusLondonder (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment. I added a couple of links: West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to source the claim that the school is registered with said board (also verifies it is co-ed), and West Bengal Department of School Education to source the claim that it includes senior secondary (twelfth grade and hence graduation). More research is needed to improve the article, and this may mean offline sources from local media. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep on the good faith assumption that a secondary school that claims to have 1200 students enrolled would have enough sources in print or offline media in some language to satisfy the criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Lacks notability and references. The "good faith assumption" of above editor opens a pandora's box for other AfD. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since this has long been the consensus, this is not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  - See WP:NPOSSIBLE. The recent RfC asked that anyone who might nominate an article look for the sources and consider the possibility of offline sources. They of course can't prove a negative, but following NPOSSIBLE and considering the possibility sourcing was clearly not done here. Deletion in this case would be an application of WP:GEOBIAS, which is especially apparent in school AfDs. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep . User:Necrothesp wrote: "Keep on the good faith assumption that a secondary school that claims to have 1200 students enrolled would have enough sources in print or offline media in some language to satisfy the criteria for inclusion school per longstanding precedent and consensus." Today, I have seen a few instances where AfDs were ignoring common sense. This is one of them. I have noticed that Knowledge (XXG) does have a slant against the developing word in terms of its notability requirements. Why is public high school of similar size in the USA/UK notable whereas a high school in the developing country does not qualify? Dean Esmay (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Schools are notable by default. L3X1 (distant write) 17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was an RFC which closed with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. High schools are notable. I missed it at the time, but am aware of RFC not long ago that ruled otherwise, which is just causing unnecessary work and undermining Knowledge (XXG) credibility, shutting the gate after all the U.S. and U.K. high school articles have been created. --do ncr am 17:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep: rationale being WP:NHS as they reasonably pass verifiability; obviously, the articles need to be improved extensively to contribute for encyclopedic usage. TopCipher (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per longstanding consensus that secondary schools of demonstrated actual existence are presumed notable. Sources appear, meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jalnawalla

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

Another vanity page about a family created by a single purpose account. No references have been provided and searching also does not provide any relevant hits. Even if all the puffery indicated is true, it probably still would not meet WP:GNG - as establishing the first Fire Temple and Cotton Factory in a district would probably not be enough to indicate the family is notable enough to merit a Wiki article. Jupitus Smart 05:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Probably WP:VANITY, no evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in searches. Search results turn up one or two possibly-notable individuals and ancestry.com and mirrors, no WP:RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Poonuthura Family

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

Vanity page about a Malayali family that details 'eminent members spread across the globe' including people who are doctors, civil servants and with doctorates. Created by a single purpose account. Searching also does not provide any relevant hits indicating that the family is notable. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Probably WP:VANITY, no evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in sources or in searches. Only search results are wiki mirrors and the two linked sources are not to any book referenced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Acharya Institute of Technology. – Juliancolton | 14:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Acharya's NRV School of Architecture

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

This article fails to demonstrate that Acharya's NRV School of Architecture meets Knowledge (XXG)'s expectation of notability: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Additionally, the tone of the writing is more promotional than encyclopedic. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment We need to ascertain as to whether this is a degree-awarding institute. Promotional wording in itself is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for cleanup. The nom also needs to clarify what searches they have conducted which has proven this is not a notable institution. AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Acharya Polytechnic Mabalu (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Acharya Polytechnic Per Mabalu.Fatty wawa (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect seems to be the best bet. L3X1 (distant write) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect target now itself redirects to Acharya Institute of Technology.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: That seems fine--the redirected article was the same as the new redirect target according to the redirecting editor. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Reliable sources have been provided and most editors agree that there's no reason to deviate from longstanding practice in this case, so clear consensus to keep. – Juliancolton | 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar

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

This article needs more sources to establish the notability of its subject. The single source cited is insufficient to demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Question for nom Teblick your nomination states "This article needs more sources to establish the notability of its subject" - that is correct. But AfD is not necessarily the appropriate place for that per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Can I confirm that you have fulfilled the criteria set out at WP:BEFORE? Step D states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". Obviously the current lack of sources is not a basis for a nomination itself - only a lack of sources in existence is. Also, did you conduct any searches in the Bodo language? AusLondonder (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Per nominator. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per Necrothesp L3X1 (distant write) 21:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: there was an RFC which closed with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. High schools are notable. It is depressing and wasteful to see deletion nominations on them again and again. --do ncr am 17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. SchoolsWorld.in doesn't appear to be reliable ("Disclaimer: The information provided in this website might be wrong or old information. Please add a comment above to get the information corrected") and while there is some other coverage, it's not really enough for me to support keeping the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as clearly lacking notability under NSCHOOLS, which represents the community's "longstanding precedent and consensus" on these articles. Rebb ing 15:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it doesn't. Never has done. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is what really represents it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  - Nope. Not only is SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely an essay, but the broader community—not just a handful of frequent AfD participants—rejected its circular logic, suggested that closers may disregard votes premised on it, and refused to adopt anything like it as a notability standard, leaving the existing guidelines—including NSCHOOLS and ORGSIG ("No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.")—in place. Furthermore, NSCHOOLS is a guideline, which you are required to honor in ordinary circumstances. See WP:101. If you want to promote a different notability standard, it's on you to develop consensus and remove or amend the existing guideline. Rebb ing 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    - Oh dear, someone else who thinks WP has rules and requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Oh dear, someone else who doesn't seem to understand the RfC? "Longstanding consensus" etc does not cut the mustard as a keep !vote and that at least two others seem also to be using the same argument will not wash. GNG is what matters, not precedent. Each article has to stand on its own merits. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

*Delete - I've done as much searching as I can and the school appears not to meet WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Striking in view of the sources Tony Ballioni has described. I can't see them but AGF and all that. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge: to Kokrajhar. In the vast majority of cases, the sourced content can be merged to another article's education section. SL93 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the India Project was trying to keeps list at some higher level than towns because of the amount of clutter, confusing boundaries etc. There was also some sort of local consensus that the lists should include only schools that had articles because of the amount of promotion of "unworthy" private enterprises etc that was going on. So, yes, merge to the town but don't be surprised if it gets deleted from there some time in the future (won't be by me because I rarely touch Assamese stuff). - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikiprojects shouldn't have that much control. As far as I know, there is no policy which prohibits it. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they did - local consensus cannot over-ride the wider community. Odd that the schools project managed it for so long, though. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the totality of WP:N which includes WP:NPOSSIBLE and not just WP:GNG. That is the argument that the general consensus for the last decade that was and is reflected in SCHOOLOUTCOMES is based upon, and was a part of the recent close. The very few English language sources that do exist mention the placement of students and that this has happened in the past. That is enough to suggest that the school is at least relatively well known in the region, and has likely received coverage in offline non-English language sources, which we were also told to take into account before bringing to AfD in the RfC close. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- NPOSSIBLE concludes with this admonition: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Also, WP:N includes NRVE: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." The only "source" we have, Schoolsworld.in, republishes public submissions—making it likely neither reliable nor independent; it's pretty clear that it isn't using a serious editorial process. Rebb ing 18:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Practically anything could be sourced somewhere we don't know of yet etc. Reading NPOSSIBLE as you do would negate the entire AfD process for pretty much everything where the challenge relates to notability. - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  - (edit conflict) We have a sex abuse scandal, which makes it highly likely there is local press in other areas for this and we have an article calling it a prestigious school and remarks on its placement. Taken together we have the strong possibility based on the geography that there are offline non-English sources that WP:N and the RfC said should be taken into account before even getting to this stage. Sure, there's the admonition on the end, and no, we shouldn't just willy-nilly make the assumption, especially in areas where sourcing would be easy for most Wikipedians to find, but it needs to be considered, and that's not being done here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    - - I can't see those sources here, sorry. Don't know why. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep This is a very minimal stub, but there is potential for improvement. Practice is almost 100% consistent that we keep all articles on verified high schools. In the recent RfC on school outcomes, the extremely confused close stated that there was no consensus to accept SCHOOLOUTCOMES as definitive, but there was also no consensus that high schools were not always to be considered notable . If you think that this sounds self-contradictory, you understand the situation. It leaves us to do what we always do, decide right here. The virtue of considering all high schools as notable is to avoid the thousands of potential AfDs like this--if we insist of examining them in detail, we will end up keeping 99% of them, and spending immense amounts of time removing a few like this, with the results determined by the chance of who contributes to the discussion. There are hundreds of thousands of articles in WP that really need to be discussed and removed, and dealing with high schools this way will just make it harder. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @DGG: Well said! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Those arguing keep as matter of precedent seem to display WP:IDHT behaviors, which is a competence-issue, to my mind. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think you should probably read the warning at the top of that page and note the editing experience of those you appear to be dismissing as incompetent. You should also note that it is not "disruptive" to express an opinion at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  - Personally attacking numerous long-serving editors as incompetent is far more disruptive than expressing a good-faith opinion at an AfD, Chris troutman. AusLondonder (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    - @AusLondonder: Those "numerous long-serving editors" ignoring community consensus to provide an opinion the consensus specifically rejects is "far more disruptive" than me calling them out on it. Those who would not follow rules cannot operate in a community. This isn't the wild-west Knowledge (XXG) of 2005. We cannot have editors just doing whatever they want. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
      - @Chris troutman: Interesting. Given you've only been around since 2013 are you really qualified to give editors such as Necrothesp who has been here since 2004 a patronising lesson on the rights and wrongs of "the wild-west Knowledge (XXG) of 2005"? Nevertheless, talking of "wild-west" behaviour, I have encountered some this month. Strangely, it was from none other than "Chris Troutman" who archived a message posted to a Wikiproject discussion project within less than half an hour of it being posted using an utterly absurd rationale of "reply to Another Believer, who seems to think people that vote right wing also smoke dope". As you said "Those who would not follow rules cannot operate in a community. This isn't the wild-west Knowledge (XXG) of 2005. We cannot have editors just doing whatever they want". Here is a rule you might like to learn to follow: WP:5P4 - one of our five pillars no less "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Knowledge (XXG) etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus...Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others". AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
      - @Chris troutman: Here we go again. Another editor who doesn't understand that Knowledge (XXG) doesn't actually have "rules" and clearly hasn't read (or maybe opposes? Although surely not, given how much you love rules!) one of WP's most important policies: WP:IAR! "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge (XXG), ignore it." Which sums the whole thing up in a nutshell. Also please realise that there is nothing disruptive about expressing an opinion in a discussion. How on earth could there be? How could it possibly be disruptive to express an opinion? You are verging on calling for the imposition of principles usually seen in authoritarian states here. Freedom of discussion is only curtailed and considered disruptive in such environments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

HAL School Korwa

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

This article fails to establish the notability of HAL School Korwa. Having no sources, it does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standard: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Eddie Blick (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Question for nom Teblick your nomination states that this article, in its current form fails to establish notability. But can I confirm that you have fulfilled the criteria set out at WP:BEFORE? Step D states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". Obviously the current lack of sources is not a basis for a nomination itself - only a lack of sources in existence is. Also, did you conduct any searches in Hindi? AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep: Secondary schools are generally kept in AfD if more can be verified than that the school just exists. There is content for the article here and here. I also don't have much access to Indian sources and wouldn't be able to read them anyway. If the consensus is that the school shouldn't have an article, it can be verified and merged to a new section on the article Korwa, Uttar Pradesh. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Per nominator. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Would you support a merge if I sourced the article? SL93 (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
keep per default. This IAR trend of AfD schools is bad. L3X1 (distant write) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 15:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. High schools are notable, per longstanding precedents. I am not looking to see if this particular article is new, but in general the trend to nominate for deletion all the new articles on high schools in India and elsewhere is obnoxious, after all the high schools in U.S. and U.K. have articles. --do ncr am 17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment--Somehow the relisting script missed my reason but the reason for relisting was--
There was an RFC which closed with--WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.
.Winged Blades 17:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Barely anyone participated in that. Such a joke. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

More than a hundred votes, extensive discussion, and a four-person closing panel is wide participation by Knowledge (XXG) standards. It's certainly less of a joke than the handful of prolific AfD participants who vote to keep schools because we keep schools because we keep schools. Rebb ing 17:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggested a possible merge and my keep was based on what I found plus the non-widespread coverage of the foreign language sources needed. SL93 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per SL93: the sources they brought forth give us enough to have reasonable confidence that someone with the resources would be able to find the sources needed to meet the GNG, which is what WP:NPOSSIBLE says that we should consider before nominating for AfD. The strong chances of geographic bias in sourcing here makes the argument strong. I'd be fine with a merge over delete as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Great British Bake Off#Series 8 (2017). – Juliancolton | 14:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Great British Bake Off (series 8)

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

Series not started - WP:CRYSTALBALL TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect back to The Great British Bake Off; consider semi-protection until S8 details are announced. Nate • (chatter) 18:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense there Nate. I will support the Redirect. There is nothing notable about S8 until it is aired/previewed but the move to C4, covered on the main page is. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep The season is already in production and being covered in detail. The page already averages about 100 readers/day. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to main article until at least August when this seies will air, copy any content which is not a tba or tbc to the two sentences at the main article to satisfy the needs of any users looking up this topic.--KTo288 (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 14:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yasir Shoro

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

Non-notable actor fails WP:NACTOR FITINDIA (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I can see he received some press in reliable sources however fails to meet criteria set in the notability of the artist. Per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Knowledge (XXG) article." --Saqib (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

List of years in Albanian television

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

List of years in Albanian television

Extended list of individual articles.
1964 in Albanian television 1965 in Albanian television 1968 in Albanian television 1975 in Albanian television 1977 in Albanian television 1978 in Albanian television 1981 in Albanian television 1982 in Albanian television 1983 in Albanian television 1984 in Albanian television 1985 in Albanian television 1986 in Albanian television 1987 in Albanian television 1993 in Albanian television 2003 in Albanian television 2004 in Albanian television 2005 in Albanian television 2006 in Albanian television 2007 in Albanian television 2008 in Albanian television 2009 in Albanian television 2010 in Albanian television 2011 in Albanian television 2012 in Albanian television 2013 in Albanian television 2014 in Albanian television 2015 in Albanian television 2016 in Albanian television

Extended list of individual articles.

