Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 29 (Sun) September 28 (Sat) September 27 (Fri) More...

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

< 20 April	22 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Alistair Vigier

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete; no notability, mere publicity-mongering. See also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/HART Legal; this may qualify for a Speedy Delete under WP:G5. TJRC (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete AS TJRC said, it reads as wholly promotional, not notable and easily qualifies for G5. —Frosty ☃ 00:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

G5 only applies on articles created in violation of a block or ban; as none of the socks were blocked at the time of article creation, G5 cannot be used as a speedy deletion criteria.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet Knowledge's criteria for notability. Lack of in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Article promotes non-notable matters. Knox490 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Really should be CSD'd, because of the lack of notability. —JJ Be rs 15:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable business person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. This article is weak because the subject is not a notable person and has no significant contributions that are newsworthy. There is no need to keep this article. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:35, 28 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) 22:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Margaret Mcwilliam

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

Non notable account of a murder. There must be many thousands of such cases across the world and nothing here marks this out as notable. Two local papers have reported it. Refs fail to reach the WP:GNG bar by a long way Velella 22:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

delete Toronto, Canada murder that got somewhat extensive coverage in Toronto and Ottawa papers when it happened: $100,000 reward posted, bereaved mother begging witnesses to come forward, heart-wrenching. It came back into the Toronto media in April 2016 when police tested perp's DNA. He wasn't in the databases, but they mounted a publicity campaign asking witnesses to come forward. Regrettably, no arrests have been made. all of this appears to be sadly routine, as per WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. GNG met, references are here, potential isues with neutrality are not a reason for deletion, therefore closing this. Tone 15:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

People's Climate March (2017)

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

This article was recently deleted at AfD under a different title (AfD here). It basically seems to be a case of activism by the creator (same editor for both articles) and the rationales expressed in the last AfD debate (WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO are still valid. Number 5 7 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per GNG (note: article creator). This event is taking place next weekend. Just let the article snowball and let's not waste so much of editors' time like we did with Not My Presidents Day, which I helped promote to Good article status. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am expanding this article with the same details you'll find in Not My Presidents Day, Tax March and March for Science -- locations, activities, organizers (individuals and groups), guest speakers, anticipated attendance numbers, etc. This event has already received plenty of press coverage, and there will be much more this upcoming week and during the protest itself. You can accuse me of activism all you want, but I'm working on these articles with neutrality as my primary goal, and was complimented for the neutrality of Not My Presidents Day. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Sufficient sources, and the event is now imminent, so I don't feel the previous AfD should prevent this updated article from going forward. Funcrunch (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Speedy Delete – The OP is again abusing Knowledge as a WP:SOAPBOX for political advocacy. No amount of gentle nudging and explanation of policies made him change his behaviour. The article has been vastly expanded, yes, so now it reads like a giant advertisement brochure instead of a stubby leaflet. Not encyclopedic (yet): don't use WP as a promotional platform, wait until the event happens, then gather reports from RS coverage and build a decent neutral article. — JFG 23:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment This is eerily familiar politically charged ground -- I remember Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Women's March on Seattle even with some of the same participants. It feels like it's "beat ourselves up time" on Knowledge and I wish these things would stop. If I'm not clear, it's starting to look like knee-jerk deletionism on anything concerning political activism, with the lame rationale that future events aren't notable. If this is true we'd better get started on the Rapture, followed quickly I'm sure by Heat death of the universe. - Bri (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

speedy snowball keep. This is going to next weekend. Unless something happens, this is all but guaranteed. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that the event will happen. The issue at hand is that Knowledge is being used as an advertising platform. Why do we accept this for a political event whereas we would not tolerate it for a commercial event? — JFG 12:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep It's notable, and is talked about in numerous news sources, even if it's not neutral that doesn't mean that It's automatically not notable or eligible for deletion, it just means that the article needs more neutral and/or negative citations rather than an immediate deletion. Personally I don't even agree with what the group stands for but they're notable nonetheless. So I would say keep based on WP:NOTABILITY. --58.187.165.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep WP:Crystal is not an issue since this the Climate March has been getting news coverage since January and is almost certainly going to occur. In regards to promotional language, I do not believe that articles about future partisan events are an inherent violation of WP:PROMO, nor do I believe that this article is so inherently unencyclopedic as to justify a nuke and pave. Now, I would prefer for all protest information such as locations, speakers, etc. to be cited to secondary sources rather than the organization hosting the protest. However, this issue can be addressed through editing.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. More to your point about existing coverage, there is now certainly more coverage given the March for Science AND at least one city held a People's Climate March on April 22 (today). In other words, this is no longer future, but ongoing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting Things Done

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

Fundamentally promotional, to the extent I cannot figure out how to rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - this isn't unambiguously promotional. As a first cut, I suggest axing out everything in the "Themes" section except for the summary part. What remains of the article seems decent enough. No question about notability; it would be kept on that basis in any case. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep The book and methodology both meet WP:GNG, but the article could use some bold edits. Dgpop (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Getting Things Done is very well-known and prominent within time management circles which is reflected by the fact that it is covered by reliable and prominent sources such as Time magazine and Wired Magazine. Therefore, it meets Knowledge's criteria for notability. The article is not promotional, but it is overly descriptive in a few paragraphs which is most likely due to writer of the articles love of the topic. If Knowledge deleted articles which were overly descriptive due to a writers affection for the topic, a quarter of Knowledge might be deleted. Knox490 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably a quarter of WP should be deleted. We have let far too much promotion and advertising get into what is supposed to be an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you there. But in the case of this article, it's a notable topic, and the article isn't written in an overtly promotional way. Remove the unnecessary details as I suggest above, and it's fixed. This isn't a case of WP:Blow it up and start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Wuzzuf

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

Promotional ref-bombed article about a company that does not pass WP:GNG. Sources I found are of a similar standard to the ones in the article - PR stuff, routine business announcements and paid advertorials.The only source that appeared to be promising (Stepfeed) is actually a thinly disguised announcement for a trade show. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete as a promotional page on an unremarkable jobs site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete as advert, WP:PROMO. — O Fortuna 14:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Torah Project

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

Non-notable publication project. The refs are basically PR for it. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep I have expanded and added references to the article. There are currently nine references to publications in Italy, Mexico and the United States. Included are both Catholic and Jewish publications in those countries, and La Stampa, one of Italy's oldest newspapers. This limited edition book is notable as a work of art created to promote interfaith dialogue between Jews and Christians, as reported by the reliable sources. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not an edition of academic or bibliographic interest. It's a prestige gift edition, a super-coffee-table project. Look at the references. They gave a copy to the pope, so it rated 7 essentially identical PR notices that says nothing more than that they gave one to the Pope. This article is part of their PR campaign--they are giving a few as gifts to famous people to help sell the others. Each presentation gift will generate at least one additional PR notice. This is not encyclopedic content, but pR, and probably what should have been done with the article is G11. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC) .

