Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 February	23 February >

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manka Dhingra[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. While deep biographical information is contained in RS, WP:POLOUTCOMES establishes that merely being a political candidate does not confer notability unless some other significant criteria is met. Being a local county deputy prosecutor does not meet WP:GNG. Her "controversial comments about women" appears to have only gained traction in a neighborhood weekly newspaper and also don't rise to GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I appreciate your concern about the Manka Dhingra article, and there are areas that need improvements (See edits). The Manka Dhingra page meets notability criteria because of the nature of the race she is involved in. The special election she is running in is going to be the most expensive race in Washington state this year. In 2014, the 45th district state senate race cost more than $3 million, which is more expensive than many congressional campaigns across the country. ^[1]. Additionally, more than 50,000 people voted in the 2014 election for this state senate seat. ^[2] Lastly, the seat Manka Dhingra is looking to fill also will determine the balance of power in the Washington State Senate. I recommend that this page should not be deleted. WASkier (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

WASkier - thanks for providing such a thorough explanation and rationale. I'm still somewhat on the fence as this is still just a local legislative race, regardless of how much money it's expected might be spent on it. That said, if there's even a modicum of support for Keep from other editors, I'll withdraw my nomination. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political candidate does not confer notability. Spending money on a campaign does not confer notability. Every political candidate receives local media attention (that's a big part of the media's job), but that is merely routine information for voters – it does not provide notability because it is temporary WP:NOTTEMPORARY. My response to all political candidate articles where the candidate was not previously notable: win the election first, then we discuss this. WP:NOTPROMO. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an unelected candidate for office does not equate to notability per WP:NPOL nor does receiving local media attention and nor does campaign spending. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. - --Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:POLOUTCOMES. I agree being a candidate does not confer notability. And the weekly neighborhood paper is not the wide-spread coverage about her, and not just the event, that GNG requires. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political candidates at this level are non-notable. If she is elected she will be notable, but not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football clubs on social media[edit]

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

The article has multiple issues including being entirely unsourced. Others include WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is also the problem that the places will change daily and there is no way to keep the info in the article accurate. MarnetteD|Talk 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is completely unsourced, and somewhat random. Who determines what is a "major social media page"? Why only association football when the title is the generic "football"? And why not include all sports? The range increases by a factor of two (above 500,000 to above 1,000,000), then increases by a factor of five (to 5,000,000), then increases by a factor of two (10,000,000), then increases by a factor of five (above 50,000,000) - why? Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced and, to be honest, no indication whatsoever of why this information is noteworthy or encyclopedic..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, arbitrary selection of "major social media," and no real indication of encyclopedic value. Per nominator, we also have to look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Also completely unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate, unclear, not an encyclopaedia article by any stretch Spiderone 12:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and possibly WP:OR as well with too many other issues to mention. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOR. Nfitz (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can probably list clubs who were missed out by the author. Original Research, deserves deletion. Jupitus Smart 14:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pitton[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Drastically fails minimum standards of WP:NHOCKEY by way of low level leagues. Yosemiter (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another article on a non-notable hockey player born in 1988.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More of a question of interpretation of NHOCKEY.... This goalie dressed as a backup for the Edmonton Oilers during the 09/10 season, but in the NHL that does not give you credit for playing in a game. In international play it does, does this matter?18abruce (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce: It's a fair question and one I considered before nominating. I think that he would need to meet GNG first in this regard. I searched for articles in regards to "Bryan Pitton", "Bryan Pitton Stockton Thunder", and "Bryan Pitton Oilers" (and variations of the event in question). None of the articles I found were more than mere mentions or routine coverage regarding the event, so it seems that appearing as a backup does not generate significant coverage. (At least in this case. There are several emergency backup call-ups that do generate coverage, but it usually due to oddity of person called up, a goalie coach, equipment manager, local semi-pro, etc.) Yosemiter (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well said Yosemiter. Additionally I would say that the article has tried to falsely boost his standing by making claims of notoriety (" first-ever player in Thunder history to earn a direct recall to the NHL") citing a source that has basic information wrong, and does not back up the claim.18abruce (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retribution Engine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable video game engine. Zero coverage from reliable video game sources. Nearly 12 years since creation only one source has been added, and all it provides is download stats which is trivial. The1337gamer (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While looking for sources I didn't find any that could pass. The personal reviews that I was seeing were even saying that there have been no significant creations on this gaming engine. Fails WP:N. My search got better results with looking up Retribution gaming (or game) engine. - Pmedema (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. Additionally, if someone were to remove all of the WP:NOTCHANGELOG entries and tech jargon, there wouldn't be much encyclopedic content left anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B. Scott[edit]

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

Fails GNG. A thorough search finds no biographical RS beyond the cursory mentions cited in the article. Possible case of PROMO. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable business person.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss World 2008#Contestants. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinbatyn Anun[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a link to Miss World's own website is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue As indicated by a delete !vote, a reliable source exists for this topic. As per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, and the absence of a WP:DEL-REASON, this is a content dispute. Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? One trivial mention in a nonreliable source doesn't make a BLP subject notable, see WP:GNG. You seem to be misusing wiki-jargon. Do you know what a content dispute is? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination above is an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just notable/Just not notable. It does not explain the reasoning of the "why" of why this topic is non-notable. There is more, though, to a nomination than avoiding arguments to avoid.

Editors who post here are directed that "discussion guidelines are available". The first point in "Before nominating an article for deletion" is A1, which reads in Permlink 760610382:

== Nominating article(s) for deletion ==

=== Before nominating: checks and alternatives ===

Shortcuts

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines

1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes

Note that WP:BEFORE A1 contains four explicit links within WP:Deletion policy. Please review WP:BEFORE A1. Unscintillating (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you answer my question? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to that question, see [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only claims of significance here are for a mere participation, our simplest standards of these subjects themselves state we must need independent significance; since that's the concern and there's nothing to improve, that supports a nomination. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No identifiable WP:DEL-REASON. Unscintillating (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World 2008 § Contestants, where the subject is mentioned. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World 2008#Contestants; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NewYorkActuary --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As to the list, but no consensus about the individual articles; they can be renominated separately. Sandstein 15:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran Pakistani Catholic teachers[edit]

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

Non-notable list, of non-notable teachers. Emeraude (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, all linked from the main page, because they are non-notable teachers:

Keep (without prejudice to individual AfDs for the articles listed collectively). Pakistani media seems to make much more of a public deal of teachers' careers than the media in Western countries would. If the sources treat them as notable, then they're notable.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not meet wikipedia.en's standards for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The nominator mentions non-notability, but I see a set of references cited on all of the articles listed. As Andreas Philopater, I'm inclined to a keep. Mar4d (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good reason for this arbitary grouping by both religion and time of working as a teacher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, this is arbitrary. Why not teachers that have worked 10 years, letter carriers that have worked 35 years, health workers that have worked 13 years, etc.? Article is basically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Agricola44 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of the teacher articles, there are multiple reliable references for each of them and at least one or two of the references for each are in depth about the subject. I am neutral on the list, I think it should at least be renamed, "Pakistani Catholic teachers", as I don't see the point of only including those with 50 years experience (except that it prevents the list from including people who aren't notable for their teaching in Pakistan but are Catholic and did teach in Pakistan). Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list of teachers does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (without prejudice) the articles about individuals bundled into this discussion, which is about a list article. Those articles must stand or fall on their own merits.

Delete the article under discussion, i.e. Veteran Pakistani Catholic teachers. It fails WP:LISTN - it shows no sign of having been covered by reliable independent sources. It's also WP:ARBITRARY - why 50 years rather than 49 or 51? (FWIW I don't think rearranging the three adjectives into the five other possible orders would make the topic notable either.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo M. Haney[edit]

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

See military notability guidelines. Does not meet guidelines as not listed as a general officer and not having received the Medal of Honor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you listed above are not the only for notable military personnel. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk)`—Preceding undated comment added 05:30, February 7, 2017‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable per WP:SOLDIER.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Keep - I believe that the article should be kept and expanded. Notability of a military person does not solely rely on the fact that the person may have been awarded the Medal of Honor or that said person was a General. There are other factors which may indicate that the person is or was notable. According to my understanding, Haney is featured in several books for his role in World War II and actor Gary Sweet portrayed him in the HBO miniseries The Pacific. I may be wrong but, I think that he must have been notable for such recognition's. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should also be noted that the military notability guidelines is actually an esssay of opinions and not policy. The same essay states the following:

It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mention above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources.

Tony the Marine (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NCO with a single third-level gallantry decoration. No reason whatsoever to keep per WP:SOLDIER, which although an essay is an accepted notability standard for military biographical articles. How many millions of NCOs with gallantry decorations are there? Why is he especially notable? Being portrayed onscreen is not an indicator of notability unless as a central character. Neither is being mentioned in books unless a significant book is specifically about him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've added some details from two articles from 1944 from the Arkansas Gazette digitized by genealogy bank (which doesn't have a clippings function). One of the articles (the October 17, 1944 one) is about five inches entirely about Haney, the other is about a few different soldiers and gives Haney one paragraph, about two inches. I've also added two articles which give Haney passing mention. The 1944 articles give weak support for notability, as does his being a significant character in Sledge 2007 and receiving the third highest award for valor. Google books also has more books which talk about him under search terms, "Elmo Haney" and "Pop Haney", which gives more support for notability. With all this in mind, I think he satisfies notability, as while the Sledge isn't completely independent, nor completely secondary (and 1944 Arkansas newspaper articles may also not be completely independent and secondary), I think the total body of sources and depth do pass the spirit of notability (ie WP:WHYN). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is notable not for any specific aspect or event, but rather for sum of factors. With the Old Breed, a book recognized as one of the best first-hand accounts of combat during WWII, covers Pop Haney and his role in some of the pivotal battles. He is noted as someone who influenced the Marines who fought in these battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Kaihewalu[edit]

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

Instructor of Kapu Kuialua (Hawaiian martial art). Article is promotional in nature, and uses references which don't actually mention the person (except one, which is his own website). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE:

According to Mike Rosoft, "Article is prootional <sic> in nature, and uses references which don't actually mention the person (except one, which is his own website)."

The references were made to support statements about Olohe Solomon Kaihewalu and lua itself as a martial art. The reference to Olohe's website is to support the directly quoted material by the subject of the article. If I cannot source articles about martial arts then how in the world am I to tell this story. I challenge Mr. Rosoft to tell me where this is promotional - specifically - because it's obvious he didn't read the article carefully.

Marksevi (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Mark Sevi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksevi (talk • contribs) [reply]

The very first sentence states "Õlohe Solomon Kaihewalu is the chief instructor of Lua Hâlau O Kaihewalu, a Hawaiian martial art that has been passed from family to family for generations". Lua is a type of martial art, you cannot have a person be a chief instructor of an entire martial art. It's pretty obvious that some sort of promotional text was cut from it.

In the last section, it states "Today, Olohe’s lua teachings are disseminated to men, women and children who seek a way of self-defense that reflects both the man-made and natural world in the spirit of the Hawaiian nation." which is definitely not a neutral pov.

I'm going to have to go with Delete if the article doesn't become encyclopedic. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 20:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] It is fairly obvious that the article consists of the martial artist narrating about himself. (A part of the article has been copied, with slight rephrasing, from his own website.) It calls him "chief instructor" with no source for such a title. (Exactly what does "chief instructor" mean anyway? The article could simply say "instructor".) It goes into detail about the martial art itself, which is largely off-topic. (We already have the article Kapu Kuialua.) It stresses how his public teaching of the art was opposed by traditional Hawaiians, which probably isn't specific to Mr. Kaihewalu. It uses references which don't mention him anywhere. (Of the five references, only two actually mention him, one of them is his own website, and the other - [2] - is probably sourced to it.) It constantly calls him "Olohe" (which is a honorific akin to "Sensei" - instead, the article should refer to him by name, perhaps use the honorific at the first mention).

See the inclusion (notability) guidelines for people; coverage in reliable third-party sources is the primary criterion. See also the policy of neutrality. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added some new coverage, and the promotional content could be cut out or fixed up pretty easily. He is considered a Grandmaster equivalent in the martial arts world ([3], has been recognized for his career ([4]), and has been covered as notable to his field in Black Belt (big article here, shorter mentions scattered about google). Yvarta (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO ONE POINT MADE BY SOMEONE:

CLAIM: "The very first sentence states "Õlohe Solomon Kaihewalu is the chief instructor of Lua Hâlau O Kaihewalu, a Hawaiian martial art that has been passed from family to family for generations". Lua is a type of martial art, you cannot have a person be a chief instructor of an entire martial art."