In similar vein to this AFD, this group of pages was mass-created by one user with almost zero information included. After an ANI discussion it was decided that we probably didn't need all of them.

The content in these articles is mostly just birth dates, which aren't really directly related "Albanian television" in that particular year. The other spattering is mostly trivial and could be covered by categories. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete There isn't enough content on the main Albanian television page to sustain pages for each year. Editors should develop that page first. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete These are essentially empty placeholders with no info. 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete went through each of the proposed articles individually just now. It took me all of three minutes to read all of the content. There is simply not enough in these articles and not enough that happened to make it likely that they would ever have enough information to be needed on Knowledge (XXG). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to My Summer Car. – Juliancolton | 14:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Johannes Rojola

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

Non-notable game developer. GNG not met by sources located during a WP:BEFORE search. Attempt to redirect the article to an appropriate target was reverted by the article's creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect. Re-instate the redirect to his only notable product, My Summer Car. If he makes more games then maybe he'll become notable, but it's WP:TOOSOON to have one now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Padarinath Kamble

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

Seems to fail WP:NACTOR. Seems they have had minor roles at best in a few minor films. No apparent major roles or following. bojo | talk 13:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pandhrinath Kamble Is a femous actor from Marathi Flim. He acted in more than 70 flim of marathi language so please dont delete this article प्रसाद साळवे 14:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - fails NACTOR Spiderone 11:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4, various titles salted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Marcelo D'Castro Tibana

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

This was tagged for CSD A7. IMO it presents a credible claim of significance but not notability. His book is not self-published as far as I can tell, which just typos him over the line for A7, but I'm not seeing significant coverage in RS. GoldenRing (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment @GoldenRing: This has already been deleted via AfD once before, see here: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Poet from Omaezaki and it is salted in mainspace Marcelo Tibana which is why I tagged it as G4... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Quite right, my apologies; I was responding to a previous tagging for A7 and didn't see your G4 tag. I'm not sure I can close this now it's a AfD, but any admin who sees this, please do go ahead and delete as G4. GoldenRing (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Bucher aircraft tractor

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, just an auxiliary tool. Hardly any independent sources, both in English and German. The Banner talk 20:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Note: this is a second nomination, but I do not know how to add the box with prior AfDs. Usually Twinkle does that for me, but that had a hiccup. The Banner talk 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

KEEP, Vehicles are important enough for wikipedia. Also aircraft tugs /tractors.. This second nomination is just an other "witchhunt" from The Banner against articels I had written. Also he tried to hide this nomination for deletion from me, he had not.FFA P-16 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I have add now some more sources we have a book and also the offical Datashed from the VBS:

Military vehicles database: Bucher FS 10 - Official Swiss Armed Forces website
Markus Hofmann: Fahrzeuge der Schweizer Armee, 2015, ISBN 978-3-033-05038-9.

FFA P-16 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

if you did not see the nomination straight away, sorry. Twinkle was having some hiccups. But it would be nice when you come with independent sources and not with accusations. The Banner talk 22:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, sorry for that one with the Twinkle problem. We have independent sources: This Aircraft tractor was build(manufactured and sold) from Bucher, we have here a source from the VBS (No.1) Military vehicles database: Bucher FS 10 - Official Swiss Armed Forces website the VBS is the goverment and not a Company, we have the Book from Markus Hofmann (No2)Fahrzeuge der Schweizer Armee, 2015, ISBN 978-3-033-05038-9. And we have the online infos about it from a second Bookwriter (for eg. Die Panzer der schweizer Armee von 1920 bis 2008) Urs Heller (No3) Bucher FS 10 - www.militaerfahrzeuge.ch; Swiss Military Vehicles unofficial website. Also the Museum in Full is interpendend.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep regarding the WP:NVEHICLES I cannot see a reason to delete this tow tractor especially since there's apparently no new argument since the first attempt. --MBurch (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is just an essay, no guideline or policy. The Banner talk 13:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America 00:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 00:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America 00:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete very specialised and limited use vehicle which really only needs a mention at Bucher-Guyer or better a List of aircraft ground equipment all of which was suggested at the last AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne also specialised vehicles are notable for wikipedia.. it is not an limited use vehicle, it is used for F5E, F-5F, F/A-18C, F/A-18D, Superpuma, Cougar, Falcon 900, and will be used for the Pilatus PC-24 = most of the Aircraft intype and numbers of the Swiss Air Force. Also it is used to transport Missiles, External Tanks and spare parts on the Tarmac and aircraftcaverns.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION 04:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep It doesn't appear to be outstandingly non-notable. Although WP:NVEHICLES is only an essay, I think it should give weight. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- highly specialised piece of gear; I would have said redirect to Bucher-Guyer or a List of aircraft ground equipment but none exist. Sources are close to primary and / or catalogs of military equipment which do not count towards GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - No reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. Better to create an article on Bucher-Guyer, assuming it can pass GNG. - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable secondary sources: Markus Hofmann: Fahrzeuge der Schweizer Armee, 2015, ISBN 978-3-033-05038-9.

FFA P-16 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

- - Blogs are not reliable secondary sources. - BilCat (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    - Its not a Blog! ISBN Number! A blog has no ISBN. Its a book written by Markus Hofmann name of the Book is "Fahrzeuge der Schweizer Armee", ISBN 978-3-033-05038-9 It has 320 pages, 900 pictures covers the vehicles from 1900 to 2015, Hardcover, Format 240×280 mm, Autor Markus Hofmann, Co-Autoren Max Martin and Christoph Zimmerli.. that is what you can finde about this with this link.

ISBN 978-3-033-05038-9 google the isbn.FFA P-16 (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the link a non-existing ISBN. The Banner talk 18:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Knowledge (XXG) ISN is not complete, that why I had add the link.. But (like you knew perfect) by using google with the ISB you finde this Book and also just use googel with "Fahrzeuge der Schweizer Armee" FFA P-16 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom and as per my arguments in the first AfD. As usual, FFA P-16 claims victimization. He has tried to back up his keep !vote by finding more sources but these reinforce how far the subject actually falls short of the threshold of Notabiity, being passing mentions, database listings etc. YSSYguy (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It is nothing wrong with finding more sources. This is now a source more than in your first AfD. So the situation is because of this more on the keep side. We have some datas in German about it. And, the most important, we have now an interpendend Book, this should be enough weight.FFA P-16 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

With the book being about every vehicle ever used by the Swiss military, I would be very much surprised if any mention of an aircraft tug with total production of less than a hundred will provide the weight that is required. What does it contain, one paragraph? Two? Less? YSSYguy (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well it has 320 pages, 900 pictures, covers the vehicles from 1900 to 2015. Tis aircraft Tug is in bigger numbers in service in the Swiss Military than for eg the Saurer 6DM Firefighting Trucks who are used on the AFB, but It is nor for wikipedia or the book relevant how many vehicles wehre build, even if only one was build it is enoug. Also you have to think of the size of the Swiss Military if you rise the questin about how much about it is in this book,a lot of vehices(types) in the Swiss Military doesent reach the number of 80-70 units. The Bucher aircraft tractor is the most important and most used aircraft Tug of the Swiss Air Force, it is used on every AFB and used with nearly the whole fleet of the Swiss Air Force , F-5E, F-5F, F/A-18C, F/A-18D, Superpuma, Cougar, Falcon900, DHC-6, Be1900 Be350,PC-6, PC-7, PC-12, ..PC-24. How ever to get back to the point today we have an interpendend Book published with an ISBN.FFA P-16 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Once again you fail to answer the question; how much of those 320 pages is about the tug, one paragraph? Two? Less? It is completely irrelevant that it is used for moving nearly the whole inventory of the Swiss Air Force, is there significant coverage in multiple independent sources? Here's another question; how many different vehicles are covered in the book's 320 pages? YSSYguy (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

With all respect, this is now bizarre. Firstly, there is no wikipedia rule which prescribes how many pages in a book are necessary to make it valid for a topic as a reference. A book in which even the 20 GMC K 3500 covers of the Swiss army are listed. We now have an independent reference more than at the last delete discussion. Now you conduct an interrogation me about this book, at the same time it seems completely no matter the MB-2 tow tractor and U-30 Tow Tractor have no reference at all. The reference is given here and such a discrepancy of the reference is not appropriate, you can use googel and you can buy the book, if you want more details.FFA P-16 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a relevant Knowledge (XXG) rule, it is about the existence of significant coverage. If there is significant coverage, then the subject is notable, so it would help your case to demonstrate that there is such significant coverage, instead of repeating all the time "there's a book and it talks about the Bucher aircraft tractor". Nobody is disputing that the book exists (at least not now). Nobody is disputing that it is independent coverage. The question - and it's a very simple one - is, is it significant coverage? Typical obfuscation and "smoke and mirrors" on your part, refusing to answer questions when they are legitimately asked. Curious that you would add a reference without adding any more content to the article - perhaps it is because there is nothing in the book that is not already in the one-paragraph article. Feel free to nominate the MB-2 tow tractor and U-30 Tow Tractor articles for deletion and I will !vote to delete them at AfD; I have already nominated both of them for deletion once (here and here), so it will have to be via AfD discussions for them. YSSYguy (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I definitvil will NOT to nominate the MB-2 tow tractor and U-30 Tow Tractor articles for deletion! I am not one of this people who want ban informations! An I definitv would not vote for deletion if you (or someone other) nominate them again. No your queestion is not legitimately asked. It is only compulsion and harassment. I its so important for you.. Buy the Book!.The discussion of me with you is finished.Bye.FFA P-16 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to buy the book. If you already have this book and it has a lot of detailed information in it, that will prove that the subject is notable, add the information to the article. Once you have demonstrated that there is significant coverage by expanding the article, I will change my !vote to keep. Otherwise, everything you have written here amounts to "it is notable because I say it is and the people who are arguing against my unsubstantiated pronouncement of notability are harassing me". YSSYguy (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. It is obvious that this discussion will not result in consensus to delete. Editors remain free to discuss on the talk page whether to merge in content from the history of David Dao (now deleted and redirected to this article, but this is being contested at WP:DRV), or whether to merge part of this content into a more general article about people being forced off airplanes. Any renomination of this article should occur only after the coverage has died down somewhat and the long-term importance of the incident can be better assessed. Sandstein 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 3411

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

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No. Just... no. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING (and WP:NNEWS in general). This is an incident that has made headlines thanks to a few folks with cell phones and will probably be nonexistent in two months (though my money is a month). Regardless of my personal thoughts on its longevity, it is still TOOSOON to determine if it will have an impact and should be deleted until such time PERSISTENCE has been demonstrated. Primefac (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep just...keep. Keep or merge. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Because...? Primefac (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

front page of NYT and CNN right now, so just keep....just keep or merge cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because it makes the front page doesn't mean we must have it. Take a gander at some of those policies I linked. Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, I'm just expressing an opinion as a guy who's been an editor for a while. It is obvious that you disagree with me. Leave it at that. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - this is for U.S. airlines what the Rodney King tape was for the police. Of course it's notable. Blythwood (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You know this how? Primefac (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Remember, 'notable' is not the same as 'important'. DS (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Keep, of course, since I wrote it. It seems to be of greater significance and is likely to have wider impact than, say, the United_Breaks_Guitars incident. I didn't place it in the main UA page in keeping with convention to have incidents on separate pages. See also WP:RAPID. inks 02:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with you sandboxing this for a few weeks to see if it really does turn into more than a flash-in-the pan headline grabber. Primefac (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the article is more able to develop if people can collaborate outside a single users' sandbox. Why not just re-nominate on AfD after a few weeks? inks 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep or merge. The fact that United (or Republic Airline) broke Code of Federal Regulations (namely, 14 CFR 250.2a) by intentionally bumping fare-paying passengers on non-overbooked flights in exchange for non-revenue crew members makes this a potential court case. C-GAUN (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete I keep an eye on a lot of current events articles, some definitely are notable enough for inclusion here, this definitely is not. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS as there is no chance for sustainable notability. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is a notable event not only in the aviation industry but to the general public as well. United violated Federal regulations by removing a fare-paying passenger from a non-overbooked flight and it may well set a legal precedence, not to mention the CDA officers involved in the incident are now suspended under the suspicion of using excessive force. C-GAUN (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You really ought to set your crystal ball down. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Buddy, this is not exactly the article itself isn't it? No one is predicting anything here. The officer who dragged him is already on administrative leave as of this afternoon. If I were "predicting" things then I would bring up the fact that the guy is Asian and singling him out is a form of discrimination. C-GAUN (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That entire comment contained exactly zero references to policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell ya. In fact, the whole nomination, IMHO, is unnecessary at this point per WP:RAPID. I also find that the issue has been covered by so many sources that it has become "very likely to be notable" under WP:EVENTCRIT. FYI, Chinese media are covering the issue now and the netizens are calling to boycott United. C-GAUN (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The event is barely two days old and you are basing your rationale on rumors and social media reactions. You are what people refer to as a "prisoner of the moment".--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