I understand exactly what you are saying, DGG. However, I see nothing in our policies or notability guidelines that says that we limit our coverage only to books of "of academic or bibliographic interest". Can you point to any such policy or guideline? Can you point to a single notable book published in the last 50 years that has not had a PR effort promoting it? If you mention one or two such books, surely they would be rarities. The sources in this article do not parrot each other but emphasize different aspects of the book project and several show indisputable evidence of independent reporting beyond regurgitation of PR press releases. Like it or not, this book is notable. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep Sadly there appears to be no policy based way to be rid of this promotion of a new book. Clever PR work has now included Knowledge in their campaign. Theroadislong (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course there is. We can delete an article for being promotional. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we could, DGG, but I believe that is the wrong course of action in this case. A better alternative is for experienced editors to rewrite the article from the neutral point of view, and add well referenced encyclopedic content to the article. I have done so in the past 24 hours and intend to continue doing so, until the article is fully informative about the topic, which I am convinced is notable. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

opinions obviously differ, but as I see it what you've been adding is yet further references to their attempts at promotion. The policy on whether we keep an article is not WP:N. The policy is WP:NOT. The guideline WP:N is the explanation for how we decide on one part of that policy, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. It might meet that. But it fails other parts of NOT. If something is effectually promotion, it's enough to rule it out as encyclopedia content, because we do not advertise anything, no matter how important. The best that could be done here might be to remove or downplay the sections on its being given to famous people, and remove the promotional quotations in their references, and emphasize the value as art. Including them does not really help the notability, but it buttresses the promotionalism. We can then judge whether it meets the standards for an artist's book. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Michaelnw11: Cullen. Thank you so much for defending the position of the Torah Project article. This article is not very different from Women's Torah Project and Hebrew University Bible Project. There is nothing that insinuates anything about promotion. What I have written was providing information about a project, just like the others. There has not been mention about selling the book on the page which is 100% promotional. There is currently a wikipedia page for Star Wars: The Last Jedi movie which has not even been released into the public yet. So why is that page allowed to be present on the site? Is that considered "encyclopedia content"? Please continue the discussion and let me know how this article can be approved to remain on the site. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelnw11 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Michaelnw11: Hi. Is there any update on the status of this article? Looking forward to receiving your response. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B907:F400:61D3:F1E5:7FAA:3BC8 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Notable. Articles found and checked. This may be a propaganda effort, but successful propaganda efforts become notable. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Rizwan Rana

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO. In addition, none of the sources provided do anything to confirm notability. Seems to come off as a self promotional piece. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I found some press coverage in reliable sources on "Rizwan Rana" but I assume this one is a different person. cited sources in this bio are primary and not reliable.--Saqib (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - I found Rizwan Rana on Google Scholar and research papers are same which are entered in Knowledge. I also read one of the research paper that published in London and it is the Contribution in research. However there are some minor issues on "Early Life" section but whole this article is fine and reliable. I found no reason to delete.--Sunny315 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

— Sunny315 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Where was this paper published? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Papers links are given in references. --Sunny315 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete my searches are just not finding sources, and the article itself gives little indication of achievement notable by our metrics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Dickinson

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

Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. bojo | talk 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: Unelected candidate, no other indications of being notable. RA0808 _contribs 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete . Nothing notable about her. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 _contribs 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. RA0808 _contribs 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Even if she wins, that wouldn't be enough to make her notable (per WP:NPOL) and nothing I've found passes the threshold for WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete all of the above are correct. The garmine 23:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Exemplo is wrong about one thing, St. Paul MN is a large enough city that if she wins it would be enough to make her notable — but everybody here is correct that the mere fact of being an as yet unelected candidate for mayor is not grounds for a Knowledge article in and of itself. If you cannot show and properly source a strong and credible claim that she was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because election per se. So no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, if she wins or does something notable that can be documented (other than just running), recreation of the article would then be okay. South Nashua (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable WP:NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Unicity International

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

Fails the general notability guideline as is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources are either primary (eg. the text of the company listing in Bloomberg) or trivial (eg. a couple of paragraphs in outlets like The Deseret News). A check for more recent coverage essentially generates reruns of company press releases. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- wholly unremarkable; just a company going about its business. Sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Knowledge is not a collection of sales brochures. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Robby Bolt - The Mental Tower

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

Creator removed PROD - non-notable game from a non-notable developer. I can find absolutely no coverage of either the game or company. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Of note - the article creator has been blocked for having a promotional username - the same name as the developer of this game. So there's a WP:COI element here too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG - no third party reliable sources present in article, nor could I find any. Article has clear WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI issues as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Also worth noting that this was salted at the German Knowledge as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - As per nom and Sergecross73. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
delete looks like promotion can find no indication it passes WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source search returned 0 results. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Not only could I not find any reliable secondary sources covering this game, but amazingly enough, the game isn't even listed in universal databases like Gamerankings, MobyGames, and GameFAQs.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Demomaker

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

Unfocused original research tagged as having no references since 2007. Dgpop (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dgpop (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Unsourced since creation and links are only to download sites. Searches find no WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Undelete per nomination – subject will play in a fully professional league next season.

Ferrán Sarsanedas

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

Page was restored. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 18:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per nom Spiderone 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. Almost all !votes are keep, there are no !votes from SPAs or canvassed users and the number of independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject rapidly increased during the discussion period. The AfD lasted two weeks, and all 2 delete !votes were in the first week. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dina Ali

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

WP:NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 00:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America 00:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete As per news reports, this is apparently a family affair blown out of proportions. If there had been inherent encyclopedic value – as in, something worthy that generations would love to read – I might have !voted a keep. However, this is absolutely the daily asylum-refused-news variety. Lourdes 02:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep I believe that this page, although badly written, must be kept. It highlights a dangerous case that actually stirred action in Saudi Arabia and outside, so I do not see a reason for deletion. I only suggest a rewriting. • Sammy Habib-Kemal Majed • Talk • Creations • Knowledge Arabic •
10:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep per SammyMajed. The nominator's concern can be addressed by improving the article (WP:BEFORE). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep the quality has improved substantially and there are plenty of reliable sources already cited and to be incorporated. Curious Sargon (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep the quality has improved, in the mean time more independent sources are available and have been incorporated. It is the will of Dina Ali that her story be published, Human rights experts say, information about the case will enhance her chances of survival Tania Schellenberg 10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep This event received widespread media coverage. Moreover, the subject was an adult woman who was forcibly repatriated by her male relatives. This is significant because Filipino authorities apparently facilitated this action, which is illegal under international law Shwikiagg (talk 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC).
Delete Article is a blatant violation of WP:BLP.Redhat101 Talk 03:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Redhat101 Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that she is still alive? Xoviat (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)xoviat

@Xoviat: WP:BLP can also cover the recently deceased. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per all the relevant comments above, BUT some improvements and perhaps a reorganization are necessary --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On WP:BLP concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 18:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep It appears that Dina is alive. On April 19, Bloomberg reported that Dina was in protective custody in Saudi Arabia and that officials are looking for a solution so that she can "live a normal life." However, Dina actively sought to publicize her circumstance, borrowing a phone to upload videos to twitter pleading for help. The goal is not to victimize the subject but to document a matter of growing public interest, and provide aggregated information for people who want to quickly get up to speed on the issue. The article includes numerous reliable sources, including a link to a HRW article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilines (talk) 12:43, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

References

"Fleeing Woman Returned to Saudi Arabia Against Her Will". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 16 April 2017.
"Saudi Arabian Woman Who Tried to Flee Put in Protective Custody". Bloomberg. Retrieved 23 April 2017.