RESPONSE: Note that the martial art is lua but the particular martial art mentioned is Solomon Kaihewalu's family's version. The article is not claiming he is chief instructor of the entire martial art of lua, just his family's version which is recognized by martial artists. [5] Marksevi (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Mark Sevi— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marksevi (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable martial art instructor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added significant research as of this morning, as well as several awards, etc. Yvarta (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Martial arts halls of fame and ranks have never been enough to show notability. The September 1976 article in Black Belt is significant independent coverage, but it's the only article that I've seen that is. That seems insufficient to meet WP:GNG, but I'm waiting to see if other coverage exists. I also don't think WP:MANOTE is met, but I'm open to convincing. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed all the citations. After discarding the irrelevant and promotional, I found that I had independently come to the same conclusion as User:Papaursa - the only one of any weight is that of September 1976 in Black Belt. IMO that is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment to Keep this article: The Martial Arts Museum in Los Angeles has a permanent Kaihewalu Lua exhibit. Anyone can contact them to discuss Olohe Soloman Kaihewalu's contributions to martial arts: [6] or visit the wikipedia page for the museum to peruse their efficacy. Marksevi (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Mark Sevi[reply]

Solomon Kaihewalu has been inducted to the museum's hall of fame (2009 listing) [7]; see [8] for the induction process. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but these old eyes of mine don't see his name on the list of 2009 inductees. Even if he was on that list, martial arts halls of fame have never been considered sufficient to show notability. Do you have some other significant independent coverage of him? That still seems to be the sticking point. Papaursa (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're not feeling deletionist this morning, GNG doesn't clarify how many references are needed to pass (could be just one) - and since the Black Belt coverage is fantastic and deep on its own, we could choose to keep the page on that regard alone. Also, it meets the first "keep" criteria of the supplemental notability guidelines for martial artists:

1) Subject of an independent article/documentary: Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article or a TV program

I don't think deleting the page would improve Wikipedia, especially since it arguably can pass the notability guidelines per GNG and the rule above. Yvarta (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo - he is in the 2007 listing, with his name spelled "Sol Kaihewalu". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I don't believe a single source is sufficient to meet WP:GNG and I think that's why the GNG says, in multiple locations, "sources". Heading/teaching his family's martial art is not enough to show notability nor is being in a martial art hall of fame and rank has never been considered enough. I've been waiting for additional sources, but none seem forthcoming. My own search didn't turn up any other significant independent sources on him. Papaursa (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking at the references, my analysis is same as User:Papaursa. The Black Belt source is not sufficient by itself for GNG. Given that the magazine is dedicated to martial arts, it is expected that it will provide more coverage. I do not see any evidence that the world at large has noticed the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Sport[edit]

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

Delete. Strongly suspect breach of WP:COPVIO. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. What the hell is this? Bearian (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Mountaineering Club[edit]

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

The article seems to rely heavily for its existence on the fact that it had lots of famous members, in violation of WP:INHERITORG. There is no indication that the expeditions to Everest and Kangchenjunga, which dominate the article, were in any way associated with the club other than the fact that they involved people who were, or had been, members of the club.

If the expeditions with no explicit link to the club are removed, this would leave only more general statements near the start and end of the article, which although potentially more promising for establishing the club's notability in its own right, are not sourced. Namely:

The club has taken a significant part in the development of mountaineering in the United Kingdom

and

The OUMC also has a long history of exploratory mountaineering in the greater ranges, with expeditions having visited and made first ascents of peaks in Greenland, Spitsbergen, Peru, Wakhan, Kishtwar, the Karakoram and the Himalayas, among others.

A big problem here is that despite the long list of destinations, no specific details of expeditions are provided that would be of assistance in finding sources (who? when? which peaks?). Template messages regarding the sourcing and notability issues were added four years ago, and there have been no substantive edits since. Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found a mention in a paragraph here which speaks of the club in high terms, but only in passing. I could not find media coverage which really concentrates on the club. The only other media sources I can see are references to the death in 2008 of a former club president, with no indication either that the club was involved (she had left the university) or that she was famous (other than for the fact that she died in a tragic accident, and in any case WP:INHERITORG would still apply). --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the club's history isn't really my bag, but it's a famous and old club; it's mentioned in any number of books; and its leading figures were distinguished in climbing many famous mountains. As for inheritance, how about we say "nonsense": a club is composed of its members, and if they did great things, that's the club for you. I should have thought it an obvious keep as a notable organisation. I've added a few citations; there are many more available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. It is easy to find more sources such as 100 years of the OUMC. Andrew D. (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of sources out there. I note that the club library is now held by the Radcliffe Science Library [9]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled K. S. Ravindra project[edit]

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

An as of yet untitled project with no sources and no ability to verify anything. Article is little more than a placeholder. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way, way, WP:TOOSOON. There's no WP:RS for anything significant here. 23:07, 1 March 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gödi SE[edit]

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

Appears just to be a local team playing in county (not national) league. Nothing to indicate meeting notability WP:GNG or WP:ORG — KylieTastic (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:TEAM. Quis separabit? 18:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in WP:RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinamo Torpedo KSE[edit]

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

Appears just to be a local team playing in county (not national) league. Nothing to indicate meeting notability WP:GNG or WP:ORG — KylieTastic (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:TEAM. Quis separabit? 18:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.no reference.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koroncó KSSZE[edit]

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

Appears just to be a local team playing in county (not national) league. Nothing to indicate meeting notability WP:GNG or WP:ORG — KylieTastic (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:TEAM. Quis separabit? 18:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in WP:RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bölcskei SE[edit]

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

Appears just to be a local team playing in county (not national) league. Nothing to indicate meeting notability WP:GNG or WP:ORG — KylieTastic (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:TEAM. Quis separabit? 18:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in WP:RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okinawa Gojuryu Kenkyu Kai[edit]

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

This article on an (I think) Japanese organization has no sources attached other than the organization's own website, TripAdvisor, and a YouTube video. I've tried to look for RS and am unable t o locate any English-language sources. It's possible there may be some Japanese-language ones, I guess. DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DarjeelingTea, thanks for your note. Yes, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. I have begun updating the article by posting reference material. Many karate practitioners believe Taira Masaji is creating history, and this article captures a piece of that history by discussing the worldwide organization that sprang up around him in just a few years. Please continue to suggest improvements! Best regards, Chris Langello

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it fails WP:ORG due to lack of reliable independent sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Masaji Taira, where it is noted. The article lacks an overabundance coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 16:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence in the article, nor can I locate sources, that would pass GNG or NORG. There may be some foreign language material but we can not simply assume it is there. As to redirecting it, I have nominated the proposed target for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masaji Taira but if it is somehow kept I have no objection to redirecting this page there. Jbh ^Talk 18:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any significant independent coverage of this organization. There's nothing to show this martial art style meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is close to a 'no consensus' closure. (non-admin closure) J 947 01:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok 12th district[edit]

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

Also nominated:

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

In contrast to some other countries, electoral districts in Thailand have no historical significance as they change from election to election. It is the elections, not the districts, that are the subject of coverage, and the districts aren't themselves notable. Paul_012 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the districts are notable even if they only exist for a single election. Number 5 7 17:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks as though these articles mostly contain information about results for that district. Would it be reasonable to merge them into an article or articles in the style of this one? Layzner (Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a reasonable suggestion, but I doubt there'd ever be enough interest to make a passable article. The part about the disqualification and re-election could probably be merged into a few sentences in Thai general election, 2011 though. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; electoral districts are in of themselves notable – in this case, it seems appropriate to provide boundaries by year. An alternative solution – or perhaps one to supplement this – might be to create an article like Results of the Thai general election, 2011 and list election results by year there as well. Mélencron (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would still be wholly inappropriate to have the same article covering totally unrelated districts from different elections, which just happen to share the same number, as in the current case. If there's interest in developing these articles, your alternative solution (including dedicated discussions on the constituency maps for each election) would be preferable. Merging these two articles there would result in a woefully incomplete article discussing only 2 out of 500 districts though (which is why I suggested just merging into the main election article). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Sakolsky[edit]

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

BLP unsourced and tagged for notability since 2012. Books are not widely held—bestseller maxes out at 110 libraries. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 17:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much to find, even in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Insufficient scholarly impact for WP:PROF and insufficient real-world impact (per WP:GNG) for his activism. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my searches did not find reviews of his books. I am not familiar with the publishers cited. One seems to be Eberhardt Press and the other may be Fifth Estate (periodical). Small (very small) political presses. Not scholarly houses. Feel free to flag me to revisit if someone finds some indication that his work has had impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he seems to have written a lot - he has a lot of works on Google scholar - but they might not have had a big impact. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find reliable source.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total Ministry[edit]

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

Without sources the article fails to notably validate its inclusion. Rob van vee 17:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roland Allen--Jahaza (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I must admit, I had not heard of this term before, but the GBooks results - including books dedicated to the subject - indicates that GNG easily passes, and that WP:BEFORE was not followed. St Anselm (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article need improvement, sourcing. However, I clicked through to several of the JSTOR-listed articles you can link to via the toolbar above, and several of them are very persuasive. The sources are there, what this page needs is an editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is sufficient consensus. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klangbad: Avant-garde in the Meadows[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film has many reviews in RSes. Eighteen links are listed at IMDb. Many are in German. Some (that didn't seem to be PlayLound generated promo items) of them: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Looks like plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:NFP. Gab4gab (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini (music festival)[edit]

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

All sources are to Indian covert advertising articles or other forms of paid press. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless something has been shown on WP:RSN to the contrary, The Hindu and Deccan Herald are WP:RS, and both have covered. Passes WP:GNG.

Indian media cannot be trusted blindly because of how endemic covert advertising is there; this has been discussed before and in other AfDs. The Hindu and Deccan Herald articles are both pretty obvious covert advertising. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blind trust has nothing to do with it. If there is a problem with those particular sources, then there needs to be some evidence beyond bland generalizations. "Obvious covert advertising" is such a generalization. Is there any evidence that these particular articles were not subject to editorial judgment and review? If not, then they are still WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Deccan Herald and the Hindu have been known to run paid articles in the past without disclosing it. Again, Indian news media has chronic issues with covert advertising, in part because their journalistic ethics are underdeveloped. Have you actually read the sources in question? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: I wasn't aware of that. If you can link to a discussion, please do. I'm not doubting you. Just interested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashish_Kashyap, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LiveMedia, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Craftsvilla_(2nd_nomination) have some discussion on Indian media's issues. Talk:Raees_(film)#bdul Latif revisited also explains things somewhat. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 14:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jéské Couriano that we can't blindly trust Indian media. This report published by The World Economic Forum listed Indian media as the most untrusted institution after Australia and as per my experiance I notice some journalists don't do their own research they write what they saw on Wikipedia and many of them happily act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are, again, generalizations. Unless some editor has evidence that these sources on this article are paid PR, then bandying about generalizations about poor journalistic practices has no utility to the discussion. Unless you are saying that all Indian media are not WP:RS, in which case, there really needs to be a community discussion at WP:RSN to establish that premise. Until that premise is established or that particularized evidence is produced, however, this passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pac-12 Football Championship Game[edit]

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

Too early per WP:CRYSTAL. The game has not begun yet. The article was deprodded by 2600:8803:7A00:19:90E6:5F9B:D3A9:BA6F, an IPv6 user. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that for major scheduled sports championships in the coming year like this, or Super Bowl LII, or closer to home, 105th Grey Cup, we generally default to keep. If you're basing this on CRYSTAL, it states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is certain to take place. And a major NCAA football championship at a major venue like this is notable. To be sure, that notability isn't currently supported by references in this case, but to delete this bare bones article only means recreating it later, and there is already pertinent info on the venue and date, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not to pile on, but with a statement like "game has not begun yet," the nominator seems to believe we can only have articles on championship games when play is underway, which is clearly not so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:CRYSTAL. Event is notable and almost certain to take place. ansh 666 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the policy cited as a reason for deletion is actually in favor of retaining articles such as this one. Lepricavark (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Shawn In Montreal is right the article should be kept and it should be saved. 2600:8803:7A00:19:8CE4:E923:7556:7597 (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though the event has not happened yet, there is clearly enough coverage in the media to more than warrant an article. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I Agree with That please save it. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We know this event is coming up, it's notable, and it's not too far in the future. CRYSTAL doesn't apply here. South Nashua (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Personally, I wouldn't have created this article this soon, but, it's an event that we know will definitely happen, and it's less than 12 months away, so I have no issue with it staying. On the other hand, if someone wanted to WP:BOLDly redirect it until we at least know who's going to play in it, I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiranraj K[edit]

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

The subject fails to pass WP:GNG: No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject also no evidence to support his work in any of the film listed in the article. I've also nominated the following article created by the same user on the documentary film he directed as I don't think it meets general notability guidelines.