First off , try to be a bit more WP:CIVIL. Official state media such as the People's Daily or the Global Times have been covering the event since this early morning, and there is an article on the new York Times about it. OTOH, I noticed that you have been warned about this before. Guess old habits die hard. C-GAUN (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep for now, it may become a significant part of United Airline's history. Sleep pilot (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Historical or newsworthy events that take place only once (such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln or the Columbine High School massacre) have to have a significant cultural, international, economic, societal, or governmental impact or be widely regarded as the cause of a notable or historical event. This article clearly doesn't come close to this requirement, and hence I believe it does not need an article on Knowledge (XXG). ~Oshwah~ 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment. (edit conflict) I'm not completely certain what I think about this article and this AFD (this incident is newsworthy but is it notable?) but, if this standalone article is deleted then the next question will become if there is editorial consensus either for or against including any of the content at the main United Airlines article (with the cycle of adding/reverting going on over there at the moment) but I suppose that is a matter to be taken up at that article's talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep or Merge Knowledge (XXG) allows the criticism of companies for notable incidents to appear on Knowledge (XXG). See Knowledge (XXG):An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing Alexf505 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alexf505: The issue is you need to prove that it's actually notable. So far, no one has here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. We're not the news--what is a front page article for a news organization doesn't need to be a standalone article here. So far this hasn't done anything but generate (massive) headlines on social media and in a few news programs, but that this has lasting relevance can't be proven yet. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with DrMies. Knowledge (XXG) is a reference website. Not a news website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge or Keep. I have a slight preference towards merging it under a Controversy section on the United Airlines article. Other airline articles have controversy subbsections, e.g. Qantas. But I can also see this incident and its consequences getting big enough to merit its own article. Am definitely against deletion. Oska (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The following two comments are copied from Talk:United Airlines Flight 3411 where I believe they were misplaced Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep this article -- it is likely to have an impact on future of airline booking policies, especially don't delete too soon as I am sure United is sending people to this page to try to get it deleted. (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep The incident is receiving "significant coverage" by multiple sources and has generated widespread awareness. This meets the general notability standards of wikipedia. Wiki1882 (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge or Keep. Can be merged under Controversy section on the United Airlines article or can be a standalone article. But it shouldn't be deleted.Mingus79 (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Keep. IF removed, what instead? Ignore the incident entirely? A brief mention in the Controversies section? Even in 5 years time, it might still be hard to evaluate the significance of the incident; it may be eventually a turning point for UA, or a turning point may come later after more such incidents TGcoa (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep This incident has gotten big enough internationally to the point of becoming of worldwide scrutiny. Furthermore, if the incident of the San Bernardino North Park Elementary School shooting is able to have a its own page why can't this incident as well? It's quite a controversial move that United Airlines made which has stimulated national discussion regarding the practices of overbooking and the use of force for civil matters. >>Atsuke (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The subject is notable and internationally so. An article about the incident in China alone has more than 100 million views. It is also the second massive PR blunder at United in just a few weeks. Adraeus (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep.In line with the emphasis that Knowledge (XXG) has I feel that there is a duty of care with regards to maintaining this information for future UNITED passengers and making sure that this and events liked it are catalogued in a fair and open way.194.66.32.17 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The story is big enough to deserve an article. It seems to have too much content to merely merge with the main UA article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, re notnews, but rewrite and transwiki to wikinews, then add a link from main UA article to that article.--KTo288 (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Tentative keep, otherwise merge to either UA or overbooking article. This article in its current form is poorly written, enough to trigger this AfD. But I see some parallels to this particular AfD about a tasing incident, and apply an old argument that "WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"". Also considering WP:EVENT as a more up-to-date criteria: The level of coverage is substantial, the list of secondary sources that easily passes WP:V should prima facie suffice: This has turned into an investigation from DOT , suspension (and possibly charges) , a looming lawsuit , and an issue about race and response from a foreign country's population and all things considered prima farcie passes WP:GNG. Going by the airline incident criteria, this incident has a reasonable chance of "(resulting) in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". Also see America West Airlines Flight 556 and nut rage incident where airline incidents in very unusual circumstances makes them sufficiently notable; to be forcibly removed in such a violent manner where the passenger has not posed a threat to safety is "extremely unusual" here . - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Mailer Diablo, thanks for laying out the case--though I am not convinced that this adds up to an independent article. If that were the case then millions of singular events can be split off from what otherwise would be main articles--think of Trump's tweets, for instance, every single one of which can be considered notable if we disregard NOTNEWS. John, I still think we're in "merge" territory here. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  - I gave the article a little work. Let's see if that helps. :) - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - High Controversay. Otherwise, move to Wikinews .--1233 13:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1233 (talk • contribs)
Delete per above or merge somewhere, doesn't pass WP:EVENT for a standalone article too. Brandmeister 13:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - You have got to be fucking kidding me. How much more of a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS can you get? For God's sake.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Consider WP:CIVIL please. Well-reasoned arguments have been made on this page without resorting to profanity. Would you consider striking out your comment and rephrasing? inks 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  - It is hard to be civil when the keep rationales are so preposterous. "Human rights abuse"? "Censorship"? For the love of God.--WaltCip (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    - I'm not sure I follow - those comments by Zigzig20s and Dáibhí Ó Bruadair were made after your "You have got to be fucking kidding me" post, so can't possibly have been a provocation? inks 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
This has a paragraph in its proper context at Overselling#Airlines. Truth be told, even that is probably disproportionate. Delete. —Cryptic 13:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong Delete Per NOTNEWS. One of the more spectacular cases of WP:RECENTISM I have seen in a while. Long term significance is likely to be nil. Clearly fails the Ten Year Test. This is tabloid silliness that has no place in an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong delete This is exactly what NOT#NEWS and NEVENT are advising not to do, rush to create an article just because there's a burst of news. If this is still in the news in any serious manner next week, then maybe there's something, but that's why NEVENT warns not to rush to create articles just on a burst of news but wait until significance in the long-term has been identified. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ per Mailer Diablo. --John (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) On reflection, Merge is a better outcome for now, with no prejudice against recreating in a couple of weeks if warranted. --John (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - turning into a major controversy, United shares plummeting. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete at this point. The primary objection I have to most of the keep arguments here is that they either focus too much on ephemeral news coverage or rely on some future notability. We're not here to include an article based on its future notability, but on its present notability. Maybe this will be demonstrably notable at some point. But it's then that we should have an article, not now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete As previously stated several times above, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Sario528 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment While I stand by my Delete (for now), I think we should wait about a week, to see how it unfolds. Sario528 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. WP:NOTNEWS, although a small section in United Airlines is good. JTP 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm very aligned with you: Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Wykx (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is now a major international story. Here in Ireland this afternoon everybody I meet is talking about it and it's the most read news story on The Irish Times website. It is a double injustice that Knowledge (XXG) would partake in censoring knowledge of this incident. Dáibhí Ó Bruadair (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now at least. Possible human rights abuse? Lots of RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge claims of humans right abuse and censorship are overblown, but this incident has caused enough of a stir that it should at least be mentioned in the United Airlines controversy section. Outright deletion would not be ideal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. No need for an article. This is an encyclopedia not a news rag. Samf4u (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now according to WP:RAPID. Event is covered by diverse sources, the article is already created, and "it is recommended to delay the nomination for deletion for a few days". This is a Knowledge (XXG) rule. Kdn1982 15:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdn1982 (talk • contribs)
Keep We work by 3rd party coverage. This has such coverage, internationally too. It's not about one passenger, it's about the lasting damage to United's reputation. United won't get to live this down in a hurry, there is value in us providing an objective record of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge to United Airlines#Controversy. Prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – Past the point of simply being a "brief" blip in the news. Continues to garner immense media coverage and could very well have lasting impacts. Article is worth keeping at this point. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I understand the NOTNEWS position, because this is not an accident with fatalities or major injuries, and had it not been taped it would probably not have become as big a story as it has become. However, the consequences and controversy the incident has caused is significant, so I agree with the analysis that Mailer diablo has put forward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now. Don't rush to delete articles, I understand the WP:NOTNEWS concerns but this article has already been created, you're not going to get any sort of consensus in the present environment, and we should see how these events play out before doing anything. --haha169 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, Per NOTNEWS - EugεnS¡m¡on 15:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep You can't say now that it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Others have mentioned not to rush to delete articles, and they're right. WP:CRYSTALBALL works both ways - see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Give it a couple months and see what happens. Smartyllama (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

2nd arbitrary section break

Keep this event was widely covered which goes beyond routine news coverage. Also notability is not temporary.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Widespread coverage, United stocks have already fallen, and this event might lead to significant policy changes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep: To simply say that this is "non news" that is simply being posted because of a few people that took videos with cell phones is simply wrong. It's already caused a major plummet in the company's stock, talk of calls for the CEO's resignation and skewering on late night comedy shows. As somebody not far above me said, it works both ways. This should stay for now. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The stock market one or two days after an event is hardly a good barometer for notability. Look for long-term trends rather than instant reactions. The social media does a really good job at over-amplifying the impact an event has within the first few relative minutes of coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, don't go pulling out one element of what I said and trying to use it. So maybe that by itself isn't a good indicator, but in combination with other things, I thing it has merit. And I'm certainly hardly the only one to mention it. In any case, yeah, widespread notability, as so many others have said. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete or redirect/merge to United Airlines]. Yes, it is IN THE NEWS, with lots of coverage, since "If it bleeds, it leads." But no, Knowledge (XXG) is not "News of The Week.." Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Tens of thousands of airline passengers a year do not get to fly due to airlines' overbooking. Others have had to get off the plane, and did so without drama, as did three passengers before the one man refused to comply with orders of the police to get off. There have been lots of other videos of people being dragged screaming off planes. It might deserve inclusion at the United Airlines article, since they apparently botched the process, when they could have seated the 4 employees before boarding the passengers, could have offered more money to get people to surrender their seats, or the police could have used more persuasion or simple strength to remove an elderly man rather than somehow smashing his face into something and dragging him down the aisle, then somehow letting him run back onto the plane several minutes later and removing him a second time. Then there is the tone-deaf post by an airline executive about having to "re-accomodate" passengers. Whatever slight coverage the incident merits would amount to a couple of sentences at United Airlines. It looks silly to have this article with its infobox listing "1 injured, 70 survivors" as if it were a plane crash. Edison (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Widespread coverage, such an event should be kept to help the firms learn to behave themselves better to their customers. DanGong (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG)'s mission is not moral righteousness.--WaltCip (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep, or barring that, merge. The passenger-dragging incident is notable, since it sparked worldwide, probably-lasting outrage and many people are now reading about it. It does not violate WP:NOTNEWS since this doesn't read like a newspaper story or a short-term localized event. We are here to serve readers (of which I am one), not what a few editors think. However, I suggest we move it to another page. epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, looks like the story has gained even more traction today. Changing from "Keep" to "Strongly Keep". epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - for now as meeting WP:GNG. In a month's time, when the dust has settled, then the position can be reviewed and a decision made whether this was simply a transient news event per WP:NOTNEWS or whether there is encyclopaedic value. Deleting now, only for it to be possibly recreated if it turns out there is long-term value, is sub-optimum. Just Chilling (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Does not need an article of its own; can be a footnote in the main United article. This is just another example of a 24-hour news cycle/social-media-fueled outrage pile-on that will be quickly forgotten as soon as the next news cycle/social-media outrage pops up. While it is in the news, its notability will fade in a matter of weeks, if not days. Darkest Tree Talk 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Procedural keep. Whether this falls into the category of NOTNEWS or has a lasting significance remains to be determined, and will largely depend on the follow-up and the media coverage to said follow-up. In the event that the follow-up establishes notability, then obviously there's no benefit to deleting. In the event that there is little or no follow-up and this was simply a 24 hour story that everyone forgets, to keep this discussion running will prejudice the likely future nomination in favour of keep, when in fact the correct decision might be to delete. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This is a hugely notable incident based on the coverage in sources. This is also one of the lowest points in United Airlines history, and possibly in US airline industry in general. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Strongly Keep This is easily one of the worst PR disasters of any business in the last 5 to 10 years. Even more. It could have lasting consequences for a lot of people and keeping this for posterity and reference ensure that Knowledge (XXG) remains not only a "collection of facts" but an engaged and ever-evolving tool in these times.--DGT15 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep The event has created a strong reaction from politicians, tv personalities, and activists. This follows Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. If the Balloon Boy Hoax can get its own Knowledge (XXG) page, so can this. Alexf505 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep this. This will go down in the history as an example of poor management of a crisis situation. Many future students of PR will benefit from this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.56 (talk • contribs)
Keep. This isn't just a news trend that will fade. This is one of the lowest points in United Airlines history. If it must be deleted, all the important information should be transported to the United Airlines page under controversies. Gotta edit 'em all 18:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaorn (talk • contribs)
Keep A lot of the arguments above and poor and not based in policy but overall I have to lean towards keep. Public relations damage and financial implications do appear to be materialising which gives this some lasting significance. WP:NOTNEWS actually states As Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. WP:NOTNEWS discourages "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" - not major controversies. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Weak Keep We still have United Breaks Guitars 168.215.131.150 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I can understand why this was nominated but the story has developed rapidly since that happened. The United CEO who was named "Communicator of the year" by PR Week just a few weeks ago is now being criticized for a PR disaster in using the "re-accomodating" euphemism and is now calling it a "horrific event" and promising changes in procedures. And then we have the outrage in China and accusations of racism. This goes way beyond routine news coverage so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The news is growing with people calling for a boycott and stock dropping. Might be a delete a month from now after the news dies down. Dislike calls for speedy deletion while the topic is hot and growing. Can't be sure where the tip of the mountain is at. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge merge to the UA article. This incident is notable as an illustration of corporate bullying!!--Petebutt (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. If United Breaks Guitars is an article, this should certainly be. Czolgolz (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Adog104 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep for now - seems significant and notable at the moment. AfD it in a month maybe and see if that gets supported? DBaK (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete – Per nomination, its WP:NOTNEWS, and the effects aren't WP:LASTING as of yet. Yes its awful what happened, however overbooking and kicking people off a flight isn't new in the airline industry. Least this could do is to be merged in with United Airlines#Controversies. Adog104 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to History of United Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Nom was for lack of persistence, which may have been the case at that time. However, now, with United Airlines stock dropping $1.4 Billion (), and with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton pushing for a congressional hearing (), this flight is going to affect all of us (and United in particular) for a very long time... -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep or Merge largely per above, I think this event is clearly notable and has attracted a lot of attention, I'm leaning twords a keep rather than a merge, but either one would by far be better than a delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now, this may set some sort of legal precedent in the future. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now; it's too soon to decide whether it falls under WP:NOTNEWS or not. My hunch is that it will have lasting societal impact; e.g. the scandal was brought up at the White House press briefing; see video imbed in this article: "United Airlines CEO sorry for 'horrific' passenger removal", BBC News. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. It's a major PR disaster and has already impacted the company visibly, and will likely result in a high profile lawsuit soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halsey L (talk • contribs) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - it's quite notable. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
KEEP FOREVER - This is absolutely an important article for United Airlines, law enforcement, USA, minority, Asian and Chinese communities, viral videos, etc. If this article is deleted, why don't we also delete all the other articles? The incidence has only been discussed by millions online. Regardless of future impact, if it is not important, notable, and persistent enough for it to be recorded for the sake of history alone, what is? Do we have to wait till billions of people are discussing it? Look at the sheer length of this discussion alone: so many people care enough about it! ] (]) 22:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.178.9 (talk)
Strong Keep This is a pretty major incident in terms of PR, and has the potential to impact the company's reputation, stock prices, and ticket prices for a considerable amount of time after the fact, all of which, if it happens, can then be catalogued on the article. (Iuio (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC))
Delete United Airlines is by far the worst airline I have ever flown with in any terms, but this incident simply does not suffice to be documented in a separate article. Merging this to the controversies section is a good solution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - The backlash and response was notable enough to warrant this article 10x over. Aleccat 22:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for the time being, enough time hasn't passed to determine whether this will or won't be notable, but the public outcry and activity across social media platforms has currently dwarfed most PR nightmares of this nature. --Aabicus (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - This controversy has been escalated into national and international news and has the potential to greatly impact how airlines operate, regulatory and/or legislatively, going forward. Neovu79 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