Keep As per WP:HASPOT the page has grown exponentially since it's creation less than 2 weeks ago, and the person/event in question has started a larger conversation which is receiving further media attention each day. There is no doubt users are already coming to this page for information (based on traffic from the views tool above), and will continue to in the future. Jfameous (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Reuters (2017-04-12). "Saudi Woman Seeking Asylum in Australia Returned to Saudi Arabia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-24. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
The Associated Press (2017-04-16). "A Saudi Woman's Plea for Help Exposes Risks Runaways Face". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
Nordland, Rod (2017-04-21). "Cellphones in Hand, Saudi Women Challenge Notions of Male Control". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-21.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Maidan (Persian)

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

Not clear what its subject is. At best, it belongs in Wiktionary, not here. Maproom (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Rather unhelpfully, the article creator decided to make his flawed and questionable article the primary topic of the disambiguation page, Maidan, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What a mess. Going back to the original version of the article, before it got littered with a lot of other stuff, it appears to be a somewhat jumbled fork of Persian wine, which makes no mention of this word -- the closest being Mey as an alternative title in its lead. Unless someone can come along and find what the article topic is in all this mess, it has to go -- or perhaps the passages on ancient Persian wine festivals can be saved, merged. I'll hold off !voting to see if that happens. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete as it stands. It could perhaps be turned into a useful article, but not one having anything to do with wine. A maidan is a town square or open marketplace. The word has entered languages from South Asia to Eastern Europe and many cities have maidans. This could potentially be a useful article, and the current articles gestures in that direction, but as it stands this article is an incomprehensible hodgepodge. Srnec (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
(with slight regret) DElete -- I see no connection between wine and racecourses: it looks to me like a confection of two unrelated subjects, but I do not really know. It might possibly be able to survive as two separate Wiktionary articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete, as I said on the talk page, I can't even tell what this article is supposed to be about. Rex Iudaeorum (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete we're all equally befuddled. There has been no improvement. We can't even agree what the topic might be. Wine? Squares? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I also believe it is better to delete the Maidan (Persian) because Maidan already exists. However, here is not the etymology of the word. I try to clarify this topic as a non-native speaker. It is evident that the word Maidan originated from the Persian word "Mai", "Mey", "May", Mi" for wine - depending on the articulation of the Persian language into the respective Iranian empire - and from the Persian localsuffix "dan". The suffix "dan" is a suffix for infinitives as well as for local formation and means space of ..., container of ..., vase of ..., shell of.May e Mughan (Persian: مى مغان‎‎) means wine of Mughan. see too Persian wine. According to this, Maidan means literally place of wine, or dish of wine or cup of wine. After the adoption of the Arabic script and Islamization, the speakers of the Persian and Iranian languages also say "Shar ab" (Shahr means "Evil" and "ab" means water for wine or alcoholic drings). From Arabic شربة (šarba, "drink")! -an, May ye Nab (pure wine), Ab e Angor (water of grapes), Meykhana (wine house or music house, Kharabat (poetry). It is better if an Iranist would look at the text for Etymology.

Qand+dan (bowl of candies)
Shekar+dan (shell for sugar)
Gul+dan (flower vase)
Khak+dan (waste)
Deg+dan (stove or place of pot)
Abad+dan (city in Iran means place of built houses)
Hama+dan (city in Iran, means place of all)
Zahedan (city in Iran, means place of Eremits)

By Mey e Nab is a poetic expression. Jam e Mey (Cup of Wine) or Jam e Sharab or Badeh (Weinglas) are also available in various poems by Persian poets. Meydan e Rostam, there are very many in the Iranian Empire, In the course of time Meydan means as a place or as a Square. Jam-e-jam Jaam-e Jam, http://www.jjtvn.ir/ , Jame Jam TV, The old map of Iran looks like a half shell and the two seas of the Caspian and Black Sea over the shell of Jamshid. But this is symbolic, allegorical. I hope I have not contributed even more to confusion in the Topic. The English-Persian dictionaries from John Richardson or Steingass or John Shakespear can be helpful Tabnak (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Deborah Tarr

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find no in depth coverage in reliable sources, just the usual online galleries etc. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliabel sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete non-notable artist with no coverage in good sources, and I searched.96.127.244.11 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Run-of-the-mill artist, pleasant enough but of no particular art-historical or cultural importance. Doesn't appear to have detailed coverage in either popular media or art-historical texts, and doesn't meet criteria about having work in major collections, major solo shows at important galleries, art historical importance, or any other stand-out achievement. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Neumann Films

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

Non-notable company. WP:BEFORE search indicates only available sources are blogs, zines and social media . No independent coverage in third party independent sources as required by WP:NFSOURCES, and no other evidence of notability presented. — O Fortuna 16:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: Fails NCORP and GNG after nothing meaningful to add reliable sources. KGirlTrucker81 21:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Rydale

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

Non-notable clothing company. Near-G11 WP:PROMO, containing nothing of value to anyone other than potential customers. No third-party independent sources - only their own site. Note searches for just 'Rydale' bring up the place in Yorkshire, not the firm. No depth or persistence of coverage; fails WP:ORGCRITE specifically and WP:GNG more broadly. Redirection is of course an option but note that the page author has already undone a previous redirect. — O Fortuna 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable company lacking any coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Delete: Aside from mention in the title of a sponsored showjumping event, a Rydale Clothing International Spectacular , which is insufficient for notability, I am finding nothing to indicate that this firm is notable, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. (Note that there are similarly named printing and car trading firms.) Regarding the previous redirect, the Yorkshire_Trading_Company#Rydale section looks misplaced, unless there are formal links between the two firms other than as a retail outlet; the encyclopaedia may be better without both the section and the redirect. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete: Poor, unreferenced article on non-notable company. The place is far more significant.Wilus (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Libby Redman

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

Notability. Lack of. TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Odd bunch of claims to notability. Being the first white nominee for a non notable gospel prize is a matter of chance. Not exactly emblematic of overcoming historic oppression. Being the first person of occupation A with degrees B and C means nothing. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Gaia Saver

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks any indication of importance, and none of the cited sources provide significant coverage or otherwise hint at notability. Previous AfD is just painful to read, with the keep votes being textbook examples of WP:But there must be sources! and WP: Other stuff exists, colored with unhelpful ranting (e.g. "I just think it's totally unfair deleting it just because someone thinks it should be deleted"). Suffice to say I found nothing in there to make me doubt that this article should be deleted, and the state of the article has not improved in the least in the five years since it was last brought to AfD. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete None of the sources in the article are strong enough to establish notability and I see nothing to contradict the nominators assessment about a lack of reliable sources. Finally, I think the first AFD should be disregarded since the arguements were weak and there was enough time for interested parties to find sources between that AFD and this one.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Joe Caveney