The Yakshagana Puppets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987: - A reliable reference is cited for the article. In many offline media his articles are published. You cannot tell that he is non-notable film maker. Rohith^t@lk 17:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RohithKumarPatali: filmibee.in is not a reliable source to support notability and you should be aware that in order to qualify for a stand alone article, the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and currently I am not seeing any evidence of that. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can be allowed when he directs some feature films. Directing non notable short-films does not confer any notability. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 14:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided, and there are valid arguments on both sides: "it has coverage" vs. "the content is very poor and needs a total rewrite". If that rewrite does not happen, a renomination remains possible. Sandstein 15:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden-bashing[edit]

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

This is a non notable topic taking recent events to prove a point. Article is full of OR and SYNTH. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as this is a theme that runs trough US politics since at least WW2. It is supported by multiple sources including academic papers. // Liftarn (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, can be mentioned in another existing article. Φεμδποεηβψδ εμδοδφψη (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep in agreement with arguments by Liftarn (talk. Sweden-bashing and Last Night in Sweden, two articles that Sir Joseph (talk) wants deleted, can be used to put forth diverging truth claims as part of the post-fact, fake news conversation. They can be expanded with numerous reliable sources from academia, as well as news media, etc, and interlinked to other related articles, No, we’re not in a post-fact world. On Wikipedia, facts matter Wikipedia Handles Fake News With Humans, Not Algorithms I disagree with Sir Joseph (talk) that this article should be deleted same reason as he is calling for the deletion of Last Night in Sweden. Oceanflynn (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a relatively significant phenomenon, which has been expanded since this nomination. Article is also well-sourced, and is no different from any other anti-national sentiments. Keiiri (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at minimum needs total rewrite

I was a little troubled on seeing this inserted as a See Also to an article linking the Sweden riots to Trump's comments and not entirely surprised to see the article was written in the last 24 hours.

I rewrote a draft and substantially expanding the article with careful attention to tone, editorial voice, and attribution, but the process of doing that seems to have shown that this is a new idea related largely to a Swedish government PR campaign, a paper issuing from that PR campaign, and a few editorials and op-eds. Two apparent citations to scholarly books are actually just reprints of a New York Times Magazine article by Paul Krugman. A history and political science professor named Carl Markund seems to be the leading proponent of the view, having coined the term himself in a paper in what appears to be a sociology or cultural anthropology journal. There is also one Henrik Selin, a Swedish bureaucrat who seems to be in charge of spreading this message.

There are a couple of actual (alleged) historical instances of the phenomenon referenced by these spokesmen—Eisenhower pointing to supposedly lax Swedes to attack JFK while campaigning for President, and a Swedish author's complaints about Swedish taxes gaining audience in the New York Times, with an actual impact on Swedish the tax policy of that era reported in her LA Times obituary, and links to a supposedly stunning political defeat of a leftist Swede party as a result of the ensuing tax debate, although it's not clear whether the American attention to the debate played a role in the political outcome.

There is also evidence cited by one of the proponents that the Swedish government disagreed with some international commentary about Swedish economic and social policy going back to the 1980s. However I'm not sure the sources so far establish this as a distinct and noteworthy phenomenon beyond the aforementioned recent op-eds and PR campaign.

When I think "bashing" the first thing I think of is gay bashing and that's a very well-known idea. Similarly in terms of allegedly unfair portrayals of one country by another, naturally I think of Anti-Americanism, Anglophobia and Francophobia, but I think those concepts are inarguably far better established than what we've seen so far at this article. So I'm sort of on the fence about this but it seems a bit dubious.

I've attached my draft which has much better prose and reference formatting and may aid the discussion. Note, User:Oceanflynn comments extensively about supposed implications of this article but I'm not sure what to make of any of it and I don't think I see sources presented. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expand to see a much clearer draft

"Sweden bashing" refers to a perception among some observers that Sweden is subjected to unfair criticism by non-Swedes that is either motivated by a desire for increased standing in their own home countries, or intended to influence Swedish government policies or social institutions.

An article published by Radio Sweden said that negative reports about Sweden in foreign news media increased after Sweden accepted an unusually large number of refugees in 2015.^[1] Henrik Selin, intercultural communications head of a Swedish government agency devoted to promoting Sweden abroad, said that much of the reporting was factual and true, reflecting legitimate concerns about the ability of Sweden and Europe to absorb so many refugees at once.^[1] However, he also said that others appeared to have a poitical agenda suggesting they would like to paint a picture of countries being unable to absorb so many refugees; "There are countries who'd like Sweden to be an element in their story about a failed state," Selin added.^[1]In 2016, the Swedish Foreign Ministry issued a paper stating that Sweden bashing "is used as a way to strengthen the actor's or the disinformant's own, often domestic, purposes."^[1]The paper cited examples including an allegedly false claim by a former prime minister of Poland, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, that 54 areas in Sweden are ruled by Sharia laws and that Swedish police were unable to do anything about it.^[1]

In an editorial published in the daily newspaper Sydsvenskan, Joakim Palmkvist and Olle Lonnaeus speculated that complaints by some Israeli critics of Swedish press freedoms might be motivated by a desire by the critics to gain domestic support, to pressure Sweden as chairman of the European Union in advance of coming peace talks on the Palestinian conflict, or even to prompt a press crackdown by the Swedish government.^[2]

In a 2002 opinion article in New York Times Magazine, progressive economist Paul Krugman argued that American conservatives attacked Swedish welfare policies as part of an effort to spread a misguided view that redistribution of wealth to poorer citizens promotes economic inefficiency.^[3]

The independent liberal daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter published an op-ed by Carl Markund, a history professor at Södertörn University, arguing that Sweden bashing dates back to the 1950s, when, according to Markund, American journalists spread false reports of Swedish moral corruption,such as high rates of suicide, alcoholism and divorce, some of which were later allegedly used by Dwight Eisenhower in his presidential campaign against John F. Kennedy.^[4] According to Markund, the trend accelerated in the 1970s and 80s, with Time Magazine writing of Sweden's "surreal socialism".^[4] During the 1980s, the Swedish Foreign Ministry began to refer to such foreign criticism as "1984 reports" in an effort to draw comparison to the dystopian society depicted in the novel 1984 by George Orwell.^[4] Markund also referred^[4] to New York Times' republication of a satirical piece from the Swedish tabloid Expressen by Swedish children's novelist and screenwriter Astrid Lindgren, complaining about high tax rates in Sweden.^[4]The publication of Lindgren's satire, "Pomperipossa in the World Of Money" led to a fierce debate over Swedish tax policy and a lowering of tax rates.^[5]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e 'Sweden bashing' peaked during 2015 migration wave, Sweden: Sveriges Radio, February 17, 2017, retrieved February 22, 2017, Some would like Sweden to be an element in their story of a failed state.
^ Palmkvist, Joakim; Lonnaeus, Olle (August 24, 2009). "Political strategy behind Sweden-bashing: There are two possible reasons for Israeli political leaders to attack Sweden". www.sydsvenskan.se. Sydsvenskan. Retrieved February 22, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Krugman, Paul (October 20, 2002). ""For Richer"". www.nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Markund, Carl (February 21, 2017). ""Därför beskrivs Sverige som en dystopi"". www.dn.se. Dagens Nyheter.
^ Oliver, Myrna (January 29, 2002). ""Astrid Lindgren, 94; Creator of Pippi Longstocking Adventures"". www.latimes.com. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 22, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Draft authored by Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Draftify: this seems like an WP:NOTESSAY violation as it is currently, and the author seems to somewhat misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Until it can be brought in line with WP policies and guidelines (the improved draft by Factchecker atyourservice above is a good start), I don't think it should be in mainspace. ansh 666 19:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fact checkingUnverified assertions abound. For example, the 2nd section begins with this unsourced sentence: "In the 1950s US journalists described the "Swedish sin" as a problem in the Cold War and came with false statements about alcoholism, suicide rate and divorce rate." I had never heard the phrase "Swedish sin", but the assertion seemed easy to check. I ran "Swedish sin" through a proquest news search by decade. 40s, 50s. 60s, 70s. 80s. Got fals hits (random juxtapositons of the 2 words) but finally got a real use. (Sweden is fighting pornography The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont] 04 June 1981: T.2. [17]) - Okay, it's a Canadian paper, but Toronto is not all that far over the border.) Here's what it said: "Although Swedish sin had been an expression abroad since screen actress Ulla Jacobsson gained international attention with her naked bosom in the film One Summer of Happiness in 1951, the Swedes were a little taken aback by the effects of legal pornography in their own country. The sex clubs mushroomed and became breeding grounds for prostitution, narcotics crimes, tax evasion, Anders Nelin, police commissioner and..." I guess "Swedish sin" really was in some use in North America, but this assertions that this caused problems is coming from Swedish politicians and officials in this article, and my search certainly failed to find use by journalists during the Cold War. (it produced exactly 2 hits for 1950 - 1959: The first was about a "swedish sin-gles" Player with a line break in Newsday; the 2nd was in the Los Angeles Times A14, Mar 15, 1956. A full page of classifed ads. The phrase was probably in there somewhere.) In other words, the fact form the page that I checked is an Alternative fact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have checked the provided source instead of making up your own then. // Liftarn (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the article where it says

Redan under 1950-talet beskrev amerikanska journalister ”den svenska synden” som problematisk ur ett kalla kriget-moraliskt perspektiv, följt av – falska – larmrapporter om svenskarnas höga alkoholism, självmordstal och skilsmässofrekvens som till och med letade sig in i president Eisenhowers valkampanj mot John F Kennedy 1960.

translated:

Already in the 1950s, American journalists described the "the Swedish sin" as problematic from a Cold War-moral perspective, followed by the - false - alarm reports of Swedes high alcoholism, suicide rates and divorce rates, which even found its way into President Eisenhower's election campaign against John F. Kennedy in 1960.

// Liftarn (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. I could imagine an article on something like Sweden in the American imagination, an article that would include not only that would discuss admiration for Sweden, dissing of Sweden as a failed paradise, and Robert D. Putnam famous data set.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged into an article about Anti-Swedish sentiment to match others in Category:Anti-national_sentiment. // Liftarn (talk)

Also changing the name to "Sweden in the American imagination" would be in violation of WP:NAME. // Liftarn (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep -- does not appear to be a recent phenomenon; see for example this 1986 snippet in what appears to be Swedish: link. The fact that a Swedish article would talk about "Sweden bashing" (rendered in English) seems to indicate significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even the French use the term Le Monde. // Liftarn (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per E.M.Gregory. A ridiculously biased article, down to its name. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple mentions in reliable sources. Might need some cleanup, but quality problems usually is no reason to delete an article. Sjö (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory, notability, synthesis, etc. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, needs major improvements before inclusion in mainspace. I think it could become a good/acceptable article with some work. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree that this article is an incredibly biased piece of propaganda. David A (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, biased propaganda. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic, but rewrite since it is not currently well written. I'd support moving it to draft space until and while the rewrite takes place. This is Paul (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. simply because the article is in a bad shape does not mean it should be deleted. The article subject is relevant and notable for this time in age.BabbaQ (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Close to a 'no consensus' closure but observations by The C of E and Chris0282 lean this towards a 'keep'. (non-admin closure) J 947 18:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley 0–1 Lincoln City (2017)[edit]

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

This is an article on a FA Cup match which saw Lincoln City become the first non-league team to advance to the quarterfinals of the FA Cup in over 100 years. This is a significant accomplishment for the team, but does not mean the game itself meets WP:SPORTSEVENT. The current article is mostly a list of the previous matches leading to the event, all sourced to BBC match reports. I do not see anything at the moment that merits a standalone article versus integrating this content into other articles such as Lincoln City F.C. and 2016-17 FA Cup.