3rd arbitrary section break

Delete or Merge I feel that what is already included in the United Airlines is plenty of information to support the topic at hand. Just because this recived a lot of media attention dosn't mean an article is needed. An event like this reciving this much contervocy is normal for todays socity. --KDTW Flyer (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite per NOTNEWS and DINC (or merge, whichever action seems more appropriate). While it's definitely TOOSOON right now, the vast number of reliable sources found clearly indicates that this event has already had a major enough impact to warrant notability. However, it still needs to be rewritten to comply with GNG. ToThAc (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Rename. The incident is clearly notable, however, I feel as if there is a disconnect between the article structure and the actual subject. The name and structure of the article uses the template for aircraft incidents. However, this was not an aircraft incident, it was an airline incident. The flight number of the aircraft is irrelevant. The article should be renamed to something along the lines of 2016 United Airlines incident. The general content reminds me of something like The Bus Uncle. Note that the article is largely about the incident itself, and not about the vehicle in which the incident occurred. --NoGhost (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong Delete: - under WP:NOTNEWS. Sufficiently covered under United Airlines. Also article is misnamed (although that's not grounds for deletion). -Drdisque (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong keep as Knowledge (XXG) is indeed a news source. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Policies suggest otherwise. Adog104 00:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- WP:IAR. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  - WP:NOT. I !voted Keep, but this is not a newspaper. epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

- To be clear, however, those policies state "As Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" AusLondonder (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

AusLondonder – Although this is why we have these discussion in AFD's on articles; to see if articles adhere to being either a news report (or even that of original reporting), or an actual event that has lasting effects for the future (WP:N(E)). Adog104 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a borderline case but it does appear there have been some real consequences as a result. AusLondonder (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The Article cites 28 sources. The same argument I already outlined for North Park Elementary School shooting applies here as well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I believe this is a significant event in the history of United Airlines, and the effects have already been outlined as notable. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep (for now), per WP:RAPID. The work (making the article) is done. It may become a noteworthy event, or it might join the leggings incident. Either way, per WP:RAPID, it should be left until such time it is determined what the full impact of the incident is. If, at that time, it qualifies for and is voted to be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, then the paragraph on UA's page will retain the noteworthy information. If it grows into a larger incident (or series of incidents), it may need to be moved to an appropriately titled page (such as a court case, etc). But, as stated, per WP:RAPID, strong keep. 173.227.169.66 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now. When the news fallout is over, we will examine the real, long-term consequences. If this was just a terrible PR incident for United, it may be a good idea to delete this article or perhaps move it to Wikinews, but it certainly merits an addition in the criticism portion of the main article. Otherwise, if it marks long-term troubles for United or a major boycott, this article definitely deserves to be kept. Longbyte1 (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep, but could merge if deleted. Significant outcome from this event, including major financlal loss of revenue to the airline, calls for a boycott, and it has brought “bumping” to the attention of the public in a way that I don’t think has ever happened before. Extensive world-wide coverage in the news media at the moment.--Dmol (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment - ps. If kept, needs to be renamed. --Dmol (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge to the UA main article. This is the exact thing we are not. An article completely sourced to media outlets trying to drum up traffic with no reaL infomation. Embarrassing--Moxy (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Global newsworthiness raising issues of race, police brutality in USA. Fatty wawa (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. A passenger was forced off a domestic flight in the United States. As the nominator indicated, the long term significance of this incident is unclear. Further, airlines have the legal right to remove passengers from their flights. So United's actions are not illegal. A d*ck move for sure, but not illegal. Just a few days ago, a French woman gave birth on a Turkish Airlines flight. This was also "in the news" around the world and covered by many of the same outlets covering this story. My point being, a story appearing in media outlets, does not necessarily make it notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). Great Dessert (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep A notable event, not "routine" news. How enduring its significance will be remains to be seen, but extraordinary nature of the incident--now with multiple investigations and reactions from government agencies and officeholders (and a plenitude of RS)--qualifies for an article, although Merge is also a viable option. Delete seems like an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of policies/guidelines. DonFB (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep seems notable at the moment, maybe after it settles down, a redirect may be more appropriate. Ouseriv (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Highly notable news case. { } 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now due to the enormous amount of views the page is attracting. Until attention on the event dies down, the page should stay up. Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
"'Super Strong Speedy Snow Keep"' one of the most intellectually significant events in all of history. (Vote worth 5 regular votes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B413:E935:789C:CE30:97DD:FAF (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong KeepThe enormous attention this story is getting makes me wonder how anybody would still contest the notability. How many news articles and responses from governments is enough? US congress even considered passing legislation in response, for goodness sake. I don't understand why it is not obvious to so many this article should be kept.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - this is important news event, and the White House responded this event just now.--Shwangtianyuan Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 04:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep, this event has received significant coverage. --AmaryllisGardener 05:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep, huge response here shows level of interest, topic passes the GNG, delete !votes are to be discounted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Any admin who decides to delete this will find it (and themselves) on DRV. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - significant international coverage (e.g. two Israeli sources: ). But more to the point: has anyone actually read WP:NOTNEWS? Nothing there actually supports deletion: there's no original reporting, no "who's who", no diary, and the article is not in news-report style. Rami R 05:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Holy crap this is a lot of comments, and it's still day one. I was originally going to go with a merge, but given that it's too early for a determination and it may keep growing (lawsuits, etc.), I think it does warrant its own article for now, if not for good. ansh 666 05:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Yesterday I would've said delete as this appeared to be nothing more than a social media meme. But this is appearing to be a watershed moment in costumer service in general. There are multiple reliable sources going in-depth into the systemic institutional dysfunctions of United and other companies that allow such PR disasters such as this. And an incident that causes almost a $1 billon market cap drop? Wow. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per all the above. Or drag me kicking and screaming back to AfD in 6 months. Lugnuts 07:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep There is no need to "re-accommodate" this article because it is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Knowledge (XXG) can cover". The policy continues, "As Knowledge (XXG) is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". The topic is already highly notable, having many significant and independent sources. Such notability does not expire and so is only going to grow. Andrew D. (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep for now. As other have said there is absolutely no need for haste. If in a month or two the share prices recover, the controversy dies down, people forget about this and no changes are made then this would be worthy of deletion, for now it does not seem that way. I would note that unlike many other airline controversies this has created public interest in a change of procedure, even if it doesn't actually lead to such it will still be somewhat noteworthy because of that fact. 176.26.30.132 (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 12. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep This story has gathered momentum since the AfD nom, and merits a separate article, at least for now. We can evaluate its longer-term significance in due course. Edwardx (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong keep – This incident has been commented upon by multiple parts of the US government, including the White House and Congress. The incident also has an impact on international relations between the US and multiple Asian countries. The "popular culture"-section, while basically inappropriate, shows that the event is being discussed in creative works. I definitely believe the story has gone past the point where WP:NOTNEWS is relevant. ~Mable (chat) 10:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep - I would say the growing furor and the global impact of this incident make it obvious this article is worthy of inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). The overwhelming trend is keep, so let's end this and focus on the article and related articles. Jus da fax 12:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Wiki not a newspaper, SUSTAINED, RECENTISM, OSHWAH L3X1 (distant write) 12:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

70-16, no including merge votes. I hope the closing admin recently finished memorising WP, or we will be back here in a few months…L3X1 (distant write) 12:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: As mentioned by others, WP:NOTNEWS states "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." (emphasis mine). Presumably, a significant current event is one that meets the WP:EVENT tests; and WP:SUSTAINED defers to WP:EVENT inclusion criteria. User:Mailer_diablo has shown above how this event meets those criteria - even more so now than when they first commented. WP:RECENTISM is not a policy, and so WP:EVENT should take precedence. Finally, the reason this AfD is so fluid is that the initial nomination was made contrary to WP:RAPID. Instead of waiting "a few days" as suggested, the nomination was made two and a half hours after the page was created. inks 13:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is a major international news story, probably costing the company a nine figure sum in losses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Some obvious and legitimate WP:RECENTISM concerns here, but at this point, this story has met pretty much any notability guideline we have. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Since this incident will probably lead to significant changes in policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per WP:RAPID. There are 5 criteria at Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events) and this already meets / could meet all 5 of them. We already have WP:DEPTH, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. I advise waiting to see whether or not this has lasting effects. No deletion for now.VR _talk 14:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. This story just keeps getting bigger, both in the U.S. and China, and it is clear by now that the story has legs and is not going away. Nsk92 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as set out in WP:RAPID. The story certainly has a good chance of meeting Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(events) so we should keep for now at least Danofkent (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)danofkent
Keep Seems to me to meet WP:NEVENT as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Lots of coverage depth, continuing over days, story has legs in many places. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Seems important. Air travel has sunk to unprecedentedly low levels, with this incident illustrative of how bad it is. Passengers are treated really badly by air carriers, of course with exceptions. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep, as this is a topic of concern globally and is an international issue. Corresponding language articles in Cantonese Knowledge (XXG), Chinese Knowledge (XXG), and Korean Knowledge (XXG). Discussed by the White House Press Secretary. Sourced and notable information in the article itself includes: Investigated by the United States Department of Transportation. Governor of New Jersey asked United States Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao to suspend allowing airlines to overbook passengers. United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation joined together in a bipartisan letter to the CEO. Twenty one members of the United States Senate also wrote to the CEO. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton called for hearings in the United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Senators Robert Menendez and Chris Van Hollen called for an investigation. Chicago City Council’s Aviation Committee will hold hearings starting April 13 to investigate the incident. Impacted popular culture debate and parodied by comedians Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien and Ellen DeGeneres. Emirates launched an advertising campaign that parodies United Airline's slogan and Muñoz's previous statements about airlines in the Middle East. Royal Jordanian has also tweeted that “dragging is strictly prohibited.” This is more than the event itself. This has risen to a global, pervasive, international response which triggered multiple invesigations at the local, state, and federal levels of government. This topic is notable, it satisfies WP:NOTE in multiple languages from multiple different countries, and it deserves to remain its own independent article. It should not be deleted. It should not be merged. It should remain its own separate article. It should continue to be expanded and improved. Sagecandor (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as per, effectively, All of the above- the topic has gone from being merely being a 'news' item to a national incident with, it seems, additional international implications. Obviously, many news items are notable by our standards, and this is clearly one of them. — O Fortuna 15:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep This subject is clearly notable because of the widespread coverage and discussion worldwide, judging from the number and types of sources covering it.--Beneficii (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Update - Despite the vigorous debate at hand, the article for David Dao was deleted without keeping the history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep and merge into a proposed Involuntary deboarding article - or at least a section on Overbooking. The incident is currently mentioned in:
1. Contract_of_carriage#Involuntary_deboarding, as well as
2. Overselling#Involuntary_deboarding
I deplore the overlap, and I would like to see some consolidation. This is not an isolated problem, even if it's an extreme example. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Zombie With A Shotgun (web series)

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. See related nomination, Hilton Ariel Ruiz. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - There is some coverage, but most of it seems to stem from a single source: horror-movies.ca, which doesn't seem to be exactly stellar in terms of reliability, and stinks like fan cruft anyway. No prejudice against draftifying if someone wants to make it their baby, or a generous refund in the near future if this starts to get attention that isn't as niche as humanly possible. It may only be slightly too soon, but it's still not soon enough. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Lack of significant coverage in independent WP:RS. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was Speedy delete. The author has since blanked the page and so this falls for speedy deletion under WP:G7. See also Draft:SoccerIraq. GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

SoccerIraq

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

Tommy Syahputra (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Avinash Vazirani

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

The entire first section is a direct lift from http://www.jupiteram.com/en-GB/Individual-investors/About-Jupiter/Investment-teams/Emerging-markets/Avinash-Vazirani (same text is also used word for word or slightly reworded for his profile on other sites), and while he's been quoted in a few articles there doesn't seem to be much actually ABOUT him other than PR pieces or the identical profiles I just mentioned. This seems like both WP:PROMO and a failure to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Organising Committee for the 5th Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games

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

I do not see how the organizing committee of a relatively limited sports competition is notable. They indeed have the head of state as its president, but in Turkmenistan the head of state is a president of everything. One-line mentioning in the article about the games would suffice. Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Case of article snow of a minor event. Not-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, and per WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:FORK as propaganda for his excellency the president. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete The lack of significant independent coverage means WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hostiran

AfDs for this article:

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

no real proof of notability . Ref 1 is just a list, Ref 2 a blog. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 18:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- A7 material & corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete -- spam. --Rhombus (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Almir Badnjevic