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete: drastically fails NHOCKEY as the SPHL is considered a high enough league for any awards to presume notability. Low-end Div. I player and decent Div. III player indicates he will never be a consistent enough player to ever achieve significant playing outside of the SPHL or second tier European leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Super Family Gelände

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Super Family Gerende

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

As the article itself notes, this game had only a very limited release. Three of the cited sources are simple database entries with no significant coverage, and the other three are used to source a digression on skiing etymology and do not even mention the article subject. Previous AfD has lots of off-topic ranting to wade through, but the keep votes seem to be based on three plainly flawed arguments. One is that the game is the spiritual predecessor to We Ski (not only is this unsourced, but the keep votes admit this claim is based on the logic that any game made by a company is by definition a spiritual successor to any previous game they made in the same genre). Two is that mentions in GameFAQs, Mobygames, and primary sources serve to establish notability. Three is that WP:Articles for deletion/Gaia Saver establishes a precedent (I find the "keep" rationales in that AfD flawed as well, and will be re-nominating it). Martin IIIa (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete — Primary sources do not establish notability on Knowledge, and the database-like sources don't either. Nothing would be different if there were a relation with We Ski, as that doesn't establish notability on this subject either. ~Mable (chat) 19:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - per my argument at the last AFD. I can't believe it was kept last time. I probably would have taken the last one to DRV had I known how that worked 6 years ago. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - can't find any coverage in RSs, including Japanese ones like Famitsu.--IDV 12:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade 16:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Asset Management eXpert (AMX)

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

Non-notable software. WP:BEFORE indicates are not related to the product directly, primary, and press releases. No third-party reliable sources cover this in any depth of coverage; fails WP:PRODUCT specifically, and the broader notability guidelines more generally. — O Fortuna 13:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete G11 - the author is blatantly spamming the product and its owner. Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: G11 tagged. Unambiguous promotion of a company. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Betgenius

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

Fails WP:CORP. Promotional content. Kleuske (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete -- just a private company going about its business; part of nn Genius Sports. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here & promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Amna Ahmad

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Hasn't received much coverage from what I can find. bojo | talk 12:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7 - political campaign advert. Subject clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. As always, as yet unelected candidates for office do not get Knowledge articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because election. So no prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if she wins, but nothing here gets her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete If she wins or does something independently notable, then sure. Article fails as it is right now, though. South Nashua (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete – virtually all/most of the general adult population can become election candidates for constituencies in the UK – whether they actually get elected is another matter. Keeping this in mind I would have chosen to tag A7. She holds no office as of yet and therefore fails WP:NPOL. It is as Kudpung noted, essentially part of a political campaign as well as (evidently) being an unreferenced BLP. — Iambic Pentameter _{talk / contribs} 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If we are considering such background detail which is not in the article, then standing for a major party in a winnable marginal seat (her party held it for 18 years until 2015) *is* a claim of notability disqualifying it from A7. While everyone can stand, the competition for winnable seats (as opposed to being a paper candidate) is fierce. Valenciano (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Surely any party and candidate should be treated equally here so attempting to assess their likelihood of winning based on which party they may stand for is simply unfair. The notability is in the office she holds not the party she represents. My point was based on the technical aspect that anyone (regardless of their party) has a chance to get elected. This, as has been proved before, isn't impossible, see Martin Bell, for example. — Iambic Pentameter _{talk / contribs} 12:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd disagree that "anyone can get elected" has been proved before. In the 72 years since World War 2 I believe only two independent candidates have got elected: Bell, who Labour and Lib Dems stood down in favour of, and Taylor, who LibDems stood down in favour of. There were also the cases of Taverne, Davies and the two in Blaenau Gwent. 3 of the latter were former elected Labour members and the last was the agent of one of them, ie a prominent former member of a political party. Independents not backed by or associated with the major parties haven't been elected since 1945. So "anyone can stand" therefore we should A7 all, doesn't hold. The bar for being selected by a major political party, especially in a seat they recently held, is significantly higher than just paying the 500 quid and standing as a no-hoper.

In this case most relevant is WP:CCOS : "a claim of significance need not pass any of the general or specialized notability guidelines." So just failing WP:POLITICIAN is not an A7 case.

Further: "Any statement which plausibly indicates that additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) has a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability is a claim of significance." Parliamentary candidate makes it plausible that someone in the media will have taken notice of someone, so I'm with Bearcat that they're better here. Being selected for a major party in a winnable seat is a claim of significance, however weak, which is worth further investigation at AFD. Valenciano (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, non-winning candidates for political office can and should be taken to AFD, but are not eligible for speedy A7 — the standard required to qualify for speedy is that the article isn't making any claim of notability at all. Even a weak claim of notability that would never actually survive a prod or an AFD, such as what we have here, is still enough of a claim of notability to forestall speedy. There has to be no claim of notability even being made in the first place for speedyability to kick in — if there is a claim of notability being made, speedy doesn't apply regardless of how weak the claim may be. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete as Too Soon (if she wins). Ottherwise, lack of notability is evident. Burroughs'10 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete she has a good chance of winning, but is not currently notable and we can always recreate the article in June if she is successful. Valenciano (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Valenciano. Article after the fact, not before. Burroughs'10 (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Technically this should have been nominated for speedy deltion for lacking any sources, but if the article is truthful and there has been press coverage, that might have been a waste of time. Clearly Ahmad will only be notable if elected. I have to admit I am not familiar enough with British politics to know if Ahmad is an official party canddiate (like winning a nomination in the US) or just wants to be. Actually I am not sure if this is a result of my unfamiliarity with British politics, or the lack of substance in the article. Even if she was, that would not make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have to say this is one of the fluffiest, most meaningless articles I have ever come across. My search for sources has yet to produce even one reliable source. I found this blog that allows her to state, campaign literature fashion, her views on issues of affordable housing (buzz word alert), etc. My search is showing up more people with this name in New York City, Sacramento, California and Sugarland, Texas. I did eventually come across which shows she was trounced and came in 3rd place in 2015 in this same constituency. Defeats like this are not the thing notability is made of. She may turn things around and get elected this time, but until that happens she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment The fact that the article was created by a person with the account name "David Archer - Liberal Democrat" makes this even more suspicious as an attempt to use Knowledge to promote a political candidate. The fluffy langue at the end of the article seems to be written with the intent to promote the candidate as much as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Someone should maybe try and give Mr. Archer a lesson on how to create Knowledge articles and proper sourcing. For example he says "all of this will unfold once I have information from the Amna herself". Knowledge articles are not meant to be PR forums for individuals to publicize themselves in the most positive light.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5 deletion (sock-created page). Primefac (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Six Theta Design

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

Article that could have been easily accommodated in Six Sigma. Most of the sources point to Six Sigma and not here. Those that are relevant are advertisements for a company call Valcon who have Six Sigma Design as a registered trade mark.. The whole thing is probably a link spam article. Reads like an essay. Unneeded fork. Fails WP:GNG Velella 12:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