I initially declined speedy deletion and redirected the article to a section of Lincoln City F.C. Since then two editors (who I have notified of this AfD listing) have gone back and forth between restoring the article and re-redirecting it. I bring the article here to gain consensus. I personally favor Redirect to a section of Lincoln City F.C. –Grondemar 15:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The lasting notability of this game has not yet been established. – Pee Jay 19:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Precedence has been set that any time a non-league team knocks out a PL team in the FA Cup, the match is notable. Norwich City 0–1 Luton Town (2013) and Hereford United 2–1 Newcastle United as examples. Furthermore, there is sufficient sourcing to fulfill GNG and actually has received coverage beyond the routine coverage to fulfill SPORTSEVENT. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles set no precedent whatsoever. Their notability was established for their individual cases, and their cases only. And has it really received sufficient independent coverage? There may be news reports about this match, but no more than any other match this season. What we're looking for is evidence that this match will be remembered as notable for years to come, not just as a flash in the pan for 2017. – PeeJay 23:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beyond the fact that it has been covered internationally in sources in the article from New Zealand, India and the Republic of Ireland? Which pursuant to SPORTSEVENT clearly states "outside routine coverage of each game", clearly foreign sources aren't going to be interested in Millwall-Leicester for example but when a non-league team makes history and knocks out a PL team in the process then they take notice and cover it which they wouldn't have otherwise done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of lasting notability. To refer to the two examples given by The C of E above, Hereford v Newcastle clearly has lasting notability because it is still referred to as the cup shock par excellence, along with maybe Sutton v Coventry in the late 1980s. Norwich v Luton, on the other hand, was kind of a big deal at the time but I doubt anybody has talked about it since the immediate aftermath. The reason for this is that the FA Cup simply isn't as important a tournament as it once was. Up until the late 1980s, it was arguably more prestigious than the league championship because it meant big crowds, playing at Wembley and having games televised, all of which were unusual for even the bigger clubs. Nowadays it is more of an irritant to the Premier League clubs, who hardly ever play their full strength team in a domestic cup match. Therefore the bar for "notable FA Cup match" is a lot higher nowadays, I think. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significant international coverage it received is evidence it meets WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above Keep votes. Article is notable and needs improving, not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a suitable section of Lincoln City F.C., or to a season article, if and when anyone writes one. There's been enough coverage of Lincoln's cup run as a whole to take it above the routine, meaning a season article would be notable (which at the fifth tier of English football, it normally wouldn't be). And that'd be the ideal place to cover the latest match. It's way too soon to tell whether this match will have significant enduring notability. The Hereford and Sutton matches have, I don't think the Luton one does.
The C of E is mistaken that foreign sources aren't going to be interested in Millwall v Leicester: the New Zealand site that ran the Reuters report cited in the article also carried a Reuters report of pretty much the same size and (lack of) depth on the Millwall-Leicester match. The media both domestic and foreign are bound to be interested news-wise in a non-league team beating a Premier League team and thereby reaching the quarter-final for the first time in modern times, but that's how news reporting works. WP:SPORTSEVENT requires out-of-the-ordinary coverage, as the examples clearly illustrate: this match hasn't had it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is out of the ordinary. Would a country half way around the world cover it had the result been reversed? Unlikely. The fact they have done it to cover one match in a minority sport (which it is in NZ at least, where rugby is king) shows there is more than ordinary coverage going on here. And the Millwall one is more about hooliganism than the match. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Would a country half way around the world cover it had the result been reversed?" Arsenal v Sutton, and not a pie in sight. I'm surprised how unaware you seem to be of the level of coverage of English football in the English-speaking world: publishing a syndicated match report really isn't extraordinary. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per reasons above. The fact that the match was in the fifth round (and not the usual third or fourth) makes this game, in my opinion, more significant - producing the first non-League quarter-finalist in more than 100 years.⇒ Chris0282 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's too early to see if there is any lasting lasting notability per WP:EVENT, same with Bradford City beating Chelsea at Stamford Bridge (which, like this game, is one of the "biggest FA Cup shocks"). Giant Snowman 09:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Chris0282 Spiderone 12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keep votes. Made quite a splash here in Australia. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly merge into another article) -- article in BBC with other non-trivial RS makes me think it notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Yakshagana Puppets[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have this passing mention as well as a follow up piece by the same writer in The Hindu. Not saying that that's enough, just that it exists. But that's all I can find. Let's keep in mind that Hindi coverage would be acceptable as well. But unless those sources can be found, based on what I'd see, I'd default to not keeping the article. I won't enter a bolded !vote at this stage, in case some Hindi reliable sources are found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I tried searching for covrage in any Hindi reliable soruce also per WP:INDAFD but no luck. The only link I can see is the one you mention above which is a passing mention. I'm open to withdraw my nomination if anyone can provide some significant coverage in reliable sources in any language. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I see from your userpage that you have near-perfect proficiency in Hindi -- or maybe it was just an erroneous assumption on my part that Hindi would be the Indian language to search for. But you also speak Punjabi, etc. Anyway, I'm satisfied. delete. If anyone comes up with non-English (or English) reliable sources, just ping me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bunz Bao[edit]

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

Assertions of notability not supported by references. Minor contributions only. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems a bit WP:TOOSOON for me. I tried finding sources, but most of them only briefly mention the subject. The roles are also not exactly significant roles which could satisfy WP:NACTOR. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency#Re-election campaign. And merge whatever content editors want to from the history. Although no one outcome (keep, delete, merge, redirect) has consensus, we do have consensus that this should not be covered in its own article, and the redirect/merge closure reflects that. Of course, editors remain free to merge content into other relevant articles such as Sweden-bashing, if that article is being kept. Sandstein 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last Night in Sweden[edit]

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

I don't think this is notable enough for inclusion. NEWS and RECENT, etc. we don't need to make an article about every Presidential statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is much more than a misleading statement by President Trump based on Fox News. It is part of a social phenomenon Sweden-bashing that itself is a catalyst for discussion on exclusion/inclusion, walls/bridges, media reliability, the role of the press. It is an integral part of one of the most topical potent, and emerging conversation of our times. It ties into many aspects of the fake news phenomenon. The story is still emerging and the article can always be deleted later with content merged into other article sections if it is later found to be undeserving.Oceanflynn (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It certainly is notable and there don't appear to be some other article to put it in. For instance "I'm not a crook" redirects to the Watergate scandal. // Liftarn (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough, can be mentioned in another existing article, no need for separate article. Φεμδποεηβψδ εμδοδφψη (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received substantial coverage, but should probably be renamed to something along the lines of "Donald Trump Sweden statement". This incident is similar to the Bowling Green massacre incident which also received a lot of coverage. On a separate note, I'm not sure both this article and Sweden-bashing need to exist. κατάστασ η 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, which should be expanded to discuss Trump's (many) false statements (In the first 34 days, 133 false or misleading claims were tallied). If we keep doing this, we'll have hundreds and hundreds of articles. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - come on, do we really need a full article for everything our...illustrious...president says? I think a good merge target is First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. (And I still maintain that Bowling Green massacre should also not have an article, let alone DYK...does anyone even remember it anyways?) ansh 666 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, there are so many flash in the pan alternative facts it's hard to keep them straight. A central place for them to sit is a good idea rather than fracturing them all up into separate articles with a very low likelihood of ever getting expanded or maybe even seen in the first place. Ifnord (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trump is getting a lot of coverage for everything he does, but we shouldn't create an article for every one. This is not notable. It will be forgotten in a couple of months.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. --Fëanor (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to 2017 Rinkeby riots, an article regarding which I am of two minds. It is now clear quite either that Steve Bannon arranged for riots to break out in Rinkeby to prove that something happened #LastNightinSweden, or that the Rinkeby riots are the only thing that gives enduring significance to what appeared to be yet another temporary blip in the news cycle, a forgettable idiocy until a disadvantaged neighborhood of Stockholm erupted in a blaze of torched Volvos.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for now; I was going to go with "Merge" to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency but that article is already quite long. I also tend to agree that this is not just about Trump's misstatement, but (in a way) about European migrant crisis and Trump's immigration policy. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very silly article based on a single off-the-cuff sentence by Donald Trump. He has a known propensity for talking in a rambling way, with lots of sentence fragments that don't go anywhere. What he said was "You look at what's happening last night in Sweden". If you read that instead as "You look at what's happening - [based on what they showed on TV] last night - in Sweden", which is presumably what he meant, then there's no problem. If every sentence or tweet by Trump that got a lot of publicity for a few days got its own article, you could have a 100-article "Statements by Trump" category. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency and/or Sweden-bashing. Unlike alternative facts, this incident isn't really that notable. We don't need an article for every time the Trump administration says something that doesn't make sense. Celestialghost (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as a brief mention) into First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency or delete if that article can't support it. This was one passing comment that received some attention at the time, but it seems unlikely that it will have enough ongoing notability to be worth an article all of its own, separate from Trump's other statements. (Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER) Mortee (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Michelle Obama's arms and Bill Clinton haircut controversy. This tendency ought to be nipped in the bud. Srnec (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't it be merged or redirected instead? Keiiri (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree creating articles based on this kind of thing is a worrying trend.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even clear what Trump intended to say, and there's no justification for creating an encyclopedia article about one sentence he said. Avaya1 (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge somewhere. It was an interesting sequence of events but I just don't see enough sources cited. The strained prose seems to reflect the author's efforts to supply needed context without committing OR. If more source material arose, this wouldn't be necessary. Until then, add this to Category:Zero-byte Articles. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency; it needs a section on "President Trump's public statements" or similar. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. There was enough press coverage about it for a mention in the First 100 days article, but not enough for a standalone page. This is Paul (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the topic itself is notable considering the vast amount of coverage and attention given to the subject by news media, late night shows and the Swedish government. Might not warrant it's own article though, but I honestly think so since First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency is getting crowded and could likely only accomodate the contents of this article as a short remark, something I would consider not proportional to notability. I encourage people who have issues with statements in the article to talk it through on the talk page and fix the issues instead of using it as an argument against the fate of the article. I think people would be more inclined to vote Keep if they would have spent time in Sweden during the event (where is was, understandably, a major topic of conversation/ridicule). Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fox News or somewhere. Trump was referring to a Fox News story. Content is too trivial for stand-alone article and Wikipedia is is not a newspaper, but if this content must be somewhere, I propose it be added it to Fox News as Fox News v. Sweden still goes on. (Latest twist being "Nils Bildt", see [18], [19], [20]) Politrukki (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, as per Neutrality. This could either go under "Refugees and immigrants," or we could create a "controversies" section including this latest flap, the voter fraud claims, and any other future brouhahas that pop up. GAB^gab 15:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Bowling Green Massacre, or Sweden-bashing.--MugaSofer (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage. Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very significant coverage, from many angles. Manxruler (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is a mere 215 or so words of content. If there's "significant coverage, from many angles" our editors have missed it. Srnec (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is often the case. I suspect language difficulties could play a role, too. Manxruler (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that American spelling!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring to an apparent lack of knowledge of the Swedish language. I note that all the cited sources are in English. Manxruler (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency or Bowling Green massacre. Or simply delete it. Not significant enough for a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete to Immigration to Sweden, First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, Fox News, Sweden-bashing or whatever article you prefer. Or just totally delete it. We can't make an article every time the administration speaks. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT apply.LM2000 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trump is right about Sweden, also, this article is very poor, there is no reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.98.196.19 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait then merge to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is a good guideline, but regardless of notability, the "last night in Sweden" and campaign articles appear highly duplicative at this point. Let's wait to see if the campaign article survives its concurrent AfD discussion, then merge, so that editor efforts aren't spread out over two similar articles. With an open mind to possibly splitting "last night in Sweden" back out in the future, if either topic is developed to the point that a split would do more good than harm, and if WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is happening. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This was a silly gaff that doesn't merit a separate article. I agree with others who say the article should be merged, but I agree with Matt that the target would be Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020 (which I expect to survive AFD), as it was at President Trump's first 2020 campaign rally. Anyway, if the consensus is to merge, we can discuss the specifics later. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La_Bella_Beauty,_Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The page was nominated for deletion in June and it didn't get deleted only because there was 1 participant [[21]], not because it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Lacyray38 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under WP:CORPDEPTH and coverage seems mostly WP:ROUTINE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim dolan leto[edit]

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

None of the sources are independent. And I could find nothing notable after an extensive search. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR Domdeparis (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Quis separabit? 18:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NAUTHOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

APEX Client Extension[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unremarkable software extension Kleuske (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up any in-depth sourcing on this application. Granted, that was with the full name of the article, and then with simply "Apex Client", but I do not think there is enough out there to warrant it's own article. I would say to redirect to List of web browsers, but that list is limited to ones which are notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources. Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Choz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are not significant coverage and none that I examined are WP:IS/WP:RS. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. Jbh ^Talk 14:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jbhunley, it's also a delete from me.--Obari2Kay (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable record producer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seitai[edit]

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

Obvious promotion of the subject.