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC, and I do not see how he passes WP:GNG, none of the sources conform to our standards. Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete very few academics are notable academics in the first 5 years after getting their PhD and there is no indication that Badnjevic is an exception to this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Google scholar shows that his works are being cited, but not yet at the volume required for WP:PROF#C1. The primary sources used for his founding are neither sufficient for WP:GNG notability nor to support the exaggerated claims of the article ("the biggest scientific event in the last 20 years in Bosnia and Herzegovina"). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

On Wah Chang

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

Fiji-based Chinese trading family that claims some significance but I cannot find any substantial coverage in either GNews, GBooks, GScholar or other freely accessible sources that exceeds a brief mention. Even the source mentioned in the article (Chinese in Fiji) only mentions it in passing. Most other sources are either about Wah Chang or the Wah Chang Corporation, two different subjects. Fails WP:CORP. Regards So Why 08:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom and a pretty huge WP:V fail. As of right now this article is effectively unreferenced. Unless some solid RS citations are added it needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hilton Ariel Ruiz

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. See related nomination, Zombie With A Shotgun (web series). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Non notable subject. I attempted saving the subject on WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NCREATIVE. No luck. This Afd can actually be soft deleted if there are no further comments. Lourdes 15:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Draftify if article creator wishes to save, Delete otherwise. Apparent WP:TOOSOON. Was able to find one more ref but adds up to up-and-coming filmmaker, not a here-and-now one. If they ever do actually become fully risen and no longer coming up to notability, then wonderful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hotel International Golden Sands

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

No evidence of notability, just another WP:MILL hotel Ajf773 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was Keep. SouthernNights (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Rana Ayyub

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

Writer of it page are blocked permanently. It was the stocking work by them. This lady is not fall in Knowledge (XXG):Notability. It is also under WP:GRAPEVINE because firstpost.com is not news channel or news company. They are writing views and topic on their own interest. Most of political articles are one sided. So please remove this article. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep? ... Speedy keep? - I'm not sure if there's a deletion rationale in there or not, but not only does the person appear to be easily notable, their book on it's own appears to be notable too. I really don't know one way or the other what the reliability of firstpost.com is but there seems to be a few thousands of alternatives available if the article needs better sourcing. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: I couldn't understand your point. You want to keep this article or not? NehalDaveND (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the subject is notable. For example: Huffington Post, The Wire, BBC. News search alone returns about 16,000 sources. TimothyJosephWood 17:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Snow keep as the subject (and the books she has authored) has been covered extensively by the Indian media. I feel that this nomination has not been done in good faith, since the nominator seems to have a bias against Ayyub and FirstPost (I'm not even sure how FirstPost is relevant to the article). The nominator should read WP:GNG properly before making frivolous AfD requests like this. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Rana Ayyub was in the news (2011 2013 2014 2015) even before she authored and published the much talked about Gujarat Files in 2016 (The Hindu Hindustan Times Business Standard The Times of India Frontline The Telegraph Mint Deccan Chronicle Huffington Post Elle). Then in 2017, well, she is a celebrity (Femina NDTV Khaleej Times). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Keep The subject is notable journalist, a regular columnist and panelist. ChunnuBhai (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment firstpost.com is a reliable news source. ChunnuBhai (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Strongly Keep This article is about a notable female author and investigative journalist. Her one of the stories has been considered amongst The 20 Greatest Magazine Stories. Considering this, keeping of this article is strongly suggested. Xscontrib (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Obviously notable. Reliably sources.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Passes GNG for coverage in reliable sources as shown by Biwom and by what is in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per the above. Mar4d (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Array DVD magazine

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

I found no significant coverage and the owner is up for deletion here - Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Phil D. Foster. SL93 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - This is so thoroughly non-notable that honestly I can't really tell if it ever existed at all. TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as TJW said above, definitely not notable. I'm kind of surprised somebody didn't speedy it. White Arabian Filly 21:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Moosa Saleem

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individuals.No ref. convinces me of notability. Winged Blades 12:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Fairy chess pieces#Notable examples. The arguments for notability aren't convincing, unlike the arguments that the sourcing is inadequate to demonstrate notability. Since there is a plausible redirect target, I've decided to redirect rather than delete outright. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 00:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Huygens (chess piece)

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

The article is about a "fairy chess piece" used by some players in variant chess games. For this particular piece, the name is a recent neologism, and evidence of its use and notability is limited to a couple of forum discussion threads. I believe that no proper secondary sources exist, but even if they do notability seems extremely doubtful. JBL (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I did a google search of the Huygens (as a chess piece) and found significantly more material showing notability than there is for several other chess pieces that have their own article. I'll make a brief summary tomorrow to show what can be found easily (and maybe a proposal to create a uniform guideline so that all chess pieces can be judged in the same way). Thanks for now.—LithiumFlash (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I left some comments at the Talk page of the huygens: Talk:Huygens (chess piece)—LithiumFlash (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Somehow, you extract WP:RSs from this?? On what planet? --IHTS (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

LithiumFlash made an WP:OTHERSTUFF-type comment, and I had volunteered to consider proposing other fairy chess piece articles for deletion. I do not think the comment there is an attempt to establish the existence of reliable sources for this article. --JBL (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. This appears to be a recent invention which hasn't been taken up by much of anyone else significant. The other fairy chess piece articles JBL has tagged have more of a real existence in the fairy chess literature (which alas has a very spotty presence on the internet; Ihardlythinkso probably has more access to it, so I've asked him). Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I did a quick survey concerning the huygens chess piece, and some other chess pieces that have their own pages on Knowledge (XXG) (as a comparison or reference). Here is a quick summary:

Camel (chess) (article is a stub)

YouTube video "DIY Variant Chess pieces" (2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1IGx6KLMPU

Mentioned at chess.com: "If chess had a new piece it would be the camel"

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/if-chess-had-a-new-piece

(Nothing else found)

Centaur (chess) - appears to be a new article (4/5)

listed in Piececlopedia: (N+K)

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/centaur.html

(Nothing else found)

Giraffe (chess):

listed in Piececlopedia:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/giraffe.html

listed in Mayhematics: "Giraffe is {1,4} leaper. Zurafa"

https://www.mayhematics.com/v/gm.htm

Pinterest - (2 drawings of a giraffe chess piece):

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/292734044507697828/

(Nothing else found)

Kirin (chess) (article is a stub):

A piece with the same move is listed here, but is called "FD" (does not say Kirin)

http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/pieces/fd.html

The kirin and more than 200 similar pieces are used in Shogi (a Japanese game similar to chess) and some of its variants. So if the kirin is notable then so are the 200 other pieces.

(Nothing else found)

Phoenix (chess) (article is a stub):

A piece with the same move is listed here, but is called "WA" (does not say Phoenix)

http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/pieces/wa.html

The Phoenix (hōō) and more than 200 similar pieces are used in Shogi (a Japanese game similar to chess) and some of its variants. (In Japan it is not called the Phoenix). If the Phoenix is notable then so are the 200 other pieces.

(Nothing else found)

Threeleaper (this article is a stub).

(Nothing found)

Tripper (chess) (this article is a stub):

This is a piece that jumps (3,3) and Tripper is a generic name. (found in tables for example).

I only saw it mentioned in a book "Chess variants, Editor: By Wikipedians" so I believe it is a mirror of Knowledge (XXG) information (not an independent resource).

(Nothing else found)

Zebra (chess):

listed in the CVP Piececlopedia:

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/zebra.html

I found it also proposed as a chess piece, but with a move that doesn't match the Knowledge (XXG) article (1/2014):

https://blinchiki.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/new-chess-piece-the-zebra/

(Nothing else found)

Huygens (chess piece):

At the CVP website as a defined piece:

http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/trappist-1

used in games at chess.com, and discussed on matters such as its point value (for example):

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/chess-on-an-infinite-plane-huygens-option

Shown in some type of art showing a chess piece in outer space:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147202588@N02/33215445815

Other art with the huygens (comparing to a camel?):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/147202588@N02/32468003134/in/photostream/

My suggestion is either (KEEP ALL), or (Delete the kirin and phoenix, but keep all others). The kirin and phoenix are by far the least most-noatable, and seem only to be transpositions of game pieces used in Chu shogi and other Shogi-type games, of which no single piece may have enough significance to merit its own page for a Knowledge (XXG) article.

The subject in question is gamepieces. These articles would probably be classified as articles of low importance (irrespective of notability). Reasonable people can have widely different opinions on the notability of the class of articles as a whole, or on the individual articles. But if we don't get it exactly right, the impact to Knowledge (XXG)'s purpose will be minimal.

Understanding that Knowledge (XXG)'s purpose is indeed to "be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written," it is my opinion that the article for the huygens chess piece in particular, and all the chess pieces in the list above remain is individual page articles in Knowledge (XXG).—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. The trappist-1 game (article) added to CVP 28 Feb 2017 by V. Reinhart (chess enthusiast) incorporating huygens fairy piece, doesn't meet WP:Notability requirement for stand-alone article. The chess.com and flickr online finds are not WP:RSs. --IHTS (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

p.s. The camel, zebra, and giraffe are all classic fairy pieces w/ rich histories in fairy literatures. I'll comment re the others elsewhere. --IHTS (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Fairy chess pieces#Notable examples where it is already listed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. The citations listed above show the Huygens chess piece is notable. Also a review of all variant chess piece articles easily confirms that the Huygens is right in the middle of the scale of notability (with pieces such as the Kirin and Phoenix being the least notable, and the Mann the most notable).

In this evaluation, we need to remember that notabity is distinct from history. Some chess pieces do have a longer history, whereas the Huygens was introduced more recently. The citations (listed above) show that the Huygens is specified in games, it is used by games players, it is discussed by mathemeticians, and it is mentioned and used by others (artists and so forth).

Some newer usages from the math community also include (in addition to those listed above):

http://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/73850

http://jdh.hamkins.org/a-position-in-infinite-chess-with-game-value-omega-to-the-4/

—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect. to the general article. I do not see the point of articles on those without either historical significance or really widespread use--they are otherwise best explained in a combination article. According to WP:N, that's a good course of action in such pieces, whether or not they technically meet the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Negar Mandegar

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. Only references are the subjects own social media pages. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Ariana TV interviewed her, but I couldn't find any piece of independent media coverage. Even searching for her on Ariana TV's English-language website did not yield any results. Huon (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Beepity

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

The company has just opened, so no chance to establish notability. No reliable independent sources to indicate otherwise. Fails WP:CORP. Contested speedy delete. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: An article on a firm with four employees which is in its first month of operation. The article contains no claim to notability and lacks any sources. Nor are my searches identifying anything to remedy this. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: I feel that this is an A7 candidate, and have tagged it as such. I know that the user has removed tags on this before, but that is the role for an administrator. If they want to contest, they can press the big blue button - not just remove the tag. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The speedy delete tag was not removed by the article creator, but by a different editor, which is permissible under Knowledge (XXG) rules. I don't think a speedy delete tag can be re-added when it has been legitimately removed. WWGB (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops - didn't see that it was 2 separate people. Thanks for the clarity - but nevertheless, I feel this is speedy worthy. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 14:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vardaraj Shetty

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

seems to be copied word-for-word from Draft:V.M._(Raj)_Shetty, which was declined. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Inga Abel

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

This article has one source, IMDb, which is neither reliable nor a show of notability. I looked for other sources with google search and found nothing. The German wikipedia article has one source, the English-language IMDb entry. No one has identified any German-language sources on Abel. This comes no where near meeting the general notability guidelines. From my reading of the article there is one notable production Abel was involved in, although I can't say for sure he role there was notable, so there is no indication she was actually a notable actress. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment On Futher review the one identified role was in a sopa opera and does not look to have been significant, but even if it was it would not be enough to show Abel was a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep IMDB can be replaced with other sources. As an actress she was "notable" enaugh to make a national inpact in the leadup to her death and her demise. Abendblatt, Spiegel Online, rp-online. Agathoclea (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - agree with Agathocleal, notable actress. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I'm afraid Johnpacklambert has been confronted with Google's recognized failure to turn up foreign language sources when the search is made in English. She was obviously considered to be notable in Germany.--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per Ipigott. Lepricavark (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as per Ipigott. One trick, btw, for foreign-language searches that sometimes works is looking at the Google Image results. Click on a few and see if the images link to a foreign-language news source. Often they will. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sudip Mukherjee

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

Not a notable programmer and article reads like WP:RESUME. Redhat101 Talk 05:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I can't find anything other than the blogs used to reference the article Spiderone 11:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as there is no evidence that this person passes WP:GNG. Though LWN.net can be considered as a reliable source for news related to the Linux kernel, the coverage on the subject in LWN seems to be restricted to passing mentions, which is not good enough for WP:GNG. Other sources are WP:USERG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy McGrath

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

Subject is a journalist who lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. There are seven references listed in the article. but they are not references at all, but rather assertions. I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources in my own searches. Whpq (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete a derth of 3rd party sources that cover him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Semra Eren-Nijhar

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

Not clear that this article meets our notability requirements. The sources cited here only mention Eren-Nijhar in passing. She doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC either. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sheru Classic

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

Non-notable sports competition. Violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | 02:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Archaeological Recording Kit