KeepThe Six Theta framework (Six Theta Design) was created to improve and synthesize mechanical designs by offering KPIs and objective methods into mechanical design, which would give engineers a tool for comparing and improving their mechanical designs. Lubna.Iram (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Lubna.Iram, just out of curiosity, could you give a non-jargon way of explaining why we should keep this article? I've seen you post almost this exact message in three places now, and I'm still no closer to understanding why we should care about it. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, I am trying to clarify the importance of the topic. Six Theta Design is a new design in mechanical engineering. There is a Six Sigma design for mechanical engineers which is already present on Knowledge. I see you concerned about my written style and formatting. I hope you can help to correct the formatting where I am wrong. I will appreciate. If you are concerned why I mentioned Valcon Design in article, people who invented this design belong to Valcon Design. If you want to remove these mentions of "Valcon Design", You can delete these specific sentences which are looking like a promoted content.Lubna.Iram (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Basically an ad for the company's proprietary tech, with insufficient non-affiliated sources available. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep It's a new design methodology that is meant to be implemented by R&D BEFORE production and Six Sigma. It is thus making more robust designs lowering the tolerance demands and making the end result less susceptible to variance in the environment.103.255.4.99 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

TripTogether.com

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

Fails WP:CORP in terms of "in depth coverage". Some sources, but mostly passing menstions. Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SKCRIT#1, the nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion and no one else recommends that the page be deleted.They clearly pass WP:NCRIC, as they've played first-class cricket and Twenty20 cricket. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Lance Humphrey

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

Reason Chickenpox12345 (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Describing Lance as making a first class debut impedes his chances of playing cricket in another country. 1st class is not the same standard in various countries accross the world and he may be deemed as a professional cricket player when he is not.

Lance Humphrey can be researched on a number of cricket sites such as ESPN and does not warrant a Knowledge page.

Keep meets WP:NCRIC, having played in first-class and Twenty20 matches. AfD is not the place to debate the classification of first-class cricket from one country to the next. And how did you find out about the AfD process with your first edit? Lugnuts 11:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep: Per Lugnuts' comments. bojo | talk 13:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

If he genuinely meets WP:NCRIC and is judged notable, it's entirely irrelevant whether having a Knowledge article impedes or helps "his chances" of doing anything. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash 11:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Harriet Baber

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACADEMIC. Unable to locate any secondary sources--written about her--to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete as WP:Too soon. ~~I can find plenty of secondary sources on GS including one book with 353 cites, which is getting close to passing WP:Prof for a low cited field.~~ Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC).. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: There's no doubt she is well published, as are many academics. Were you able to find any secondary source biographies about her? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

~~More than that: she is well cited (although in this case it may be marginal).~~ See WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC).

No, the 353 cites are for a book by someone else (In Defense Of Affirmative Action by Barbara Bergmann). Baber's top cites are 31, 23, and 13. St Anselm (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC).

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

Review of The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity, by H. E. Baber (2008). By Swartz, Omar. Howard Journal of Communications, Jul 01, 2010; Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 315-318: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case Against Div... more

The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity.By GURSOZLU, FUAT. Teaching Philosophy, Sep 01, 2013; Vol. 36, No. 3, p. 300-303: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case Against Div... more

Review: The multicultural mystique. By Kelly, Paul. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, Sep 01, 2014; Vol. 35, No. 6, p. 622-624

The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Diversity. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Oct 01, 2008; Vol. 28, No. 5: The article reviews the book "The Multicultural Mystique: The Liberal Case against Div... more. Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I may have missed it, but where in WP:AUTHOR does it discuss "multiple non-trivial reviews & decent library holdings"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I might have confused this with WP:OUTCOMES; pls see: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Literature: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." Also, AUTHOR does refer to reviews: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject (...) of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep as above. I also note that one of her papers was anthologised in Soble's Philosophy of Sex, that she edited a volume of The Monist on multiculturalism (funnily enough, the issue in our article on the journal) and has significant space devoted to her views on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on feminist moral psychology by Anita Superson. This suggests that there are at least three areas of philosophy (and I've not looked very hard) where she is an important name. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - passes WP:PROF #1 per Josh Milburn. St Anselm (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep as per K.e.coffman.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with assessment of @K.e.coffman: . Hmlarson (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral - It looks like I created this article. Although I was once frequent editor, I no longer am. So I'll respect my lack of credibility due bias and infrequency, leaving it up to you experts to decide what to do. (Utopial (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC))

Hey, welcome back! Thanks for stopping by, anyway, even if you won't stay. In any case, it looks like the article will stay. St Anselm (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was deleted per author's request by East718. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas M. Brady

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

Unable to source sufficient information to upgrade this any further than a stub; research suggests that as offered on the page, the subject does not meet notability for biographical articles. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet Knowledge's criteria for notability. Lack of sufficient in-depth articles or sufficient article which has more than a passing mention. He is a non-notable bureaucrat. The closet thing I could find to a substantial article on him was an article in Stars and Stripes which mentions his appointment. But even that is not very notable as it is not an article on his accomplishments in his post, but merely an announcement that he was appointed to a new post.Knox490 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Notability not yet established. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC).
Speedy Delete as nominator and only substantial author of content. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Brazilian Racing Drivers

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

It looks like a test page. Also it doesn't have any inclusion criteria which will led to giant list which will be the clear case of WP:Indiscriminate. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Comment My initial though was to say keep per WP:CLN. Then I looked at the article. It's an obvious draft someone started and quickly forgot about. Delete it as being unsourced and out-of-date with no help to anyone who stumbles upon it. No problem if it's either a) expanded during the duration of this AfD or b) re-created after deletion with some meaningful context. Lugnuts 12:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that b) is the better option in this case. Corvus tristis (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CLN and WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This list was created in 2013. And nobody (even the author, who have written in the list itself "please add to this list") has any desire to add some content and references. Knowledge:Knowledge is a work in progress but we don't see any progress and wouldn't see it. In the current state I think the list is an obvious WP:G2. Also I don't see a need in a list of racing drivers by country, just imagine if somebody would like to create List of more than 1500 American racing drivers. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Reasonable list topic, issues can be fixed. --Michig (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep but rename to List of Brazilian Professional Racing Drivers which narrows the scope and identifies clear inclusion criteria. The topic is notable, a list is reasonable per WP:CLN, and while what is there is seriously imperfect, that is an editing problem to be fixed not a reason for deletion. The content is unsupported by references but plenty do exist as a simple search would show (in line with WP:BEFORE), or by looking to sources on the pages of wikilinked driver biographies. Content does not infringe on WP:BLP and an incomplete article is not the same as a G2-test page. EdChem (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep for the very reasons I stated at the German list's AFD, which is to say, per WP:CLN and Category:Brazilian racing drivers. It is indeed incomplete and WP:IMPERFECT but that's no reason to delete. It does offer readers some of the advantages of a list, with series, teams and notes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Noah Escott