Although still biased, maybe the article could be restored up to this edition. In the next revision, the content was substituted with the current spam by a cross-wiki single-purpose account, Katsumi Mamine (originally, Fundación SEITAI Barcelona, globally renamed after I had told the user that name wasn't acceptable - see es:User talk:Katsumi Mamine). Sabbut (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously this is pseudoscience, coupled with linguistic confusion. (Why are JAPANESE words in capitals?) It could be described from outside, if a rational is found, but even the earlier revision is frankly awful. WP should not include (non-quoted) sentences that open with "Technically", followed by complete nonsense. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wendi Adelson[edit]

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

The article is mostly about the murder of her ex-husband not about her. The coverage of the murder appears to be routine coverage of a murder not one that should be covered in an encyclopedia article. Other than her connection to this murder, there is nothing significant about her. Also look at the article and associated AFD for her brother. - GB fan 11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC) - GB fan 11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dan Markel. Delete. This person is not notable for anything other than being (or having been) a possible suspect in a murder case, and we don't have articles based only on speculation or suspicion. As in the related article on her brother (which I nominated for deletion after G10 was declined), almost all the content is copied from the Dan Markel article without regard for its relevance here; and the remainder is in large part speculation and suggestion. At the least, it seems to be a coatrack to hang another copy of the Markel page on; at worst, it exists only to smear or disparage the subject. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "redirect" to "delete", per David Eppstein below – I was wrong to suggest it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Delete. Nothing to see here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Not a notable legal scholar per WP:PROF and the unsubstantiated accusations against her need to go per WP:PERP and WP:BLP. Do not redirect, and the Dan Markel article also needs cleanup for BLP violations. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see notability here. Throught coverage, sources. this person definitely passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe-leather reporting[edit]

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

Non-notable term and the article is written as an interview suggesting no encyclopedic content Amisom (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept appears in numerous reference works about journalism such as 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. Andrew D. (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the term doesn't exist. Of course it exists. Existence does not prove notability. Have you found any examples of significant coverage of the concept and what it is? Amisom (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is a term that exists. But it doesn't seem to be a notable enough expression, cliché, or above all, method. It's simply a hackneyed way of saying that journalists need to go and chase down stories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence for this opinion? How much metaphorical shoe-leather was used to come to this conclusion? I pound the beat some more and soon find a scholarly source such as Being There?: The Role of Journalistic Legwork Across New and Traditional Media. This seems to indicate that the topic passes WP:GNG and it's just a matter of assembling such sources. Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gbook link above it's only used once, in passing. I can see you've really got your nose to the grindstone -- which shouldn't be a bluelink either, imo. But see if other editors agree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be a tiny stub, but the term is used (I checked GScholar and GBooks) and there is enough discussion of it I can see it could be expanded and defined. (William F. Eadie (15 May 2009). 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. SAGE. pp. 646–. ISBN 978-1-4129-5030-5. etc.). While I couldn't located any in-depth discussion of the term, I haven't looked hard, and unless someone can show this can be redirected to a synonym, it seems like a notable topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's not enough that the term exists and has a meaning. If it has not been subject to "significant coverage" (not 'significant usage': 'significant coverage') then it belongs over at Wiktionary and not here. Amisom (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable slang expression about journalism. Not even the geographic scope is clear. Dimadick (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete--Well we know the term exists per the sources cited by the two keep votes.But are they notable?-No! Thus, show the door.Existence≠Notability.Winged Blades^Godric 14:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Niche, possibly regional term to describe a broad concept in journalism.RudyLucius (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Joly[edit]

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

Not clear how he passes WP:GNG no indepth coverage in independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youtuber with no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently part of a little WP:Walled garden created by SPA User:CalebBenjamin012. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Saccone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per nom). Or Merge/Redirect (to article on YT channel rather than person who runs that YT channel). As noted by other AfD contributors, neither subject nor spouse demonstrate notability independent of the YT channel they run. Which is why both articles have almost exactly the same content (and likely always likely would). Per WP:MERGEREASON, where we have two almost identical articles, covering materially the same content, we merge em. If indeed we keep em. Hence, if the YT channel meets the NN criteria for that kind of subject, then perhaps redirects are warranted. (As per similar articles like Rhett and Link, Smosh, etc). The project definitely however does not benefit from two near-identical articles on the current subjects however. Guliolopez (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Account Based Sales Development[edit]

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

Article is essentially uncited, the two cites and massive list of links being at best to people selling whatever this is.

It is also entirely useless. If this topic is notable, which I doubt, a good article on it could make no use of any word in this one, since it is written entirely in meaningless marketese. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Unreferenced and hard to follow, not encyclopedic. MB 03:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nergis Sultan[edit]

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

The page was previously created under the title Nergisşah Sultan. As the original article didn't have any important material Nergisşah Sultan was redirected to Şehzade Mustafa. In July 2016, User:Mehdi.dof1 created the article again. The article doesn't make it clear why this person is notable and her name is even self-made as the only source that has a list of Mustafa's children doesn't mention the name for his elder daughter. About two-third of the article only explains the struggles between her father and his stepmother, sister, and brother-in-law. The other parts also explain how her sister got married and what her mother's ethnicity was. The subject is clearly not notable at all, and the article should probably either be deleted or redirected to Şehzade Mustafa. Keivan.f^Talk 13:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nergissah is mentioned on page 50 and 300 of Pierce 1993, and on page 300 it says that she was well educated and gave a funeral oration for Mustafa, based on the writings of Giovanni Maria Angiolello. Lyber (Lybyer, Albert H. "Mohammed the Conqueror." The Slavonic and East European Review 15, no. 45 (1937): 639-648.) on page 640 says that Nerzisdad was married to the eldest son of Prince Bayazid (Bayezid in the article, I guess), who was heir apparent and was assigned governor of Amasia (not sure if that is the same as Anatollia and I'm not sure if the who being referred is Bayazid or his son). Some other names used include: "Negishade" OR "Nerzisdad" OR "Negursalde" OR "Nergis-sah" OR "Nergisşah" (see the snippet at: https://books.google.com/books?id=7UzVAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22negishade%22). I don't find much more and given the incoherence of the article, my inability to interpret references based in Angiolello's writing, and the fact that I am not familiar enough with Ottoman court politics to know whether a figure like this is likely to be notable, I can't really !vote keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy Hi and thanks for introducing a few reliable sources. But could you be more specific, please? Because I want to know whether she was a notable figure or not. Obviously she was the daughter of a prince and a granddaughter of a sultan, and probably was also married to her uncle's son. (?) (As long as I know Bayezid, son of Suleiman and Hurrem, was the governor of Amasya for a period of time; although I'm not sure the sentence refers to which Bayezid as I haven't read what the source says). So if there's enough biographical information about her life that proves she was a notable person, then I hold no prejudice to the article being rewritten and done with reliable sources. Keivan.f^Talk 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral for her, especially compared to some of the other consorts you've nominated. I added my research to this page so that if anyone else wants, they can look at it and see if they can find more. Also, if the article is not deleted, the material could be added. My opinion is that she is notable, but I'm not sure that the evidence I've found meets the level of notability suggested by wikipedia policy. Sorry for the non-answer answer. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~Delete - Since it has been a while and no one seems to have found anything more, I'm going to recommend this page redirect to her father, Şehzade Mustafa, as Nergisşah Sultan already does. I've mentioned that she gave a funeral oration at his funeral and, frankly, I don't find anything to merge that isn't already in the page on her father. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Nergissah cited by Peirce was the daughter of another Mustafa, a son of Mehmet II and Gülşah Hatun. Therefore this daughter of Mustafa (son of Suleyman) remains unsourced and is probably invented.--Phso2 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invented of not, you are right about Peirce. Thus the citation to Peirce, which I did not add, seems to be unjustified. I don't really see enough anywhere else to justify the page and have changed my !vote. I wonder if the redirect, Nergisşah Sultan, should also be deleted (or re-redirected). Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refind Technologies[edit]

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

A recent start-up which seems to have managed to get its press releases reported in many outlets yet nothing independent and reliable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. There are a few references out there, but nothing I could find that was in-depth to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant company webhosting alone. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:CORPSPAM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Seroussi[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion designer.was de-prodded.Article looks promotional. Winged Blades^Godric 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmmm, I'm not really seeing a problem with the sources. They look like credibly reliable Romanian language sources (especially the Forbes piece - getting an article all about him in Forbes is a very strong indicator that he is of some significance) and seem to demonstrate that he is sufficently notable as a long-established businessman in his country. Looking up Ziarul Financiar, it sounds like the Romanian equivalent of The Financial Times, which would make me inclined to think it is a reliable source too. It certainly doesn't sound like a tabloid rag. Most of the sources I am finding for him are from Romanian financial/business newspapers, indicating that he is notable in Romania, and that makes him perfectly valid enough to have an English article. The main problem with the article is its tone and language, which is not really as neutral as one would like, but I don't see a really valid reasons for deletion. All it needs is some editing for tone. Mabalu (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I looked over the sources and added one (I know Romanian); it very much looks like solid coverage in multiple independent outlets. He may not be the most sensational figure in either fashion design or business, but I see no compelling reason to delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the creator of this article, but I find him very notable in the industry of fashion in Romania, and is also a millionaire. I am not sure he is the first king of garment, but he is nicknamed the "King of Garment" and has an experience in Romania of several decades. He is also an exporter. His brand Seroussi is fighting for the top of Romania in terms of men's suites, alongside famous Bigotti - even on European level. Pretty much every mall has his shops. Moreover, he was in Top 500 Forbes of Romania and in Top 500 Capital. He also appears in Ziarul Financiar. Ziarul Financiar & Capital are top 3 largest publications of economy in Romania. They also have non-online editions. Seroussi started many years ago to export a lot too, and his fortune reached 100 million euros (or more) at some moment. His investments were around some hundreds in Romania. - Fashion moda ^Talk 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Our policies and guidelines don't look for potential for notability. They look for whether there is notability now. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RingPlus[edit]

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

None of this is reliably sourced with third party sources--neither the positive information nor the negative--see the page history, because at the moment I'm writing this the positive material has been removed, apparently on the basis of being both unsourced and contaminated by COI. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is some potential for notability. Fortune and Tech Times ran articles on the shutdown for example.[22][23] If we were able to establish notability for Ting it seems likely it can be established for RingPlus as well. EyeTripleE (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a business software listing with nothing actually significant to establish the needed notability, as usual, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'simply a business software listing' SwisterTwister. RingPlus is/was an MVNO, not primarily a software company. Also, I'm not saying that RingPlus inherits notability but that a priori Bayesian reasoning suggests notability is possible. EyeTripleE (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I guess this might have potential for notability, current searches do not show the type of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish such. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Inline[edit]

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

Second AfD for this article. Initial discussion was speedy kept due to nominator withdrawal. After personal review of the topic, it is my opinion that it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Original nominator withdrew after being presented with two passing mentions in Hockey Weekly magazine. This does not satisfy "significant coverage" for me in the least. GauchoDude (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GauchoDude (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable sports tournament. The one blue-linked team participating isn't even an inline team (it's a soccer team from 1984 only). Ajf773 (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl (cultural festival)[edit]

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

Sources are useless. Two covert-adverts from the Hindu and the rest are name-drops that don't talk about the festival at any length. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a major national newspaper picks up and uses a press release, then "covert-advert" is not the word I would use. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Hindu is widely regarded as (among) India's most reliable newspapers. The other references also happen to be well known media sources that are directly discussing or connected to the article subject. I see WP:GNG being sufficently passed. Soni (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every Day Is a Holiday[edit]

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

No evidence this song has been "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts," won a significant award or received significant coverage, thus failing WP:NSONGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathon3378 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did you look into the citations themselves? Please see Music Times, Marie Claire, and Idolator among others, which all are specifically dedicated to this and give plenty of coverage. Charts and awards (or lack thereof) aren't definitive factors in keeping or deleting. What truly matters is that this received coverage from credible independent sources (not closely affiliated with artist/company) outside of album reviews (though this wasn't part of an album to begin with). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Snuggums' comment. Article is in poor shape, but it appear notable from its coverage from independent sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Media coverage alone is enough to warrant it's own article. Easily passes notability. Giacobbe ^talk 21:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, article has plenty of independent sources that cover the song. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of third party coverage, this nomination seems extremely mal-informed and researched. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Dion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC which calls for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". WP:MUSICBIO also calls for "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician". While these ([24], [25], [26], [27]) are secondary sources, they are stubby biographical pulp in music magazines. No significant musical contributions, no charted songs, and no awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one dedicated article from reliable source: Billboard. Vibe is not a reliable source. No results from any of the search tools at the top of this section. Not sufficiently notable. Tapered (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ziauddin Ahmed (Joy)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Earlier PrROD removed by an editor that appears to be a sock of the author, but without improving notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any notability whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No obvious notability. Jake Brockman (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cann't find reliable sources.Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all. Altaf (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a student government official at a university is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally run of the mill, literally one of hundreds of thousands of people who have run a student government. So what? Bearian (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Civil Servant who studied in Australia is not enough to merit an article. Jupitus Smart 14:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Radbyrne[edit]

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

Basically this is viral advertising for the subject's book. There is no online information on him other than in the couple of barely good enough articles which comment on the lack of information out there about him. Clever promotion, but not really Wikipedia worthy yet, his book might be if it actually does get coverage out of this but the book does not seem to pass notability either, I'm not seeing many (if any) independent reviews or coverage. Mabalu (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - author possibly fails WP:CSD#A7, book definitely fails WP:NBOOK. DrStrauss talk 09:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nothing more than WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete annoying promo bullsh*t - we should not be helping them out with their ad campaign. I suppose - and I say this with heavy heart - if at some time in the future it becomes truly notable, either because of the book or because of the campaign - "Council sues book promotors over vandalism" or whatever - then we might have to cover it. Till then, please not. DBaK (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Any notability obviously comes from individuals or organizations that have a stake in this book's success. We shouldn't set a precedent where to be considered notable, all you have to do is print up a bunch of stickers and vandalize public areas with them. City Of Silver 20:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim reports[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of notable Muslim reports

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

Mostly because the choice of subsections and authenticity evaluation constitutes original research. I also find the authenticity statements to be less accurate when a hadith article refers to multiple narrations, with each narration most likely having its own evaluation (e.g., Hadith of the two weighty things mentions no less than 10 narrations).