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous nomination in 2010 closed as no consensus after one participant provided a list of "sources" that were little more than routine mentions of archaeology programs using the kit. Notability has not been established either under WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Sources clearly indicate that it exists, but there are no in-depth reviews or discussions to be found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Here is an entire chapter of an academic book on digital archaeology dedicated to this software SJK (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note that the author of that chapter is one of the developers of the software ; they've published quite a lot of academic papers on it over the years. – Joe (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  - Okay, I didn't realise the author was one of the developers. That said, if you look at their publications page, a number of them are by folks who aren't identified as developers on their team page. Consider for example – as far as I can tell the author of that book chapter is not an ARK developer (the author is a senior lecturer at the University of Glasgow). So, even if you think papers by their developers should be discounted, I think there is enough published by other people to make it notable. (I think the logic of excluding non-independent sources is they may be unreliable; when the source is published in a book by a reputable academic publisher, or in a reputable journal, or as a conference paper at a reputable conference, the review processes inherent in that mitigate a lot of the potential for unreliability, so I think we should be more open to accepting non-independent sources when they take the form of reputable academic papers.) SJK (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    - (edit conflict) I agree, I just thought it was something to bear in mind. Even the papers by the developers, though not fully independent, were published in independent peer-reviewed sources, so I don't think they should be fully discounted. And if you take together the papers by the developers, papers by loosely associated projects that use ARK , and general papers on digital recording in archaeology (I think you'd struggle to find one published in the last 10 years that didn't reference ARK) , there's a pretty substantial amount of coverage. I feel a little too close to the subject to !vote on it though. – Joe (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hung Quoc Nguyen

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

WP:BLP, written far too much like a bullet-pointed résumé and not nearly enough like an encyclopedia article, of a person notable primarily for serving on committees and running but not winning as a political candidate. This is, further, based predominantly on primary sources rather than reliable ones -- and the relatively few sources that are genuinely reliable ones are not substantively about him, but generally just include him giving soundbite in an article about something else. As always, that is not the kind of sourcing that gets a person over WP:GNG if he doesn't have an automatic pass of any SNG; he needs to be substantively the subject of media coverage, not just namechecked within coverage of other things, to clear the GNG bar. Also probable conflict of interest, as the article was created by User:Hnguyen140. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable person with a basically resume article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Singing in the Abbey

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

Local musical quartet without national tour, national record contract, hit on musical rotations, or national press coverage. Fails WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete They seem like a talented group from the videos which are available, but talent does not equal notability. Fails WP:BAND. Edison (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | 02:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vök

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

Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. IP removed PROD so bringing to AfD. -- Dane 03:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep This is one of those occasions where a band I've heard of comes up at AFD, so I can offer some information. Despite being Icelandic and producing a lot of material in the language, Vök have broadly received coverage via English-speaking titles. That coverage has, in my view, been regular enough to qualify them for an article. Coverage includes a premiere at Noisey (Vice), two premieres at Stereogum and The New York Times. There's also lots of smaller mentions whenever Icelandic music comes up at certain titles, and they've been one of the main bands at Iceland Airwaves festival, covered by lots of reliable titles, like The Guardian. An understanding of Icelandic might help to establish whether they've had a major segment on Icelandic radio, which I would fully assume they have, but can't verify. There isn't a massive amount of coverage but I think there's enough to confirm that this band are notable. KaisaL (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 17:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Pierre Jerksten

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

Fails WP:BIO and the article was de-PRODded by its creator. Bri (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG based on offline sourcing in Swedish newspapers. He's been covered in substantial manners in Göteborgs-Posten, for instance. For a Swedish musician, one must check Swedish sources, of course. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was merge to East Surrey Hospital. – Juliancolton | 02:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Radio Redhill

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

Book and news searches show nothing to meet the criteria at WP:ORGCRITE namely "A company, corporation, organisation, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organisation". No sourcing can be found to demonstrate meeting of WP:ORGDEPTH either. AusLondonder (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge to East Surrey Hospital. Radio stations are subject to WP:NMEDIA, where the only requirements for notability are that the station is duly licensed and originates at least some of its own programming — but even those requirements do have to be reliably sourced, and aren't passed just because they're unsourcedly claimed. They don't have to be ORGDEPTHed beyond local sourcing, because almost no radio station in existence could ever actually pull that off — but they do have to be sourced somewhere beyond just the OFCOM license itself. That said, NMEDIA also specifies that if a radio station is deemed non-notable but the company or organization that operates it has an article, then the radio station should always remain in place as a redirect to that parent article. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was merge to USS Long Beach (CGN-9). Mz7 (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Long Beach-class cruiser

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

No point in having an article on a one-ship class, given that the ship itself has a article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge the first paragraph and redirect to the ship. The redirect is useful for the template of USN cruiser classes at the bottom. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge per Clarityfiend. Longstanding practice is no ship class for unique warships (there are some exceptions, but this isn't one of them). Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge Its what we did with the Enterprise-class, so it'll work here too. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge per Clarityfiend. We should have a page for every class, no matter how small.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge per Clarityfiend's suggested guideline above. Kierzek (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge per Clarityfiend. No reason for a separate article about the class when it contains just the one ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Lactococcus lactis. – Juliancolton | 02:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

ActoGeniX

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

Promotional article for pharmaceutical company. Multiple use of trademarks. No approved products. Various medical claims are made based upon individual journalarticles, that do not meet MEDRS standards. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note

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

- - I have bundled ActoBiotics with this. Created by same editor, equally as non-notable and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that on 17 April 2017 ActoBiotics was added to this nomination page and the AfD template was added atop that article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 03:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

note that this company doesn't exist anymore - nobody cared after the spammer did their thing. was acquired in 2015 Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Lactococcus lactis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

yes, that makes sense to me also. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This proposed therapeutic agent is only in phase 1 trials in humans. Not worthy of an article. May not pan out. If it does, then later a mention in a more general article on oral bio-pharmaceuticals in general or the Lactococcus article might be appropriate. JuanTamad (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Villages of Winding Creek

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

This article is about a housing subdivision under development. The article was created in 2009 and has had no subsequent updates. Fails Notability. Jb45424 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | 02:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Gutsche

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

This article should be deleted because

1. the article is blatantly self-promotional and I see no way of salvaging it (WP:PROMOTION):

Some of the references link to copies of articles archived on the subject's own website. I have been unable to independently verify them. The other links are broken entirely.
The article claims that one of the subject's books was a "New York Times Best Seller"; I have been unable to independently verify this. Internet searches show the only mention of this best seller status come from the subject himself, and none whatsoever from the New York Times website. I went through the New York Times Non-Fiction best seller lists for 2015 and found no mention of the subject. This appears to be an attempt to deceive.
There is evidence of sock-puppetry in the edit history. First, the article was created by an unregistered user. Then take a look at the user contributions of User:Heather-2004; all the edits are to articles for people of similarly dubious notability. It is at least possible that this account is being operated by a business that is selling promotional services and abusing Knowledge (XXG) to do so. Similarly, the user Voloum seems to have a strange preoccupation with people's degree qualifications and almae matres. I suppose other possibilities exist, but this evidence is suspicious.
There have been repeated edits to curtail excessively promotional language and the article has been tagged as advertising since the subject's last book was published in 2015. I think contributors have been given enough time to fix this.

2. the subject does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria (WP:NOTABILITY):

The secondary sources cited in the article are merely news stories in which the subject is quoted, not news stories about the subject. The fact of being a published author is not automatically evidence of notability.

In summary, this individual looks like a person who has used his considerable resources to purchase positive coverage. All the evidence obtainable with diligent research shows his only possible source of notability is his business; there is nothing obviously exceptional about it and there is no coverage from reputable, independent secondary sources that would suggest it is noteworthy. There are millions of people who run successful businesses but don't merit their own Knowledge (XXG) article.

It's not a secret that articles like this are a problem for Knowledge (XXG), and they do real harm to Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility. The best response we have is decisive and prompt deletion. Rhombus (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Response I have dramatically updated the article to fix the promotional tone, HOWEVER, this user does absolutely meet the notability criteria. I have provided updates in the article, including more recent awards and citations. In short, the article appeared to be significantly outdated and links to items, such as the New York Times Bestseller list, had moved. Updated links have been provided.

In response to the specific points:

1. Promotional tone has been removed

Links have been updated
The book was on the New York Times Bestseller list for a week in March ("Advice How-To" section) and the entire month of April ("Business" category)

2. In terms of notability, more details and awards have been added. But Gutsche does meet the criteria:

AS AN AUTHOR:

- New York Times Bestseller, double author
- Axiom International Book Award, Gold Medal
- Graduate of the Last Decade, U of C

AS AN ENTREPRENEUR:

- Founded the world's #1 trend website with 3 billion pageviews from 150,000,000 viewers and 500 brand clients (lego, Disney, Nasa, Red Bull, Adidas). Trend Hunter is legendary in the trend and innovation world. The pioneer, first and only company using big data and crowdsourcing
- Canadian Young Entrepreneur Award
- Cisco Innovation Award
- CIX Innovation Award, Pixel Award, A'Design Award, etc.

AS A KEYNOTE SPEAKER

- the #1 most watched Innovation Keynote video on Youtube with 7,000,000 views (plus videos with 2,500,000 views and 1,000,000 views), though I didn't put this in because I couldn't find a citation other than the one on his website. I did seach on youtube to verify though. - 500 keynotes to 400,000 people means he is well known in the field of innovation and creativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashionspy (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC) — Fashionspy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 03:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Hi there, Fashionspy! Thanks for your contributions. Here are my comments:

You may have misunderstood Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. The links you provided are to news stories in which the subject was quoted, not stories in which he was the subject of the article. Merely being quoted is not evidence of notability. The articles you mention are not significant coverage of the subject himself.

Thank you for linking to the entry in the NYT bestseller list. However, having a New York Times bestseller is not in and of itself evidence of notability. One problem is that the book appears on the list only in that week (April 5th, 2015) and is marked with a dagger, indicating that the publisher has received bulk orders. This is often done to artificially boost sales numbers and push a book onto the best seller list. The fact that the book disappears the following week and never reappears is suspicious and suggestive of paid marketing.

Regarding Mr. Gutsche's awards: for an award to be significant and evidence of notability, it must come from a independent and neutral party, and usually we expect that the awarding body be notable in itself.

The Axiom International Book Award Gold Medal to which you refer is awarded by Jenkins Group (http://www.jenkinsgroupinc.com/) a custom book publishing and marketing firm based in Michigan. Jenkins promotes books for pay and the awards are issued only to its clients, so it cannot be considered a neutral party.
You mention the A'Design Award. Do you know that this is a pay-to-compete award? Nominees must pay a fee to participate. On the A'Design Award website (https://competition.adesignaward.com/entryinstructions.html) it says: It is very simple, you just need to 1. Create an account for free, create an account right now. 2. Upload your design for free and get a free Preliminary Score, send your designs today. You will get a Preliminary Score (PS) between 0 (worst) to 10 (best) within a few days, but before you could get a preliminary score, your presentation should be complete and correct - get design presentation guidelines to maximize your score, and we will send you emails to make sure your presentation is correct, we will ask you to make changes if necessary. 3a. If you get a High Preliminary Score (PS>=6) it means your design is likely to be announced as a winner, we advise you to pay the nomination fee and Nominate Your Entry for award consideration, 3b. If you get a Low Preliminary Score (PS<=5), we advise you not to pay the Nomination Fee until you make improvements to your design and its presentation. Learn more about Preliminary Score here. 4. Wait for Design Award Results. 5. Get A' Design Prize and Enjoy Benefits of Winning the A' Design Prize. Pay-to-compete awards are not neutral and cannot be treated as evidence of notability.
The Cisco Innovation Award is a promotional award issued by Cisco Systems.
You mention the Pixel Award for Best Online Magazine, but provided no link, so I could not verify it.
I could not verify the CIX award, as the link to CIX is broken.

Do you know the subject of the article personally? Knowledge (XXG) has stringent guidelines regarding conflicts-of-interest and paid writing. If you know the subject personally or have been paid to edit the article, you should disclose this.--Rhombus (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete an overly promotional article lacking clear showing of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that Fashionspy was the creator of this article 9 years ago and has regularly revisited this article but has made no other contributions. Rayman60 (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rhombus (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rhombus (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- excessively promotional piece on an unremarkable entrepreneur & "keynote speaker". Knowledge (XXG) is not a speaking gig prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete I have to concur with K.e.coffman on this one. At least, I can't find evidence of substantive sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Aaron Duncan

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, whose only discernible claim of notability, apart from the vague and unquantified bumf about being known AROUND THE WORLD!, is winning a local music competition for children. This is not an automatic NMUSIC pass, however -- if he were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, then it might count for something, but it's not a prominent enough award to hand him an exemption from having to be sourced significantly better than this is. As well, he's just 13 years old, but because of the potential for a Knowledge (XXG) article to cause harm through cyberbullying or invasion of privacy, we have a rule that we have to be especially strict about the notability of minors -- and, for added conflict of interest bonus, the creator's username matches the name of the subject's mother. No prejudice against recreation if and when he can actually be reliably sourced as passing NMUSIC for something, but this isn't enough and mama doesn't get to put him here herself. Bearcat (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete not many people are notable musicians when they are 14 and Duncan is not one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC. The creator seems to have a WP:COI Wapunguissa (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Not notable; merely using Knowledge (XXG) for promotional purposes. MartinJones (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Janki Bodiwala

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

She has worked in only one notable film. Beyond one film she hasn't done any notable work in films or advertising. Does not meet criteria of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Coderzombie (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete one notable film is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Shawn K. Centers

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

Fails general notability (WP:GNG), largely or wholly based on non-reliable sources (WP:RS) that are not independent from the subject (WP:IS). 4 other important issues with the page, including a possible POV issue with the creator (WP:COI, similar to the non-independence of the sources used), have not been dealt with since its creation in October 2013. Since this is a BLP article, for which extra care should be taken, this state of affairs cannot continue. Looks like deleting it altogether is the best solution here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- marginal notability (if any) & poorly written & sourced BLP. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Susan Carpenter-McMillan

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Former lawyer of a notable person, but notability is not inherited. Kurykh (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Syed Rifat Mahmood