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

Article fails GNG. Insufficient RS in article, no substantial or consistent RS found in a separate search by nominator. DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fails GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Cell (talk • contribs) 08:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Edmundo Cranwell

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

Subject of article appears to have emigrated to Argentina, married, opened a pharmacy, had children, and died. No claim to notability apparent. Bastun 08:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete. I'm happy to be convinced that Argentina's pharmacies are sufficiently notable that their proprietors merit articles. Absent that, I'm in agreement with the nomination here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep Lots of sources seem to argue his historical importance as a pioneering businessman/pharmacist: see the references in the article. Shops or shopkeepers can be notable by WP:GNG if they're written about. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet Knowledge's criteria for notability. Lack of in-depth secondary sources. I tried to keep my mind open to his notability, but when the article said he opened "one of the first" pharmacies in his city rather than the "first pharmacy" my hopes for the notability of Edmundo Cranwell were dashed. He appears to not even be a pioneer in this matter. Who was the second person to climb Mount Everest? Don't know? You're not alone! Knox490 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

delete what an odd article. Somebody put time into this, but this person fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

SaveOnMedicals

Non-notable company. A WP:BEFORE search indicates only passing mentions of the firm in reliable sources. Mostly the company has only product-placement articles , always in the context of something else (WP:NOTINHERITED), and zines (Redacted)->- so good as sources they are on our blacklist! ('Yourstory.com'). None of these are sufficient to pass WP:NCORP; there is no depth of coverage. In any case, the article is a clear example of WP:UPE and purely a WP:PROMOtional 'puff' piece.

The google search of saveonmedicals leads to credible sources like owler - https://www.owler.com/iaApp/10873011/saveonmedicals-company-profile, letsventure - https://letsventure.com/saveonmedicals, youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjWNSlDyRDk, Quora - https://www.quora.com/profile/Saveonmedicals-Com along with social media sites like Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/saveonmedicals/, twitter - https://twitter.com/saveonmedicals other than the media houses like Economic Times - http://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/health-files/digitalization-the-emerging-science-in-healthcare/1599, Healthcare Executive - https://www.healthcareexecutive.in/online-pharmacy-vs-traditional-pharmacy-next-step, Business Today - http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/buzztop/buzztop-feature/indian-internet-pharmacies-are-seeing-their-businesses-shrink/story/235354.html, Daily Excelsior - http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/saveonmedicals-launches-first-centre-jammu/. The company has got news coverage in J K Channel and Gulistan Channel for the work it is doing in tier 2 and 3 towns of Jammu and Kashmir. The founder Nishi is treasurer of the IIPA (Indian Internet Pharmacy Association) and was awarded the Women Entrepreneur of the year award by National Foundation for entrepreneurial development, Coimbatore. In all, lot of mentions in credible sources with in-depth coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay gandotra (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC) — Ajay gandotra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Analysis of sources presented: mutual trade-support, start-up sites: Owler, Letsventure, self-published, YouTube, and store-fronts, Quora. The social media sites are even less reliable sources. The Econ. Times is a self-authored puff-piece, the Helthcare Exec. is only about the copany tangentially, Bus. Today is hardly independent of its subject, and the Excelsioir, as I said in the nomination is a puff-piece also. Thaks for the post though, Ajay gandotra- what's your professional relationship with 'SaveOnMedicals', by the way? — O Fortuna 14:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

delete Does not meet WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 20:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. I don't see any evidence of passing GNG nor why this is supposed to be notable. --Calton | Talk 02:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dequindre Road

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

Contested PROD. Those proposing and endorsing deletion noted that this article does not provide any evidence of notability. I concur as well that this fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOROAD and should be deleted absent some new sources to the contrary. Imzadi 1979 → 06:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete No indication of notability. Just an ordinary road. MB 03:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete A common local road, of which there are billions worldwide, with no indication of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

King Chris

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

Non-notable YouTuber with no sources except his YouTube channel (and that doesn't actually go directly to it, I had to search to find it). Searching for sources on this guy brings up nothing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - No third-party sources that shows the YouTuber nobility. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. No coverage from reliable sources whatsoever. Just a random YouTuber with ~2400 subscribers. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete - I actually nominated for speedy which was declined. I cannot locate anything as far as references that would come close to establishing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. The article should have been speedily deleted. Versace1608 22:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. As pointed out, this can be revisited is he *is* actually beatified, but at the moment the coverage isn't there. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Amador Tajanlangit

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

According to references provided in the article, the subject has not undergone the most basic steps of becoming a saint— i.e., his case is not yet a cause nor a petition for a cause but a prayer for a cause. Sources discussing the subject are either directory listings or primary sources or lack broad coverage (i.e., are local news only). KDS4444 (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Weak keep -- A candidate for beatification, nominated by a bishops' conference, was probably notable in his lifetime; and notability is not temporary. However, I am unfamiliar with the process and do not know how many nominations are successful. If it were only a small proportion, my view might be the other way. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 14:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. I think we can assume that candidates for sainthood are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A good-faith assumption, but being "nominated" for sainthood is like being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I can nominate Necrothesp. All it takes is a stamp and a piece of letter paper. See my next comment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 06:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

delete He is listed at Candidates for sainthood, (only a fraction of the names on the page are bluelinked,) but he does not appear on the Congregation for the Causes of Saints list, where everybody gets bluelinked because the Church of Rome has officially recognized them as candidates for beatification. He doesn't get a an automatic pass from his status as an unofficial candidate. Notability therefore depends on meeting WP:GNG. Here's a 2014 source calling him "Amador M. Tajanlangit" . More sources under the honorific "Tay Amador" - which brings up a lot of false positives , and a couple of news hits . I also ran news archives searches on name and variants, and got zip - nothing at all - on proquest under any name I searched. To me, it looks like a recent flurry of interest, not quite sufficient for an article. Possibly WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete If he is actually granted sainthood by the Catholic Church then he will be notable, or if he moves onto the list connected with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints then he will probably be notable. However at present there is no evidence of having been noted significantly in reliable sources, so he is not yet notable. I know it seems a bit odd to argue someone who has been dead for 40 years is not yet clearly notable, but we have lots of articles on people who at the time they were alive would not have passed as notable. Notability is built on secondary source coverage, and some people only receive significant secondary source coverage long after their lifetime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was already speedily deleted by User:Fastily. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Roskamp Reaction

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

Reason True L (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Franco-country

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

Unsourced stub about a "genre" of music which is in no way a distinct genre -- this is just regular country music with the lyrics sung in French instead of English, in exactly the same way as any genre of music can have its lyrics sung or performed in any language without necessarily reifying into hundreds of distinct subgenres for Same-Genre-Different-Language. Certainly there are a few specialized instances (e.g. Rock en español) where the combination can be sourced and substanced as having more status as a distinct genre than usual -- but that entails being able to add quite a lot more substance than just a recursive definition on the order of "French country music is country music performed in French" and the names of five artists who happen to do it (and not even Steph Carse, the artist who's arguably most famous for this to any contemporary reader who knows Gildor Roy as a talk show host rather than a "franco-country" chansonnier), and more sourcing than just the self-published website of one of those artists. And hell, even fr doesn't actually have a standalone article about "franco-country" separately from the basic genre overview at fr:Musique country. Bearcat (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete per a well-researched nomination (I'll be honest and say I don't know the artists in question, but I'm at the other end of the planet). No impediment to re-creation in the event that more of a "scene" develops, as occasionally happens. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete nom makes a strong case. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Designspiration