There is also some needless repetition, which is a good indicator that a list format may not be suitable. As an alternative to this article, I think we should have a category for the "Hadith of" articles. This should help with the navigation. Another option is to reduce this article to a list of links and delete any hadith article that fails notability. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 09:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. For me, the only reason to keep navigational lists over categories is that list entries can be sorted and annotated according to specific needs. Considering the sheer amount of alternative views on each report, such sorting/annotating would become unmanagable and is likely going to include a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. A simple category already exists at Category:Hadith. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This looks fine to me, but shouldn't it be called "List of Muslim Hadiths"? None of the individual articles are called 'Reports.' Supervoter (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)(Note: since this user is The SUPERVOTER, his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions. Thanks for your understanding. Please see my userpage if you have questions.)[reply]

Note: This user's actions are being discussed here. J 947 05:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the category is not substantially different from this list. I agree that there is a large amount of WP:OR here. Laurdecl ^talk 04:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think List of hadith authors and commentators and Template:Islamic texts category tree are more useful ways to organize articles about hadith and the choices made in this article seem too OR. I imagine that a list like this could exist if better sourced as a list to avoid OR, and the OR issue is my main reason to !vote delete. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anomaly X[edit]

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

We have no speedy deletion category for non-notable upcoming films, so there is no choice but to propose it for deletion here. This one is clearly WP:TOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM and WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article shoudl be deleted as it lacks any notability and containts far too many subjective judgments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubin12 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find anything to show that this movie is notable at this point in time. I wish the director and his crew well, but right now it fails NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zai Sheng Yuan (Formosa TV drama)[edit]

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

A Google search in English only gave me 1 TV-related result which was a Chinese series. Perhaps a search in Thai might turn something up. Otherwise, with no reference, this could be a hoax for all we know. I also wonder if a Thai soap that lasted 2 months is notable enough for an article here. Is there an article about it on th.wiki? lNeverCry 04:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Searching the complete title gave me 1 hit: http://iafor.org/archives/offprints/accs2012-offprints/ACCS2012_0131.pdf. This soap is only mentioned in a footnote on the 2nd page of the PDF, where it basically just says it got bad ratings and was quickly dropped from the network. I'd still like to see if th.wiki has an article if possible. Articles here that don't have a counterpart on their own language's wiki are usually dubious at best when it comes to notability. lNeverCry 04:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comment above, I could not locate a counterpart to this article on the th.wiki, I think it is ok to move forward with the deletion.Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, fails WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 09:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can Somebody tell me what thai wiki has to do with this? -User talk:Jeffy7Jeffy —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardita Zúñiga[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources contain to minor of references to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Miss World national contestant. The article needs work, though. Montanabw^(talk) 11:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant if someone is a Miss World contestant. All BLPs need to meet WP:GNG, and this one does not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World Chile § Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not reasonable. And we don't have to presume; I checked, and there aren't any. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NewYorkActuary --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep: Unfortunately, Wikipedia notability policy seems to imply that we will have articles about every national beauty pageant winner, guaranteeing about 300 new BLPs per year, most of which will be about people who won't ever be notable for much else. --Slashme (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed !vote to Delete - I see now that there is no presumption of notability for beauty pageant winners, and that the proposed SNG was not accepted. Thanks The Quixotic Potato for pointing this out! --Slashme (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: Why do you say that? Please post a link. I believe WP:GNG means that basically none of these people are notable unless they've done something else. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue As per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT and evidence of a suitable redirect target; notability of this topic is a matter to be determined as a content decision. Arguing to delete for notability is a red herring for objecting to editors creating articles as standalone instead of as part of a list of mini-bios. But the remedy is to either WP:SOFIXIT, or as part of WP:PRESERVE, build consensus on the talk page of the article for a merge. As per WP:Deletion process, oldid=766582163, AfD is not a vote count.

===Consensus===

Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes.

Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.)

Unscintillating (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no position on this article, but keeping or deleting at an individual article on the basis of how a specific guideline is to be interpreted is within the role of AfD. And even if its more than just an interpretation, consensus for making an exception or using IAR is also a valid conclusion at an AfD. We make the rules, which we make by general discussions, and we make the exceptions, which we do in individual decisions. . DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator. A few days ago, the nominator stated that they had checked for sources and declared "there aren't any". Perhaps the nominator will be kind enough to tell us what checks were done, and also the extent to which those checks included non-English and non-Internet sources. In the meantime, I'll simply note that the Wikipedia community has long accepted the presumed existence of sources for persons who have engaged in competition at the highest level of their fields. Thus, we do not demand multiple references for any person who has played baseball at the major-league level, nor for any cricketer who has played at the Test level, nor for any athlete who has competed in the Olympics. In all of these examples (as well as the many others that could also be mentioned), it is sufficient to demonstrate that the person has indeed engaged in structured competition at that highest level. And, that long-accepted standard has been met here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show that this person passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almondo Vick[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability; a quick Google News search indicates no apparent notability. J 947 04:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable college football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful Fierce Females[edit]

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

Individuals are notable, but stable is not. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:ROUTINE match results. Half the article is about the members' careers after the stable broke up. Nikki♥311 03:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable stable 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's see what they do on the main roster since they are on the same brand, but at this point, not notable enough. DantODB (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huda Kattan[edit]

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

Clear motivated-efforts advertising because, not only has the article itself been tagged as an advertisement despite clear violations enough to suggest the article's deletion alone (this suggests paid advertising) in it alone; as it is, the article was never genuinely improved, and in fact emphasized its advertising worse when it was unimprovable; take the sources for example: 1 (2 is a clearly labeled self-PR interview) to 12 are all clear entertainment blogs, health guide listings, mere announcements or mentions or quite in between, next, the 12th is her own website, 13 to 19 are all again mere announcements and guides, until once again, 20 being an apparent press release, 21 to 24 are all same, until yet again, 25th is her own own advertised website again; continuing, 26 to 39 are all the same as before. We have our non-negotiable policies against such advertising because it's was founded this encyclopedia as it is, but also, the fact there's the clear attempts at keeping it an advertisement, which violates our simplest policies. In fact, simply take this which shows nothing but the same links as before, but this time actually emphasizing the mere consistency in PR from all available. This article overall is experiencing severe overfocus with such PR, such as beginning with an apparent PR-named mention, but then also the fact the 2 heaviest sections are the ones nearing the "Advert" tag, "Career and Awards", which shows there's nothing substantial here. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be paid advertising, which is despicable, but is Notable. As for the sources, hold a RfC to see whether they count. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is already way too presentist without people using paid advertising to get articles on themselves on it. This is not a vanity paublication, and we need to be diligent to keep it from degenerating into such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, and clear promotional intent & writing. Articles that are primarily intended for advertising canand should be deleted for that alone unless they're notable enough for some volunteer to fix them. But in this case we don't have to concern ourselves with that possibility, beause none of the sources are good enough to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 13:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notable. This user is and has been consistently ranked in the global top 100 Instagram accounts. She has over 17 million followers on Instagram. She is currently ranked above Kris Jenner, Snoop Doog, and Brittney Spears, to name a few. https://socialblade.com/instagram/user/hudabeauty . She has been requested/approached by top beauty manufactures such as Sephora. She is has been on the cover of Bazzar on now is on the front cover of Cosmopolitan (Middle East) https://www.facebook.com/cosmopolitanmiddleeast/photos/a.107005179379640.15917.107005116046313/1286811828065630/?type=1&theater . Need to really reconsider this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.160.34 (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very promotional article. Unsure of notability. DGG's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Father, I'll Take Care of You[edit]

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

Non-notable TV program, probably more suited to Korean wiki. No sources. Nördic Nightfury 10:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation where it is already mentiond. My searches found only minor coverage. Nothing significant. Gab4gab (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made some corrections, added an image, and added some references for the existing information, which may be used to expand the article. This is as popular a Korean drama as others with WP pages, and receiving lots of attention on South Korean media, when first aired and currently, on a weekly basis. It is not unusual to not find many English language media citations for South Korean television shows. This show has popular actors and the WP page is getting regular views of around 300+ daily.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK Bonnielou, you have won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Wikipedia is a global project, so "probably more suited to Korean wiki" is not a valid deletion rationale. This appears to be a television series broadcasting on a major television network in South Korea (I say "appears to be" because I'm relying primarily on Google Translate). The sources Bonnielou2013 found push this above the WP:GNG bar: [28][29][30]. Additional sources can be found by searching in Korean: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Open Colleges. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 04:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cengage Education[edit]

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

Duplicate content, see Open Colleges Kasi0000 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Tagged article for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A10 (Duplicate content) Jbh ^Talk 04:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my night for thinking. WP:REDIRECT. Jbh ^Talk 04:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Vyas[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador. even to/from a "major" country. almost all the coverage is not about him as a subject but him making comments on behalf of the Indian government. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial coverage. Fails GNG. No inherent or presumed notability for ambassadors. Jbh ^Talk 03:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambassador of one of the most populous countries in the world to one of the other most significant countries in the world. Yes, this is an opinion! People in this capacity are notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no, there is no free pass being an ambassador from India. you are basically saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. consensus has shown this is clearly not the case. have you done an actual search for sources to demonstrate notability? let me guess, no. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not default notable, we need sources which are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Recall that WP:NPOL is only a guideline; it has been well-demonstrated in this discussion (and consensus has been reached) that this individual meets the general notability guidelines.) NW (Talk) 14:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ossoff[edit]

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

Most of the coverage is either trivial or routine. Fails WP:NPOL. Should really be a redirect, but keeps getting re-added. If this person wins, then the article should be reinstated, but right now he's one of several minor players in a run-off election. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

Redirect and protect He's not presently notable, but his name is a valid search term for Georgia's 6th congressional district special election, 2017. I created this as a redirect to see newly registered accounts (sock or meatpuppets possibly) try to force this into an article. It should be a redirect for the time being and hopefully an admin can protect it so that it can't be edited until a convincing case for GNG can be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Totally agree Muboshgu, and that's what was attempted. Unfortunately those who don't understand what the notability criteria mean continued to reconstitute the page. So I figured we should bring it here to bring about the result you suggest above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no objection to redirect but only if it is full edit protected to avoid further issues, fails WP:POL. Probably is a candidate for WP:SALT based on the complaints of recreation above. Jbh^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better to protect it as a redirect because he could become notable, possibly even if he loses. If he wins he's a member of the U.S. Congress. Either way it's clear an admin should prevent it from becoming a full article unless there's good reason to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Muboshgu. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Favored candidate on the democratic side, leading the polls, and generating national press, endorsements, and fundraising. - modern_seneca (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC) — Modern Seneca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please read WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. He doesn't (yet) meet those. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't WP:POLITICIAN be satisfied via item 2? Receiving significant local press coverage and endorsements from 3 of the biggest Democratic figures in GA? By my reading of WP:GNG it is satisfied, which bullet point there would you say is not met? - modern_seneca (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC) — Modern Seneca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - The significant coverage has to be in the context of holding office, not in the context of merely running for it. Every candidate for any office always generates "significant" coverage in the local media, because covering local elections is the local media's job — so campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. If it could get a person over WP:GNG by itself, we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever a candidate for any elected position at all, because local coverage of local election campaigns always exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case for Meeting WP:GNG