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - bio on living person relying on a single source. Better be deleted.--Saqib (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get articles just for being candidates, but are notable enough for articles only if either (a) they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of their candidacy, or (b) they can be sourced to an extremely broad degree of coverage that shows their candidacy as significantly more notable than the norm for some reason (i.e. the Christine O'Donnell scenario.) But this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability, and cites no reliable sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was Move to draft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a television series which has been announced as being in development, but not yet formally confirmed as airing. As always, the problem here is that a lot of television series ideas enter the production pipeline but then fail for one reason or another to ever come out the other end as a completed or distributed television series -- so WP:NMEDIA does not grant an upcoming television series a presumption of notability on production announcements alone; it requires us to wait until we know a firm premiere date. No prejudice against recreation once that condition has been met, but television series don't get advance articles just for being in the pipeline, and this does not inherit a special exemption from that requirement just because it's a reboot of an older franchise, especially when its only reference is its producers' own self-published press release. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Move to draft space to incubate until such time as notability is achieved. Note that drafts are automatically deleted after a certain period of inactivity. bd2412 T 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Move to draft as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was Move to draft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Muppet Babies (2018 TV series)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a television series which has been announced as being in development, but not yet formally confirmed as airing. As always, the problem here is that a lot of television series ideas enter the production pipeline but then fail for one reason or another to ever come out the other end as a completed or distributed television series -- so WP:NMEDIA does not grant an upcoming television series a presumption of notability on production announcements alone; it requires us to wait until we know a firm premiere date. No prejudice against recreation once that condition has been met, but television series don't get advance articles just for being in the pipeline, and this does not inherit a special exemption from that requirement just because it's a reboot of a series from 30 years ago. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Move to draft space to incubate until such time as notability is achieved. Note that drafts are automatically deleted after a certain period of inactivity. bd2412 T 02:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above. This article is best suited as a draft for now, and can be launched once the TV series has been broadcast and gains enough notoriety to deserve an article based on its own merits. Clawsyclaw (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Move to draft space per WP:TOOSOON. Until the reboot is confirmed to be airing, the 'Reboot' section on the Muppet Babies article should be enough. RightFoalPowerWire (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Points per minute

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

This is a real thing, but I can't find any coverage about it specifically. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe's Murder Mystery Dinner Party

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

Article about a web series with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMEDIA, and no valid reliable source coverage to support it. This is referenced to just three sources -- its IMDb page, its own primary source content about itself, and a genre fandom blog -- of which exactly zero count for anything toward passage of WP:GNG. As always, Knowledge (XXG) is not a free advertising platform for web content -- reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. User: BearCat is entirely correct. Article does not Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for notability. Knox490 (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | 02:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Modi ministry

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

Adds no extra information which is not already covered in Union_Council_of_Ministers#Current_Union_Council_of_Ministers. Neither is "Modi ministry" a colloquial term used in India. This is just an extra article created after 2014 victory of Narendra Modi ChunnuBhai (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Union council of Ministers is only for current council, while Modi ministry is for Modi's first council. Further we have such pages for Indira Gandhi, Vajpayee and other leaders as well. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Here in much-smaller (by population) Canada we have a raft of such articles at Template:Canadian ministries. I don't understand why India wouldn't have an article for each, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Standard practice to have articles on each individual government. If "Modi ministry" isn't an appropriate title, then renaming the article is the answer. See Thirty-fourth government of Israel as one potential solution to be copied. Number 5 7 09:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Duplication by itself isn't a valid reason to delete something. Echoing the three previous commentators, India (see this category, this list or this template) isn't alone in having articles on individual ministries. This category contains links to even more historical and current governments around the world. Not every article takes its official name - sometimes, for the sake of convenience, it is easier to compile articles with descriptive titles. Here we have an Indian government, led by Narendra Modi, hence the "Modi ministry". Any guesses at what the previous government was called? Consider asking Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Politics if you have an issue with the general direction of these articles. Fuebaey (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In addendum, the duplication in both articles are two tables made by RGloucester back in December 2014. The current ministry article has general information about Indian governments, whereas Modi's one has additional information about his government. Fuebaey (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That chart template, which I made, was created to ensure that the two articles were consistent in content. It is standard practice to list the current ministry at the article describing the institution, but also at a separate article on that specific ministry, so that when the government is no longer current, the information is preserved. At the time I created the template, the two articles' content was not co-ordinated, meaning that the ministry article and the article on the institution itself were not in agreement with each other. The template allows changes in the ministry to be updated, easily transmitting the updates to the two articles to ensure that there is no discrepancy. When the Modi ministry is no longer current, that template will be removed from the institution article, and presumably replaced with a new one. By the way, the terminology 'Modi ministry' is very common. See, for instance, this article found in the Hindustan Times, or indeed, this Google News search. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep This is something any credible encyclopedia should cover. The Union Council of Ministers article is always up-to-date with the current Ministry while these articles can show readers the previous Ministries. This is clearly a notable topic. AusLondonder (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy keep duplication isn't a ground for deletion. The article meets Knowledge (XXG) policies and the grounds for deletion is invalid. As for duplication, there exists similar articles for a many previous governments. If a deletion discussion is to take place, all these well established articles will also be affected. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sequester (web series)

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

Article about a web series, referenced almost entirely to its own self-published content about itself (Twitter and/or main website) with no evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media shown at all. The only non-primary source here is its Alexa.com ranking, which is not valid support for notability: no number of online viewers or Twitter followers hands the clickee an exemption from having to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. User: Bearcat is right. Article does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for notability, Game show has only about 12,000 Twitter followers which positively correlates with non-notability in my estimation for a game show, but does not establish non-notability. Knox490 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Panev

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete A non-notable hockey player. For the record this seems to be a different Alexander Panev than the one whose article was previously deleted. That player was described as "still a child" in 2011, and since this Panev was born in 1970, that description would have last worked in 1990 at the latest, over 10 years before Knowledge (XXG) began.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted history it is indeed a different player who was born in 1990. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 07:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Jerramie Domish

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable article from a creator who it appears was on a mission to promote the Coventry Blaze.18abruce (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, players like Jerramie used to meet NHOCKEY as the league used to be considered a top professional league for NHOCKEY so its not that out of wack that it got created. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete This clearly fails notability. To Djsasso's note, perhaps the English league in question may have passed muster, but I would never have considered them as top tier. I think given the state of UK ice hockey, one must rely on national team inclusion to reach top tier status, even though he raises a valid point. I think that the 'back door' to notability here would be if the drug issue became a noteworthy issue. Thankfully, to date. that's also a fail. Bill McKenna (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Brandon Stones

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:N and WP:NHOCKEY. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mitch Morgan (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 07:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 01:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun Ki baat

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A google search for "Fun Ki baat" yielded one result from the times of india, but the subject appears to be a different programme. Mduvekot (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Did not find anything in the article indicating it met Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for notability. User:Mduvekot did not find anything in search results which also points the subject matter not being notable. Knox490 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Any editor is free to re-create this as a redirect if desired. – Juliancolton | 02:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Khaplam wai

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

The one source is dead. Online results are mirrors. I honestly can't confirm that the subject even exists. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I see a single book mention in passing; this is either incorrectly transliterated or, well, non-notable. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I couldn't find any information on this topic also. Snipe hunt? Knox490 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Mor lam. It does exist, book source, but does not look like enough to justify a separate article. ValarianB (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Charmed characters. – Juliancolton | 02:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy Trudeau

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

Even though this character was a primary/featured character on a major show, I could not locate enough information to support that he has received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE, and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability and all references to this appear to be limited to plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Charmed characters, where he is already included. Like the nominator stated, there is really little in the way of reliable sources discussing the character; searches just bring up the usual fansites and wikis, but nothing discussing the character in any meaningful way past plot summary. It seems like the character was dropped pretty quickly, being killed off in the first season, so that is probably why there is not much in the way of coverage. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I agree that the character's early departure from the series probably is the main reason why there is not much in the way of coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

James Alley

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

James Alley is another former member of E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) (Band of Brothers miniseries). He served honorably but does not meet the standards of either WP:SOLDIER based on his service or WP:GNG based on his life in general. (Web queries also return a James Alley in the NBA and a James Alley that is a physical location.) Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect name to Band of Brothers or E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Honorable service, but not notable for a stand alone article; same as the others, which have come up recently. Kierzek (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment As a note, among many, there was another, different a James Alley (born c1935) who was a captain in the Oregon National Guard who received some coverage for a crash of a plane he was flying in Portland (he and his copilot survived) in December 1962. I do not find any coverage of this Alley on newspapers.com or genealogybank.com (another newspaper site). Smmurphy 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). No significant evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mohammad Khaleel Jamjoum

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

Not notable person fails WP:BIO. Shrike (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not have any information that indicates he meets Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for notability. Knox490 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | 02:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Happiness in children

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

It violates WP:NOTESSAY. Lil Johnny (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This is part of a student's assignment for Knowledge (XXG) and it looks like they started this in the mainspace instead of their userbox, so it's still a work in progress. Could the student take this back into their userspace so they can work on the issues of notability and essay-esque content? I figure that they can either work on it until it could merit its own article or perhaps see if they can merge it into somewhere else. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep, if improved. If Hapiness can be an article, so can "Happiness in children" which is a subset of happiness. Based on what I saw, the students should be able to improve the article - especially with the help of their teacher. The article was not totally awful. Knox490 (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
keep, per knox490 2.101.52.59 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Holder & Klass 2010 cite an ample literature on this, establishing WP:GNG, and the fact that this RS is cited (along with several others) in the article is a good sign that the article does not need WP:TNT and is on track to be acceptable. FourViolas (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ranga Ediriwickrama

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NAFL. last AfD was 7 years ago when he might have been selected for Geelong. He never was and ended up discontinuing playing LibStar (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NAFL. Dan arndt (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Bergman

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

WP:BLP of a single-market radio and television personality, with no evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:GNG -- of the four sources here, one is a YouTube video in which he's the interviewer and not the guest, one is a press release from his own employer, and two are blog entries. And there's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Talkradio" and they've never once edited anything else on Knowledge (XXG) but Bergman and the radio station he works for. As always, local radio personalities are not automatically entitled to articles just because they exist (no, not even if they get promoted to program director) -- they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG as more than just locally known in one city. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete There is not enough reliable sources and fails GNG. 108.172.69.77 (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Undisclosed paid editing. NeilN 19:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

RentSeeker

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

Article, written with a decidedly advertorial slant, about a company with no strong evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:CORPDEPTH. This is based mainly on primary sources, with a small smattering of glancing namechecks of its existence in reliable source coverage of other things, which means none of the sources here assist notability at all. And for added bonus, all of those glancing namechecks in reliable sources are simply reference bombing one statement in the article -- namely "this website also published multiple reports and INFOGRAPHICs on the Canadian housing and rental markets which are used by economists, policy makers, journalists and real estate developers ", which is not actually a notability claim at all. And I have some paid editing suspicions here as well -- I can't yet prove them outright, but the creator's only other major Knowledge (XXG) contribution to date is slathering the formerly neutral Domenico Vacca in a fresh sheen of advertorialized promotional bumf, which does dovetail with their username "Axtalent" sounding so much like a PR firm of some kind. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bearcat there is no paid editing or something else here. I think you must check the references deeply. It is just like Zillow a real estate business in Canada. I passionate to contribute, will looking help if my written style is promotional. I will appreciate if you can edit this content. Axtalent (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Largely per nominator. Clearly reference bombing and fails to use reliable sourcing. -- Dane 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom; also re: WP:PROMO, WP:NOTYELLOW. Puff-piece of no encyclopaedic interest to anyone but potential customers. — O Fortuna
Delete. Despite claims to the contrary, there's absolutely been violations of WP:PAID here. --Yamla (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
delete badly sourced and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Ansell

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

WP:BLP of a public relations consultant and former broadcast journalist, with little evidence of the reliable source coverage needed to clear the notability standards for either occupation -- this is based almost entirely on primary sources, such as press releases and his staff profiles on the websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and the only two references here that might actually have been media coverage about him are both unverifiable deadlinks. And while I can't prove anything outright, the creator's username "Janny64" is similar enough to the subject's name to ping my conflict of interest radar. As always, it's the depth and quality of reliable source coverage about a journalist or PR consultant that determines whether they get a Knowledge (XXG) article or not, not just the fact that it claims but badly sources things that might sound impressive. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Zack Spencer

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a television and radio personality. This reads very much like a cut-paste job from his staff profile on an employer's website rather than an encyclopedia article, and it's referenced entirely to a single primary source rather than any reliable source coverage about him in media. Being a radio or television broadcaster, even on a nationally-aired show, is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be reliably sourced -- it's the depth of media coverage that can be provided about him that determines whether he gets a Knowledge (XXG) article or not, not the unsourced claim of significance. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | 02:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Malini Subramaniam

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

Non-notable journalist. Winged Blades 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability for biography. According to Knowledge (XXG)'s notability for any biography, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." This journalist has received a well-known award for journalism. She won an International Press Freedom Award which honors "journalists or their publications around the world who show courage in defending press freedom despite facing attacks, threats, or imprisonment". Brave journalists are notable and the world needs more of them. She is involved in dangerous work. According to the article, "She specializes on reporting atrocities in the Maoist-infested Bastar Area in Chhattisgarh state". Maoists have caused a lot of deaths in history as per Knowledge (XXG)'s article Mass killings under Communist regimes. Knox490 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearly notable in India, articles about her in The Hindustan Times, Indian Express, The Times of India and many more beside the sources already in the article. Cited in international media too: NYT, Le Courrier. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment--It's a case of WP:BLP1E.She seems to be only notable for winning a particular award and could be well served by a redirect to the awards page.Winged Blades 17:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

She won the award because of her work, which is independently referred to in numerous articles (e.g. , , ,), which you should have been looking for and adding to the article before bringing it to AfD. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep: per WP:JOURNALIST; subject meets criteria 1 - 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors'. Besides the award, another major event that has received significant coverage in the media about the subject - is being threatened for her works, harassed - so much so that she had to leave her hometown, as covered in -
1. Huffington post
2. The Wire
3. Time of India
4. News18
and so on...many of which are major independent daily newspapers, news channels in India which sufficiently passes notability for more than single event ()i.e. award winning) per WP:BLP1E
Also, there are sources that talk about the subject too (about their notability, claiming significance); example -
1. Indian Express
2. India Today
etc. TopCipher (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