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

Non-notable website. Originally stuffed with list mentions as sources, the article creator stripped them out while removing the PROD tag. Which leaves: two primary sources (an article by and an interview with the site owner), one passing mention in an article about using CSS, a blog posting, a promotional posting ("...The kind folks at Designspiration have given us 3 free invites..."), and a two-paragraph mention at "Print" magazine's website. Calton | Talk 14:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the Print magazine is the best source. But it's not just me liking Designspiration, it's a fact that it's a major website of its kind. I mean in its category. Those lists were just a reflection of its popularity. Shouldn't that mean something? --Jagged-pill (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete - The article is a promotion that does not ascertain that it is notable. - Pmedema (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. This article seems to be a promotional article. The primary source for this article is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Campaign of Freedom of four diplomats

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

WP:SOAP Clear soapboxing for the politically motivated release campaign. From what I ready in other places, there are uncertainties about how and by whom the disappearance was executed, indeed if the 4 are still alive. It may be preferable to update the article about the 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping, but this article is just political soapboxing. Jake Brockman (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 21. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete As Nom says, we already have an article about the 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping. More to the point, sources in the article are controlled by the Iranian government, which makes them primary. They can support Iranian govt. assertions, but not notability. The sole independent source is Al-Monitor, and the article opens like something that would run in The Onion: "Iran's Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehghan surprised many Iranians when he said that the four Iranians kidnapped in Lebanon in 1982 were still alive and being held in an Israeli prison." . Article states that teh Iranian government formerly claimed that the diplomats were held by the Lebanese Phalange. That was a year ago; there appears to have been no ongoing coverage. Delete as an assertion lacking secondary, reliable sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
delete. Whatever is salvageable could be merged to the 1982 article, in particular ongoing stmts from Iranian officials on the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete On top of being duplicative of another article, this is a bad machine translation. Whatever content may be salvageable should be merged carefully into 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping, and WP:TNT should be applied (without the rewrite). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was merge to Fuel tank. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ship in a Bottle fuel tank

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of this subject independently. This subject is also included in the Ford GT article under Performance_and_engineering section which I think is sufficient rather than a stub about it. Tushi Talk To Me 01:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No issues with deleting if if someone wants to include the description of the technique within the Ford GT article - I just don't think it belongs there since other vehicles use the concept. Perhaps someone would be interested in finding out more and expanding the article rather than just removing the information that is there now? Chalky (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 00:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 00:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades 07:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 05:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | 00:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Ford GT, if the lurkers there fell it can be added, maybe as a one liner. Fails the GNG, which is a little strange, I wouldn't think a part like this would be required to pass notability. L3X1 (distant write) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge with fuel tank as a subsection of "Automotive fuel tanks". Keep the redirect. Thincat (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Merge with fuel tank as above. That is the logical place to mention this since it is not tied to just the Ford GT. Keep the redirect. MB 03:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Lake Champlain Chocolates

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

This article does not cite any reliable sources. The only reference I found regarding the topic was a video interview with the owner (http://www.mychamplainvalley.com/news/easter-marks-busy-weekend-for-lake-champlain-chocolates/692572607). Daylen (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. A routine local business. MB 03:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment. This is not really a "routine local business": Lake Champlain Chocolates have a high-end reputation and are retailed nationally (at Whole Foods stores, for example), and the company gets lots of mentions and namedrops in publications like the Boston Globe and Seven Days, but so far I have not turned up much in the way of substantial coverage. I would gladly reconsider if someone else can find more.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
delete WP:PROMO created by SPA User:Chocolate Turkey in 2007. I'm not saying that a small chocolate company in Vermont with 3 retail shops could never be notable, only that it would take some convincing. I'm not persuaded even though a gNews search does turn up ghits: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Adam Banner

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

Non-notable lawyer lacking non-trivial support. Article "references" are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject. Advertisement for non-notable subject. reddogsix (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article for a lawyer lacking notable citations/references.Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Dean Esmay (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Per WP:BIO and WP:GNG.

Notability is a nuanced thing. Knowledge shouldn’t be defined by the lowest common denominator but by the same token there has to be a baseline and I would like to thank reddogsix for clarifying that.

He lists all the references where one could expect to find a notable person and lo and behold, there the subject is, not just once but many times:

News - 93 results -

Scholar - 26 results and Books

reference 56 from Washburn law and also cited in this book

Also cited in this book about reproductive ethics.

Cited on page 1 of this article while also Reference 146 here

Highbeam - 3 results -

The claim that the Article "references" are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject showcases a basic lack of knowledge when it comes to the legal field.

For as viewed above, a single line mention doesn't mean that it is any less notable if it is from a respected legal journal, newspaper, website, or published book. The only "reference" cited that doesn't mention "the article subject" are discussing published cases that has the subject’s name on them with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which surely are reliable, non-trivial sources. That is how legal commentary on cases works most of the time: commentators talk about and comment on the case and the law, not the person who argued, briefed, and won the case. They care about the law, not the person who changed it. Its academic. Moreover, the "articles written by the subject" are exactly what establishes the notability. How many "non-notable subject" lawyers have their opinions and their commentary cited by, and explained in, the Washington Post?

The subject has been cited and discussed in two different Law Review Journals, he has been cited and discussed on notable sites, he has been cited and discussed in a 2016 published book on domestic abuse. He has sued the state of Oklahoma 9 time for injunctions! If being cited in government databases (OSCN/ODCR) , published legal opinions, major law journals, national and local news coverage, a published book written by someone else, etc aren’t reliable sources, than what is?

In terms of a legal commentator, the subject has been asked to comment on the news for his opinion not once, not twice but many many times

http://okcfox.com/archive/apartment-complex-debuts-program-to-crack-down-on-dog-feces

http://okcfox.com/archive/chesapeake-vs-american-energy-partners

http://kfor.com/2014/10/29/residents-upset-attorney-accused-of-child-sex-trafficking-works-in-their-neighborhood/

http://kfor.com/2015/01/06/district-attorney-seeks-death-penalty-in-stillwater-near-beheading-case/

http://kfor.com/2015/01/27/rep-sally-kern-defends-bills-aimed-at-gay-community-despite-widespread-criticism/

http://kfor.com/2015/03/10/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-sae-students-expelled-from-ou/

http://kfor.com/2015/03/17/secretary-of-finance-pleads-not-guilty-to-alcohol-related-charge/

http://kfor.com/2015/05/28/technicality-could-force-drug-charges-to-be-dropped-in-multiple-oklahoma-counties/

http://kfor.com/2015/08/18/pardon-and-parole-board-plan-would-allow-non-violent-offenders-chance-for-early-release/

According to WP:ANYBIO, People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

The subject has been named one of the top 100 trial lawyers in Oklahoma for 5 years running now (2013-2017).