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- I would argue that this coverage from ABC News having a large photo of Ossoff as the article header and 4 sentences devoted to Ossoff's accomplishments. This should constitute more than a mention. -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
- I think ABC News, NY Mag, Independent, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and Daily KOS aught to be considered reliable enough. -- Seneca^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Daily Kos is not a reliable source for our purposes — it's a publication whose content is created by activist bloggers, not by professional journalists. Of the other sources, three of them are just glancing namechecks of Ossoff's existence in an article about a related topic (two are coverage of the race itself, which would be expected to exist because special elections always get coverage, and one is about a film), while the only one that's substantively about Ossoff is in the local media (where, again, deeper coverage of the individual candidates in a local election would be expected to exist.) None of this suggests that he's garnered more than the WP:ROUTINE level of coverage that all candidates in an election at this level of office could always expect to garner. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
- Again, ABC News, NY Mag, Independent, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and Daily KOS should constitute multiple secondary sources. -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
- Again, ABC News, NY Mag, Independent, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and Daily KOS should be considered independent of the subject -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
- This criteria appears a bit subjective, but at this point it seems reasonable that we have created the "assumption not the guarantee" that Ossoff warrants an separate article. -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election article, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election they haven't won yet — if they haven't already held a notable office, then they have to be shown and sourced as having already cleared our notability standards for another field of endeavour. Coverage of local elections always exists, so such coverage cannot be used to show GNG — if it could, then we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever a candidate for anything at all.
And no, whether a person is favoured or projected to win or lose the election does not boost their notability either, as Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions — candidates who were "favoured" during the campaign have gone on to lose the election (if "favoured" always necessarily translated to winning, then Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House right now), and different sources can make different projections of which candidate is "favoured" during the campaign (see the dispute during the 2012 election over whether Nate Silver's read of the polls as favouring Obama was more or less accurate than Dean Chambers's "unskewing" of the polls as favouring Romney), and the question of who's "favoured" to win the election can have different answers at different times in the campaign (Canada's national election in 2015 started out with the NDP favoured to win and Tom Mulcair favoured to become the new prime minister, but at about the midway point Justin Trudeau's Liberals overtook them in the polls and became the new favoured winner.)
So, in a nutshell, if he wins the election he'll be entitled to an article and it can be recreated quite quickly. But unless you can demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article before being named as a candidate, then the campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to make him notable just for being a candidate per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of material currently on the page is very poorly sourced. The part about him studying under Albright needs to go, as the only cite is ALbright's bio. I'd like to see the unsourced text removed, the cites mentioned above added, and then I'd make a call on this. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / redirect. Presently fails WP:NPOL and coverage is routine for a candidate for office. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect This special election is already attracting national attention and thus satisfies WP:GNG. If Ossoff wins outright or makes it to a run-off, restore the page. toll_booth (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect At this point, the race is notable, not necessarily the candidates. No objection to recreation if the subject wins their election or obtains a level of national coverage that approaches that of Christine O'Donnell. --Enos733 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete if Ossoff is elected to congress he will be notable. Until that time he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two more sources, he's getting national coverage from respect news outlets and will be receiving more as we get closer to the election. I would suggest it is expected that someone who has not been elected fails to meet WP:NPOL, but suggest he does meet the base requirement of notability in general. Also, of those saying he is only receiving routine coverage because he's a candidate or that only the race is notable, I would ask if you can name the other candidates in this race.

There's a complete list of them in Georgia's 6th congressional district special election, 2017. So no, he's not the only candidate in the race that anybody can identify on the basis of the race's media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's not the point. He's the only candidate in this race who is receiving national coverage in major newspapers and news. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, what you said is "name the other candidates in the race at all", not "measure out how much coverage each candidate in the race is or isn't getting". And at any rate, the basic principle on here is that for a not yet elected candidate to be deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article because candidate (as opposed to because he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before being a candidate), the volume of coverage pretty much has to go full-on Christine O'Donnell. It's not enough to show coverage of the race which namechecks the fact that he's a candidate in it but isn't fundamentally about him per se (and mostly doesn't single him out as the only candidate getting his candidacy namechecked, either), and it's not enough that a couple of those articles do single him out for a bit of closer attention than most of the others — it takes evidence that the candidacy itself is making him so much of a household name that people are likely to still be looking for an article about him ten years from now regardless of whether he wins or loses in the end. I live in Canada, for instance, and Christine O'Donnell was getting into our media here — so even up here in beaverland, you can still just say the name "Christine O'Donnell" and Canadians will still know exactly who you're talking about. Ossoff simply hasn't attained that depth of name recognition yet, so as of right now he's still in the "if he wins" class of candidates, and not in the "notable because candidate in and of itself" class yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is getting national coverage from the Washington Post, ABC, and others. This will be one of the most important special elections in the United States and he is the leading democrat. A news search of him clearly shows he is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He clearly now meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN. His national coverage is significant.Casprings (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a person does not clear GNG on namechecks of his existence in coverage of the election campaign, when both coverage of the election campaign and namechecks of the candidates within it are routinely expected to exist. The coverage needs to demonstrate evidence that he's notable for more than just the fact of being a candidate in and of itself, offering a credible reason why people will still be looking for an article about him ten years from now, before it can make him notable enough for inclusion. The coverage of Ossoff has to explode into Christine O'Donnell territory (which it hasn't done) before Ossoff can be deemed notable because candidate; absent that, it's either "was already notable enough for an article before he became a candidate" or "does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election". And no, it's not an ideological bias, because the same restriction applies to the Republican candidates too. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mr. Ossoff is a notable public figure and the upcoming election will be a major event in American politics. He clearly now meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN.Jkfp2004 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL #2 is not met by campaign coverage, except in the rare event that the campaign coverage explodes into Christine O'Donnell proportions. Every candidate for every political office that exists at all could always claim to clear NPOL #2 on the basis that campaign coverage existed — but we do not accept all candidates as notable until they can be shown to have garnered a lot more than the expected volume of coverage, and/or to have passed the ten-year test for enduring significance beyond the current news cycle. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some policy that says NPOL #2 is not meant for campaign coverage. If so, can you link? Casprings (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLOUTCOMES, specifically the third bullet point for "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability." Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not policy. Says it right at the top. The point I am making is that policy isn't as prescriptive as you are stating. There are some documents meant to help editors, which you linked. But it is false to cite those as deterministic. For this article, given this is the first real test after an odd and historic election, I believe he is WP:N As such, I think it is likely that in 10 years, the public would benefit from articles that provide information concerning him and the national coverage of him (and not just the election), is an important indication of future relavence.Casprings (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Andrew Morrow[edit]

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

I do not see how this person passes GNG or PROF. The article is borderline spam, and the publications are--well, look for yourself: Cambridge Scholars, Edwin Mellen, McFarland & Sons (no disrespect intended), all without further evidence that this person has made an impact in his field. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he meets PROF. Only one of his works has been cited more than ten times [31] (Since is registered and verified we can be pretty sure that the publication list is up to date) The article itself reads like a resume. Jbh ^Talk 03:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources tend towards blogs and other weak, non-reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esma Salemé[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks independent coverage about her in reliable sources. Spam bombarded with PR sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Sources provided are not reliable, additional sources searched for came up unreliable as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about eTalk coverage, Exposed Vocals, HipHopCanada and Honey Jam? Her albums are even on iTunes. You guy can proceed and do whatever you think is right for Wikipedia, but really all the efforts that I poured into this would be gone by then trying to add something into Wikipedia. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comatmebro, can I at least get a reaction of my reasoning? Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having your work sold on iTunes and having coverage in something called etalk are not signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased some parts of the article, added more reliable links from The Vancouver Sun, Metro News, CityTV and Canadian Musician. Maybe you can check those and tell me what you think. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 local news pieces, CityTV and the Vancouver Sun, are a start but jsut show that the person is of some mild regional interest only. TheValeyard (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tulane virus[edit]

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

This article is in the top 100 entries of Special:ShortPages and is unchanged in the three months this article has existed, save for the maintenance tags. GammaRadiator (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't see an argument for deletion here: the article is short, and has remained short, for three months -- so what? Google scholar seems to reveal all a lot of coverage. I'm also curious if all such viruses would fall under WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES? The nominator needs to remember that what we weigh here is notability -- not the current state of an article, except in extreme cases where there is plagiarism, blatant advertising, etc. We have many stubs -- and three months, here, isn't a particularly long time. Did the nominator do his necessary WP:BEFORE work: did he look at Google Scholar to see if this was a notable virus? Because the nomination statement rather gives the impression he didn't. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable coverage in scientific literature. However, not clear that "Tulane virus" is the best title, and although I think WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES should apply to viruses, SPECIESOUTCOMES is premature here. Viruses have an official database ([32]); recognition there would satisfy SPECIESOUTCOMES, but Tulane virus isn't recognized there yet. The taxonomy is still in flux. "Tulane virus" is a proposed new species in a proposed new genus "Recovirus". As far as I can tell, the terms "Rhesus enteric calicivirus" and "Rhesus macaque recovirus" also refer to "Tulane virus", with none of these names yet satisfying SPECIESOUTCOMES (though they could be used as keywords to search for additional sources). Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not an expert, by no means, but there are indications that this virus has some sort of breakthrough and it's part of a virus family that has difficulty being cultivated but this one has been successfully cultivated. I say it passes WP:N and has plenty of WP:RS. There is NO way that I can add to this article... not my cup of tea. I think that we need to reach out and have an expert take a look at expanding the article. - Pmedema (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to SPECIESOUTCOMES, I also found a review, which should solidify any notability concerns for the virus itself as well as give a source to the article. Based on my quick read of the source before bed, Tulane virus is one type of Rhesus enteric calicivirus rather than synonymous terms, so it is possible the page could just be moved to Rhesus enteric calicivirus, have two separate articles, etc without us needing to decide that here alongside the delete question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's hope this is the recurring "nominate a valid species stub for deletion" done with for this week :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. It appears I have been too hasty on nominating this article for deletion, in light of the above arguments. Apologies. GammaRadiator (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Flight 1970[edit]

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

No real sources or indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 00:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a real source"? Second, what would be need for it to be more notable? Its not enough that they created first diskmagazine for amiga? And lastly why does english Wikipedia have higher requirements for stuff? Its been on german wikipedia for 8 years and its not deleted. Sorry if these might seem stupid questions, but i've never really have edited other than finnish Wikipedia. Liggi953 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German article has a couple external links, but no citations. Outside of being an OTHERSTUFF argument, it's age is irrelevant. I was able to find some articles mentioning it, but nothing satisfying GNG. I think it's worth noting that Alpha Flight is a long running comic and the AFL abbreviation is shared by something that gets a lot more coverage. That, plus the pre-internet era of its activity, means sources will be difficult to locate. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Underground artists, by the very nature of their genre and scene, are almost impossible to reliably source. Without sources, almost anyone can claim to be famous in some obscure sub-genre and notability guidelines would be meaningless. The other option is simply to remove them as unsourced, as in this case. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Bain[edit]

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

A contested PROD. The subject fails WP:RLN as he hasn't played in a Super League match or a World Cup. It seems unlikely the three sources are enough to pass the GNG Mattlore (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Canadian international playing in a professional team, albeit in a semi-pro league this season.Fleets (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has never played in a World Cup, Four Nations, European Cup or a Pacific Cup as required by RLN. I wasn't able to find any more sources so it could pass WP:GNG Mattlore (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Required is an interesting choice of phrase, almost like you want to remove the rugby league article. May I ask if you are a fan of that particular sport, just out of interest?Fleets (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how my personal preferences are relevant to this discussion, but even a quick glance at my editing history or user page will answer that question for you. RLN is a hard threshold that assumes notability if it is met - therefore required is a perfectly fine turn of phrase. As Chad Bain doesn't meet this guideline, the subject has to demonstrate it meets the general notability guidelines in other ways. Your arguments should concentrate on articulating how he does this so that the article doesn't get deleted. Mattlore (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was merely gauging how to engage with you, it was an attempt to see if you were open to an RLN that does support international rugby league and professional rugby league and not the current iteration of the guideline.Fleets (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appeared in international matches, satisfies WP:RLN and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama:, he doesn't satisfy RLN and it appears dubious that the sources in the article are enough to pass GNG. If you were able to find some more could you please add them to the article. Mattlore (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence he has ever played in an international match for Canada. Mattlore (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he'll likely pass RLN and/or GNG in the near future, but for now it's just a little bit too soon – skemcraig⊗ 20:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a few articles that currently fail RLN but may soon pass have been moved to @Fleets: user space. If this AfD closes as delete and Fleets wants it, I'd like to see this too moved to his userspace, it's actually a good way to save it for moving back when it passes RLN/GNG! – skemcraig⊗ 21:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's purported to be an international player, playing in a pro-team, just in the semi-pro league 1. Rugby League and North America do create a few tests of the existing RLN criteria.Fleets (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. Re-create if and when he plays in the Super League. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:RLN failure. Number 5 7 22:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dempsey (rugby league)[edit]