GhSMART & Company

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge (XXG):General notability guideline and the more detailed Knowledge (XXG):Notability (companies) requirement. The sources are the usuall wP:CORPSPAM mentions in passing and primary. 4 pages Case Study used and sold by some Harvard courses doesn't impress me terribly, as it does not seem peer reviewed, but more like a form of academic self-publishing. Before someone points out to , note that this is written by the company's employees. Bottom line, I don't think that being a subject of a non-peer reviewed for-profit Harvard case study makes this company notable, and I don't see any better sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Pattalatharayil

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

Vanity page about a family created by a single purpose account with the same name as the family. Fails WP:GNG. No references have been provided and searching also does not provide any relevant hits besides the names of some members of the family. Jupitus Smart 05:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: No coverage of name. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant spam/ad copy RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Academy of Business in Society

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

Blatant promotionalism , and I cannot see how to fix it without removing all the content. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Kill it with fire - Specifically the G11 type of fire. The article is such blatant promotionalism that I'm extremely surprised to find that it's actually apparently not a copyright violation. It's sad that it's such a long standing article, but if there's a previous revision that isn't complete crap, I'm missing it. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Phoenix Games

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one source, no notability asserted beyond a trivial award. Almost all inbound links are referring to a horrible shovelware PlayStation company of the 2000s which has no relation whatsoever. The PlayStation developer doesn't seem to be notable either, as its article has been deleted twice. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Delete' - per the results of the first AFD discussions, which never mustered up any GNG suporting rationales or sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC) - per WP:HEY. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - first of all, it's very important to note that all of the previous AFD nominations were clearly talking about an entirely different company. Anything more than a very cursory examination will reveal that the current article does not talk about a video game company, so the previous AFDs have absolutely no bearing on this discussion. The Charles S. Roberts Award given at the Origins Game Fair is not trivial. Agreed that this article does need more sources, but I don't see how deleting it will help improve what sourcing we do have. BOZ (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@BOZ: Where do you see sources? I sure as fuck see none. Don't say "keep, it just needs more sources" unless you know that more exist. Because then everyone's just going to blindly follow you without realizing that there are no goddamn sources. Ten Pound Hammer • 16:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
If that's the case, then I'll re-evaluate things without considering the past AFDs, but that being said, I don't exactly follow your stance either. The current sourcing isn't enough to meet the GNG, nor write an entire article around the subject. Between the articles current state, and your comments so far, I don't see how you're getting to a valid keep argument. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to respond to this far more reasonable second reply, and since I have no idea where the hostility and serious lack of WP:AGF in that first reply is coming from, the last thing I want is to encourage more of the same. So, since we are dealing with a publishing company that existed roughly from 1978 to 1980, it is likely going to be difficult to find sources on the internet. Of course, difficult to find is not the same as non-existent, as I have found numerous times in other cases. Looking at the various products they published as listed at RPGGeek and BoardGameGeek, several of their products did get reviews in gaming publications of the era, so it is impossible to know without seeing these reviews how much they discuss the company. I see a mention here, but I am not sure how much else is in that book which may help. I am thinking that the company's biggest game may have been the second edition of Bushido, although I may be wrong and it could be the award-winning Streets of Stalingrad. I will have to try to see what kind of print sources I can dig up during the week, as online sources may be slim to none. BOZ (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Boz has done a nice job of improving the article since this AfD started. There is certainly tons of room for improvement still, but I wish the average "keep" vote was accompanied by half as much effort to fix the AfD'd article's issues, and more to the point, I'd say we have enough sourcing and claim of importance to justify hanging on to this article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per WP:HEY. Boz is, as always, most impressive. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Seems like we may actually be trending toward a "keep", but with no new comments in many days, another relist would be unlikely to yield a more conclusive result. – Juliancolton | 02:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Martha Copp

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of Martha Copp. It reads more like a vita than an encyclopedia article. Although 16 "references" appear, the links lead to a login for a research service. Nothing is presented to show coverage of Martha Copp and her work in reliable, independent sources. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. GS cites seem a bit slender yet for WP:Prof#C1, maybe WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC).
Delete GNG, BROCHURE. South Nashua (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Quality is not a reason for deletion. She is the co-author of a highly cited book. I found a couple of references discussing her work. Students are terrible at creating articles about their professors. The text of this one was copied in from the professor's faculty web page. I've fixed that and reduced the publication list to selected publications. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The original editor insists on replacing the selected publications with a long list. See the list of those with more citations at this version of the page. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep as the subject has written a book with over 600 citations. As far as her other works are concerned, the subject however only has an h-index of around 8 (which is probably not good enough even in a not-so-high citation field such as sociology). Other arguments the nominator raised (written like a resume, paywalled references, etc.), are no reason for deletion -- tag it up for cleanup instead; see WP:BEFORE and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. — Stringy Acid (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak delete. I am very much on the fence, pretty much just like Stringy Acid, but leaning the other directioon. One co-authored book with decent citations, everything else on the lower side, no indication of meeting WP:PROF otherwise. I couldn't find information on any awards, honor, nobody has written so much as a sentence calling her important in the field. I am a sociologist but not in this field, so the fact that I haven't heard of her doesn't matter, but still, publishing one book which got some citations but no reviews of itself... I am afraid that doesn't cut it. Her publication record is decent but not outstanding, and I don't think decent is enough for encyclopedia. Ping User:Randykitty (who has seen many of academic h-index discussions) and User:K.e.coffman (who just found some reviews that made me vote keep on another academic AFD). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep -- a co-author of notable book:

Emotions and fieldwork: 21 editions published between 1993 and 2010 in English and Italian and held by 507 WorldCat member libraries worldwide.

Seems to be relatively well cited. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Education in Kiribati. I will go forward and close this one. No need to drag it on for another week. (non-admin closure) — Yash 16:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

List of universities in Kiribati

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

Only the University of the South Pacific is a university. The first three are vocational training entities, as the article's sole reference indicates. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I will remove those entries, and leave just the UotSP.QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect either to the one university article or to Education in Kiribati. No value in a list of only one item, but not having the redirect leaves an apparent gap in coverage of universities by country and no directions for a viable search term. postdlf (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to Education in Kiribati. Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Can still be redirected as any editor sees fit. – Juliancolton | 02:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Whistle Punk Chaser

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

Roller coasters that are small additions to amusement parks (and any other type of small ride for that matter) doesn't typically warrant having its own article. There will be very little published about this ride, given its target audience. Any information provided can be inserted into the main Dollywood article. GoneIn60 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge per nom. If not merge, then delete. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Give the lack of sources and the point raised by GoneIn60 above, that this is a small ride, I see no reason to keep this, especially since the ride has not even been built. There will be nothing notable about it when it is opened, and there is definitely nothing notable about it now. Elisfkc (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Dollywood attractions#Timber Canyon. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Welsh musical theatre composers

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

Best fit as a category. This article is poorly written and incomplete article of Welsh musical theatre composers. Comparably, there are no similar articles I can find for things such as "(insert country name) musical theatre composers" so not standard Mark E (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. No reason to have an article. It's fine as a category. Boneymau (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mamamoo filmography

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

Per Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Twice filmography, this is not a filmography, but a list of guest appearances. This is a list that is plainly fancruft. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ℯ xplicit 02:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 02:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Tina Leggs Tantrum

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a drag entertainer, referenced entirely too much to primary sources like his own Facebook page and the websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, and nowhere close to enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG. As always, people are not automatically entitled to Knowledge (XXG) articles just because their own social media presence metaverifies itself; they get an article for being the subject of a sufficient volume of media coverage, but not enough of that is being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | 01:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Backlash (sociology)

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

WP:DICDEF. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary Exemplo347 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

keep I have seen this topic come up frequently in academic circles and several articles on social issues. Its expandable. Wishhunniezulliej (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. I agree that this is an important topic which repeatedly comes up in scholarship. And of course, it is expandable. For example, the 2016 election can be seen through the lens of backlash. Trump's election was rural American backlash and backlash against political correctness by right-wingers. The identity politics of the Democrats often appeals to various grievances (both real and imagined) and can be seen as a form of backlash. IN Europe there are violent protests in the streets and many of them are related to populist backlash. Dean Esmay (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Periphery (band). North America 19:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Holcomb

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

Non-notable musician - at best a Redirect to the band Peter Rehse (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Periphery (band). No apparent notability outside the band and there's really not much here. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | 01:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Music from The Get Down

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

Not sure why the prod was declined, since the rationale still applies: No evidence of notability. The soundtrack of the show may be notable (and it has it's own article), but this list of various music on the show is still uncited (all the cites deal with the soundtrack, not the subject of this article, which is much broader). The lack of citations also makes this pretty much OR. Regardless, while the soundtrack may be notable, this article isn't. Onel5969 12:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I added citations and organized the page in a way that is more useful to Knowledge (XXG) readers. So, for me, the article should be kept and expanded.--TheVampire (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, and I am sorry for moving the page. When I realized it should not have been done, it was already done. But the redirect still points to the page, so I hope it won't be a big problem.--TheVampire (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was redirect to She's Kinda Hot. More participation here would have been desirable. Redirecting per WP:ATD-R since this is a valid search term. North America 19:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Lost in Reality

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Third party observers are not writing about this song except in passing, as part of an album. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect: to She's Kinda Hot as this is a non-notable song. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Anton-Hermann Chroust

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

De-prodded with the rationale: "He was widely cited in the 60s and 70s. Once notable, always notable. Google Scholar is not going to show those cites. The fact that he has been dead for 35 years might have impacted his Google scholar ranking." However, without any evidence to back up that assertion. With available information, while published, does not meet WP:GNG, and I can't find anything to show he meets WP:SCHOLAR (very low citation count). Onel5969 00:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. If you read my addition of sources, you'll see that he was indeed widely cited at one point. The book on the rise of the American Legal profession is very widely cited. One could also try looking at Google books, where he is, again, widely cited by numerous authors. He's not cited so much anymore, but he was at the time, which makes him notable.96.127.244.160 (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I also checked Worldcat and found 326 mentions there (all pubs, I believe). That constitutes a major contribution to one's field, I would say. I added about 100 of them tot he article, but there are really too many to add. If he's not notable, how did he get literally hundreds of articles published in reputable journals? It's a mystery. 96.127.244.160 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. He has an h-index of 18–20 (manual counting from Google Scholar listings) in a low-citation field, which gives him a pass of WP:PROF#C1. — Stringy Acid (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep The article is mainly a list of his works, but it can be improved. His contributions seem notable. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as WP:AUTHOR:

The rise of the legal profession in America by Anton-Hermann Chroust: 9 editions published in 1965 in English and held by 761 WorldCat member libraries worldwide.
Socrates, man and myth : the two Socratic apologies of Xenophon by Anton-Hermann Chroust: 26 editions published between 1955 and 1957 in English and held by 676 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

That there would still be such substantial holdings for a 50+ yr old books is impressive. Other books are also widely held. If one digs hard enough, there should be non-trivial reviews of the works. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - I'd like to also note that there are a good number of additional citations to him under "A. H. Chroust". Smmurphy 02:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep -- This is a very substantial body of work spread over nearly 70 years. It is a pity that we do not have much more of a true bio of him. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | 01:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas de Villardi

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

Not notable as not played professional game deathgripz 17:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Godless Bitches

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

Article doesn't meet WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for notability. Niche group that is not receiving major news outlet coverage and is not receiving widely recognized awards.Knox490 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 17. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete The coverage listed in the article doesn't meet GNG, and I can't find any others. Lots of hits for the phrase, a few passing mentions of the specific blog... nothing approaching significant coverage. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Milly Ristvedt

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

WP:BLP of an artist, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NARTIST and no reliable source coverage to support it. The only claim of notability discernible here is "because she exists", and the referencing is piled entirely onto primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, Knowledge (XXG) is not a free public relations directory on which an artist automatically gets a Knowledge (XXG) article just because she exists; she must achieve something which specifically satisfies NARTIST, and she must have media coverage to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci (✉) 00:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment As new female editor, I'm trying to create pages for talented female artists, who are underrepresented on Knowledge (XXG). Please give me more time to collect more credible information for her page. Julesphorson (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)contribs) 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment, hi Julesphorson, WP:NARTIST covers Ristvedt, so references showing this would be great, she has been represented in a large number of local/regional exhibitions, here is a list of them, they include at Winnipeg Art Gallery, Agnes Etherington Art Centre, Art Gallery of Peterborough, and part of group exhibitions at Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, Musée National d'Art Moderne, and Art Gallery of Alberta; also here is a list of journal articles with Ristvedt, delving deeper into these may bolster notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Hey, Julesphorson. Thanks for taking the time to explain your plans. I think what you're doing is really important. For next time, you might find it easier to make an article into a draft first. That way, you can work on it in privacy until you feel it meets the notability guidelines for an artist, or whatever other topic you want to focus on. This will save you from possibly getting your hard work deleted, or from having to rush through edits to save it. Keep going! Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep It's unfortunate that this isn't in the article yet, but Ristvedt's work is in significant museum collections so she meets WP:ARTIST Mduvekot 03:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs)
Keep There is a considerable amount of material on this notable Canadian woman painter - check Google Books, news, scholar, etc. Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. I just added several book citations, content, and reformatted her museum collections into a new section for clarity. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep. The article's statement that her work is in the permanent collections of four major and notable art institutions gives this a pass of WP:ARTIST #4(d). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Notability has been shown. WP:BEFORE was not followed and wasted time of editors in the process. SL93 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep As David Eppstein states, article passes WP:ARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I invite Bearcat to take a look at the current state of the article and withdraw the nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dmitri Mehlhorn

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

There is nothing on this page that justifies an encyclopedia entry. The person is a former employee of a notable organization and a minor blogger. The page should redirect to Students First as that is a legitimately notable organization for which this person worked for a period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.151.52 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from the article talk page. I remain neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall 18:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | 01:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. nothing in the article indicates notability -- not authorship of a few articles, nor COO od a major firm (as distinct from what would be the situation if he had written books, and was CEO of the firm). The refs are almost entirely mere notices or articles he has himself written or his own PR bios. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-20-greatest-magazine-stories/295660