The subject has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - the Luster case is a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record: in the field of criminal defense and sex offender registration laws and reform.

Could a better job of displaying this notability been done in the first place? Yes

Could the language be improved? Yes

~~Based on the evidence above, does the subject deserve a place here - Yes Billsimmons7 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)~~ Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Comment - What the above fails to recognize is Knowledge notability does not equal "real-world" notability. The fact still remains the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject." Your comment that the application of Knowledge criteria "showcases a basic lack of knowledge when it comes to the legal field," does nothing to show how the subject meets the Knowledge criteria. You keep pointing to the subject's work as if it creates Knowledge notability, but it does not. reddogsix (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - You claim one thing and when that is rebutted, you move the goalposts of the discussion because you are clearly skewed towards the page being deleted and want that to happen via any argument which will achieve this. Based on Knowledge's own notability criteria, notability was showcased and the subject actually has more Knowledge notability than real life notability. If you are truly impartial about this discussion and the future of this page, why not work with me on the language and the various citations to have this page up?Billsimmons7 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Comment - I have changed nothing in my reasoning for removal and your rebuttal lacks substance per Knowledge criteria. I have no interest in the deletion or inclusion of the article - my only interest is the applcation of Knowledge criteria. Regardless of what you think, you have failed to provide adequate support for inclusion. Feel free to continue to review the Knowledge criteria and improve the article. reddogsix (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment For what it's worth, deleted what could be construed as promotional language.Billsimmons7 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - I have seen very few, if any articles nominated for deletion with this many citations and sources. That itself does not guarantee a place here on Knowledge but I was swayed by what the editor wrote here. He found additional high quality sources. The editor clearly put a lot of time into the research and the writing of it. While aspects of it may need to be cleaned up, it should stay. Kelly97 (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.
Delete - The problem here is not the quantity of sources, but the quality. What I was able to find - and what is cited previously in this discussion - are not focused on him. They mention him along with a case he is defending or he is quoted as part of a story on something related to law. The coverage needs to be more focused on him in order to establish notability. Because there are merely mentions and quotes he would fail WP:GNG in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

*Comment- In the legal industry, entertainment/sports agent business, people are notable based on who/what they represent. A lawyer can be a nobody but they represent a celebrity and by association they're notable. Thus it would flow-on that the citations are not focused on the lawyer themself but more so, the client/case. Kelly97 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Comment - Unfortunately, in the Knowledge world, "real-world" notability has little or no bearing. Notability is a function of the criteria in WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete per arguments citing the quality of the sources. There's every chance that the subject of this article will become Knowledge-notable down the line (he's still reasonably young, after all), but right at the moment he's just not there as yet. While I'm sympathetic to the claim that time and effort expended should influence an article's fate, that's just not how things work around here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep While on their own, these sources are not focused on him, together, they account for enough influence and notability to justify this article's existance. FlagFlayer 11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Comment- If the reference is not focused on him, then it cannot support notability of the article subject. Simply put notability is mot inherited. reddogsix (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment What do you make of a page such as Mark_M._Baker where the content is next to minimal and apart from the web profile there is a single citation which is barely to do with him, but the case he was working on. He is definitely notable because of the clients he represented but is he Knowledge notable? That page would appear to be more of an advertisement than this one. Kelly97 (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Comment - Haven't looked at it. It has no bearing in this discussion - other stuff exists. If you feel the article does not meet Knowledge criteria for inclusion, feel free to nominate for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep - The subject easily exceeds the notability criteria. My bigger concern from all this is behavior of the nominating editor. Claims to have no interest per say in whether this page stays or goes but every single time there is a comment in favor of it staying, he has the need to retort it. It is clear that no matter what people say in favor, he will reject. This is a clear indication of bias on this editors part against the subject and seems to verge on online bullying. Cpenderbrook (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I suggest if you feel my actions are inappropriate, you use WP:ANI to report my specific actions. Your comments do not take into consideration WP:AGFand could be assumed to be WP:UNCIVIL. You state, "every single time there is a comment in favor of it staying, he has the need to retort it." What specifically is the issue with providing an opinion that is contrary to an editor's comment. Are you saying you do not welcome an opinion contrary to the statements? This is hardly bullying. Please be specific in outlining any bullying I have engaged in.

You state the article meets notability criteria, but that is all you state, you do not state how. One can say anything they wish, but without support is is just a statement lacking facts. The fact still remains the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject." reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep Due to WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I have never contributed to a delete discussion before but this one is so fascinating I felt compelled to say something. It goes to the very heart of what Knowledge is, isn't, should and shouldn't be. The fact that anyone can update Knowledge is why it's so wonderful and also why it can be so dangerous. The editors do a fantastic job of protecting the site from vandals and spammers and maintaining the integrity of the site. Here I can honestly see both sides of the coin - I can get why one would say delete and I can also see the keep side. So why am I voting keep? Because a lawyer is different to people in other industries. I also agree with what User:FlagFlayer wrote but it's more than that. It actually reminds me a bit of the Judgment_of_Solomon. The author asked the editor who wanted to delete if they could work together to make the article acceptable to him. This was basically rebuffed. Since then, he has repeated his opinion to delete not once but many times. He's a great editor who is responsible for cleaning up a lot of junk pages on Knowledge so isn't a bad guy. He stumbled across this page and slapped a WP:A7 on it and was on his way. This got reverted but he hasn't been able to let it go. For someone who said I have no interest in the deletion or inclusion of the article his non-stop commenting make this statement difficult to believe. TC99 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Comment - In spite of all the superciliously comments, not one has addressed the fact that still remains, the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject." reddogsix (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

*Comment - Q.E.D. TC99 (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Removed comment from blocked user - See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.

Comment - Thank you, Mr. Shipman. 8-) reddogsix (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser note: Billsimmons7, FlagFlayer, and TC99 are Confirmed sock puppets of Kelly97. See Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong delete: Per WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and others, as a promotional BLP about a local lawyer that lacks references, among the many supplied, advancing notability. Refbombing local trivial court cases as an attorney, that I could not even find nationally listed in the top 50 of his field, and local commentaries and opinion pieces as an author, does not establish notability. The many loaded words of "greatness" is puffery, as well as original research. GNG states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.". Some of the content can only be understood by someone privy to information not supplied in the references. The policy on Verifiability states "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made".

Along with the collection of none-encyclopedia content and vague references this article screams "fancruft". Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete The coverage is not enough to show he is a notable lawyer. We would want either indepth coverage in the local press, preferrably articles that meet clear standards of reliability and neutralness, or some coverage in non-local publications. What we seem to get is passing mention in relations to cases in the local press. Works by him can not be used for this. He might also pass the notability for academics. However there is no show that his work has been looked to and cited sufficiently for him to meet academic point 1, and no way he could meet any other. He does not pass any notability criteria and the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)