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

A contest prod. The player fails WP:RLN as hasn't played in a Super League match and an international for Canada is not notable enough to meet the guidelines. Mattlore (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Canadian international playing in a professional team, albeit in a semi-pro league this season.Fleets (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually does pass WP:RLN per #1, actually says that players who have played nationally for Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales are considered notable. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alessandro, I think you have mistakenly quoted the rugby union guidelines as RLN #1 states "1.Have appeared in at least one match at a Rugby League World Cup tournament, Rugby League Four Nations tournament, Pacific Cup or Rugby League European Cup" - Canada has never been in any of these tournaments. Mattlore (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: and @AlessandroTiandelli333:, don't get confused between league and union! I'm impressed he played for Eastern Suburbs Tigers, but did he make the senior (i.e., adult) team? He seems to have played colts (juniors). Same with the claim he played for Canada – he's listed as selected, but there's no record I could find of him actually playing for Canada. Also, the Tom Dempsey who played for Easts is linked in Facebook to a profile of a Tom Dempsey who names Brisbane, Australia as his home town, so I'm not sure it's even the same person. I'm leaning towards delete as I could easily find answers to these questions if he was notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for an article. If @Fleets: would like this moved into his userspace until the player passes RLN/GNG, I'd support that. – skemcraig⊗ 21:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. Re-create if and when he plays in the Super League. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:RLN failure. Number 5 7 22:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andri Mateev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and no evidence of passing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hasn't competed in any professional competiton. fails GNG and NSPORT —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andri has participated and won in the Nordic Championship Sabre and the Reykjavík International Games. This was not clear due to an poor translation from Icelandic. The sources where also fixed, which is obviously an underlying criteria under WP:GNG.--Snaevar (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of passing WP:NSPORT. Needs a professional site for completion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 06:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garand Model 1919[edit]

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

This article is about is a one-of-a-kind prototype. It is mentioned briefly in a couple of sources, but that's not enough to fulfill WP:N. It can be covered in the bio of the maker. It was written by a sock of a banned editor, who is the sole content contributor. Felsic2 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete unless more sources can be found. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep non trivial mention in multiple sources [33] [34] [35] also here [36] J8079s (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Tumblr site is a self-published source. The others seem to be passing mentions. Felsic2 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Merge into M1 Garand - Seems to fail the general notability guidelines on its own. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are sufficient for inclusion. This does not change if one discounts the few non-policy-based opinions about women, advocacy, etc. Sandstein 15:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Olufemi-Kayode[edit]

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

doesn't meet GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through several hundred google hits, and didn't find enough to show this isn't a case of WP:Too soon. It is possible I missed some sources in other languages, etc. Yvarta (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough RS to establish notability. A case of WP:TOOSOON —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:TOOSOON Doesn't apply here. She has been extensively discussed in reliable sources like these Nigerian newspapers [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49].ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided DO NOT extensively discuss the subject. Just mentions and a short piece about her work isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC reads "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:BASIC WP:SUSTAINED and WP:ANYBIO ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject should be kept per WP:GNG. The subject matter has received significant coverage in verifiable and reliable sources mentioned as references to the article Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment i wish to add further that this article should be kept as a way of supporting the advocacy for the increase of women related articles on Wikipedia. More so, this article strongly passed the general criteria for notability WP:GNG see my points below:

The article enjoyed significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources such asI share Hope, The Nation and The Point and mention |here
She is also a fellow of a notable Association: Ashoka Fello

Submitted Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many hits to be found, because she is among other things a professional activist, who takes good care that he work gets published and articles about her get written. We should have a very high index of suspicion in evaluating careers like this " a Nigerian criminal justice psychologist, international speaker, child protection consultant, woman and child right activist, child abuse survivor, advocate for victims of sexual violence" especially when multiple professions are claimed, all coming down to the same thing. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? The claim that we should be suspicious of multiple career hats is not a good argument. I can show you plenty of articles about notable people that list multiple jobs in the lede, because that happens. People sometimes have more than one career or interest, especially if they're activists on their off time. In addition, there is also nothing wrong with being a professional activist or about ensuring that you are seen by the press. The press saw her, among many people, and chose to write/quote her. I'm sure she didn't force them to write about her. None of your arguments refute the fact that she is in multiple reliable sources. You are only attempting to discredit the sources themselves. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article makes a claim of notability, namely that she is a fellow in a society recognized on the English Wikipedia as notable. Furthermore, the references, do establish significant coverage. These perquisites being fulfilled means this article passes WP:GNG. Comparatively, a fellow in the Royal Society would be widely considered notable on Wikipedia and it would be bias to put undue weight on recognizing members of one society with established notability over another with likewise established notability. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only claim I can see like that is of being an "Ashoka Fellow". The page describing this program [50] is so buzzword-laden that it's hard to know what to make of it, but it is certainly not the type of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" that WP:PROF#C3 is talking about. It seems to be more of a program for giving grant funding to specific project proposals (something that is certainly not enough by itself for notability) and then giving them a fancy name. There is no violation of UNDUE in recognizing that the Royal Society is a highly selective and prestigious society and this one appears to be a dressed-up foundation and not a society at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Not sure about WP:GNG. I can't see that she is a Fellow of the Royal Society. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I am currently working on improving the article as we speak to try and bring it up to some standard. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find a dozen or so news stories quoting her, but none with the in-depth coverage about her required of WP:GNG. The Ashoka Fellowship profile could plausibly be taken as one such source, but we need multiple of them. And she definitely does not pass WP:PROF; it's not the right kind of fellowship for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: This one is a difficult one for me. I have rescinded my speedy keep in favour of a weak keep after trying to edit the article but not finding enough sources to be able to write a great deal. The trouble is that her profile page on that society she is apart states that she worked in various news and radio organizations. Now the challenge here is that due to the country she is in and their limitations on connectivity and such one is presented the issue of if this was a developed country with greater technical advancement that information would have made its way onto the internet and thus made a better case for significant coverage. I am truly stuck on this one because I am honestly convinced there is enough to cover WP:GNG with leniency placed on the requirement for so much coverage based on my aforementioned logic. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a fellow of a notable society and there are plenty of sources available in good pubs. Meets the GNG.104.163.152.194 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What society? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The coverage is really pretty good for an African woman. We can't expect the same level of sourcing as we have for Americans and Britons. We should be trying to give more attention to African women in line with Wikimedia's priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Funcrunch (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that there is enough for ANYBIO, as per Mahveotm. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These [51], [52] both establish that she is an ASHOKA Fellow and that the fellowship is not an academic award, but rather a social entrepreneurship program. This [53] confirms her doctorate was honorary. Doesn't mean she isn't notable, simply means that PROF is not applicable. Numerous RS over time confirm she meets GNG. We don't determine her notability, the plethora of sources do. Nor do we limit her to having to fit into a single box or career, like most people, she has multiple facets. [54], [55], [56], [57] [58], [59], [60], [61]. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to me to meet ANYBIO if not GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per observations already made above by DGG, David, et al. The usual social justice warriors are here with their raft of keeps based on websites, pamphlets, and other ephemeral claims ("this article should be kept as a way of supporting the advocacy for the increase of women related articles on Wikipedia"). There are a few mentions in solid secondary sources, but they're trivial. I presume the flashmob of keeps will prevail, tallying this as one more article towards WP becoming nothing more than a biographical directory. Agricola44 (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortrade[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. This has all the hallmarks of a paid promotional article. The only source for the article is the company's own web site. There are inline external links pointing to the company's products and services while the text is promotional in tone with lines line "All Fortrader Trading Platforms include a range of technical indicators to help online traders achieve better results.", Jbh ^Talk 01:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY. I can't find anything besides company website links and the occasional mention on brokerage review websites. Certainly no news coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company, sourced to its own regulatory registration and a website listing. No evidence found that this is more than a run-of-the-mill company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. The declined speedy deletion on this was a bad call. This is unambiguous advertising that reads like it was taken straight from a marketing pamphlet. All it is missing is the email address of the sales department. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete the original speedy nomination was correct, and was incorrectly removed. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 - Blatantly promotional in tone & content. No justifiable reason for declining the Speedy Deletion - is this a competency issue? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Desperado[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a wrestling stable in a minor independent promotion created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Doesn't have any way of demonstrating WP:GNG notability and no applicable WP:SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Milanzi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article that was previously deleted in 2010 following AfD. The article is about a footballer that has never played in a fully-pro league, although he did play 20 minutes in a single FIFA-recognized friendly international match (which occurred after the original AfD). The article doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG as the coverage is routine (particularly the coverage of the match against Zimbabwe that *might* give him notability), and some of the negative content is only supported by blog postings. Jogurney (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jogurney (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject of the article has played in a FIFA-recognized international match, thus satisfying WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject passes WP:NFOOTBALL having appeared in a senior international match. Kosack (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe there is a long-standing consensus that a very minimual amount of play in a senior international match is not enough to satisfy NFOOTBALL without some evidence that the article passes the GNG. See, among others, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe. Jogurney (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though normally for players who are well past their prime, and are unlikely to ever appear anywhere that meets WP:NFOOTY again. In the case of a 22-year old though, a minimal amount of play is normally enough to create the article. Could always bring it back for deletion in 2030 or so, if nothing else happens. Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could delete now, and somebody could recreate it in 2030 if there are sources to establish compliance with the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just re-checked WP:NFOOTBALL, which clearly states that "Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match" are notable. It also states that "For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Therefore, Milanzi is notable enough to warrant a page. Seeing as he is only 22 and on loan from one of the biggest clubs in Africa, having also been called up to the Malawi National Side in 2015, I think it's logical to keep the page as this player could quite possibly make another senior international appearance. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't dispute Milanzi's appearance in that solitary match (I even added a reference to the article to support it). I do disagree with all of the comments above which suggest NFOOTBALL as a free pass from the general notability guideline. It is a presumption of notability based on our collective experience that articles about senior international footballers are typically able to satisfy the GNG. I don't think that's the case here - although there is some coverage in Malawi and Zimbabwe sources, it is all routine and not significant. I'll gladly withdraw the nomination if it can be shown otherwise. Jogurney (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jogurney: although WP:NFOOTY is sometimes overruled by WP:COMMONSENSE (such as here) I don't believe it applies to this case. Milanzi (the subject in question) has played a fully international match and plays for one of the most well known football clubs on the African contentment. More so he is still relatively young and still playing. WP:COMMONSENSE would suggest that in all likely hood Milanzi will continue to play in some notable games, such as the 2017 CAF Champions League which TP Mazembe will take part in. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand, but I don't see any sign that this player is likely to figure into TP Mazembe's Champions League plans. There are exactly 3 mentions of him on the club's website (2 involve an injury he sustained in 2011 and 1 involves a loan to a local affiliate club in 2012). It's unclear whether he remains under contract - the most recent source mentioning his association with TP Mazembe was an article from October 2016. Jogurney (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. I don't even know why we're having this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY. There's quite a lot of media references to this young Malawian player - however the scope of the articles don't quite meet WP:GNG; though I'm seeing a lot more coverage of him, than I do for many a player who plays in a supposedly fully-professional 2nd tier European league. Article is very well referenced. Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in international matches for his country, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I don't see why his international appearances wouldn't make him suitable for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2014/11/03/record-independent-expenditures-flow-to-legislative-races/

[2] ttp://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/results/2014/201411.aspx

[Sveriges_2017_bashing-3] 'Sweden bashing' peaked during 2015 migration wave, Sweden: Sveriges Radio, February 17, 2017, retrieved February 22, 2017, Some would like Sweden to be an element in their story of a failed state.

[Political_Strategy-4] Palmkvist, Joakim; Lonnaeus, Olle (August 24, 2009). "Political strategy behind Sweden-bashing: There are two possible reasons for Israeli political leaders to attack Sweden". www.sydsvenskan.se. Sydsvenskan. Retrieved February 22, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Krugman-5] Krugman, Paul (October 20, 2002). ""For Richer"". www.nytimes.com. The New York Times. Retrieved February 22, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[DN-6] Markund, Carl (February 21, 2017). ""Därför beskrivs Sverige som en dystopi"". www.dn.se. Dagens Nyheter.

[Lindgren_Obit-7] Oliver, Myrna (January 29, 2002). ""Astrid Lindgren, 94; Creator of Pippi Longstocking Adventures"". www.latimes.com. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 22, 2017. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]