Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_March_29 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 March	30 March >

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 Speedy Deletion: A7 . The nominator (and original author) is advised to spend time working on demonstrating notability, not disrupting the deletion process. Nick ( talk) 22:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The Olive Farm

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

Article created in response to an RA request. I then have editors trying to speedy delete the page, which I will not accept. Therefore, I am self-nominating this page at AFD in hopes of seeing some discussion. President ( talk) 22:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete WP:A7. This AfD nomination was created purely in an attempt to disrupt the Speedy Deletion process. Exemplo347 ( talk) 22:15, 29 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) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Penny Racer's Last Journey

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage for this band per WP:MUSIC SL93 ( talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 ( talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Seem to be a non-notable local band (not even small national) that's slipped through the net since 2011. I can't find anything ever besides performances at excruciatingly minor events like Worcester Music Festival and Luton Festival. There's the odd bit of local level BBC Introducing but that doesn't mean anything, and a forum post, and that's it. KaisaL ( talk) 00:16, 30 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) f eminist 03:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Judy Amar

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

A prolific burglar, she got newspaper articles about her arrest and later conviction. That's about it. Fails WP:CRIMINAL for lack of "sustained coverage". Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Addendum: She was the subject of an episode of Masterminds. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

keep She's just a bugler, and the fact that one episode of a true crime TV series is not sufficient to pas GNG, however, she her style appears to have attracted enough press coverage - my quick google search here: [1] to justify an article. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - The two articles in the deletion rationale are enough to meet the GNG on their own. Exemplo347 ( talk) 19:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
keep - per WP:GNG.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

New Wittgenstein

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

Title of an anthology, used to make a title for an amorphous movement. As the article says, "There is no unitary "New Wittgenstein" interpretation" DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: In other news, people are struggling to interpret obscure texts. Stop the presses. It might be possible to have an article about the book "The New Wittgenstein", because at least that's an actual, well-defined thing that stands a chance at being somewhat notable, but that's not what the article purports to do. I'd blow it up and see if someone wants to refocus on the book. — Gamall Wednesday Ida ( t · c) 15:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. This content could perhaps augment slightly the "Interpreters" subsection of the "Legacy" section of the Ludwig Wittgenstein page itself, but I don't think it stands well on its own. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Userfication can be requested at WP:UND; I happen to not do that. Sandstein 10:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Move It (Fitness Device)

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

inadequate evidence of significance.Press releases only. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Sources are self published and the page looks promotional the product itself is not ground-breaking that would warrant a page. FITINDIA (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment: Hi all! Just letting you know that this was part of the Wiki Ed classes. If all else fails, can this be transferred to the userspace so that the student doesn't lose their work and we can work on improving it? Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 12:46, 30 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) 06:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Beth Landau

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

completely unreferenced
fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Rayman60 ( talk) 23:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete unreferenced article on a film maker. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete article contains mostly trivia (list of children & grandchildren?) and has no references. No refs found in search. Non-notable. 104.163.140.228 ( talk) 07:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:FILMMAKER. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

California Closets

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

Great that the parent company is listed on NASDAQ, but isn't this just WP:SOAP? Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - promotional and not notable. Glendoremus ( talk) 06:09, 30 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. Despite some arguing in favor of keeping it citing some sources, there is consensus that does sources are not sufficient to justify an article about this person at this time. Even most of those arguing for deletion agree that the product Vats created might be notable even if he is not, so he might get a mention in such an article if it was created. Regards So Why 12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Siddhant Vats

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability; all sources are just passing mentions, the vast majority of the content about Siddhant Vats himself in the draft is unreferenced. I looked for better references and didn't find anything that would allow a meaningful improvement of the article. Was prodded by Piotrus, prod contested by Ronks123 who used to intern for Siddhant. Huon ( talk) 22:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, please let me know how to use proper citations so that I could make it better. I have removed lines which were not referenced, and every line in the article is properly referenced with a newspaper article. What else can we do to make it properly cited? Thanks Ronks123 ( talk) 22:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) — Ronks123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Keep The references already present within the article, specifically from the London Evening Standard and the Times of India, prove that the requirements of WP:GNG have been met. Exemplo347 ( talk) 23:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
No, they don't. The Times of India is decent coverage, but the Evening Standard is about a product, not the person. Even if the product is notable, notability isn't inherited. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per GNG. [2] [3] [4] [5] Yvarta ( talk) 01:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The Times of India piece about the monastery doesn't provide any in-depth coverage of the person; it's more about the monastery project. The Telegraph India piece is a trivial mention. The second Times of India article is OK. The Evening Standard piece is about a product, not the person. Aren't there any other examples of actual significant coverage besides that one single Times of India article? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I greatly disagree with your analysis.
The Times of India piece about the monastery doesn't provide any in-depth coverage of the person; it's more about the monastery project. - I'm baffled by your analysis here. The title is " Teen entrepreneur helps build monastery in Bodhgaya, so clearly it is more about him than the monastery. Also, probably 80 percent of the content is about him, not the monastery.

Telegraph India piece is a trivial mention.- the article is short, but almost half of the content focuses on Vats and his motivations for the donation, not just the monastery. Also, the title makes it clear the topic is foreign aid, not the monastery in general, and the main philanthropist mentioned under that auspice is Vats himself. So, it is about his entrepreneurship, i.e. him.

The second Times of India article is OK. -- much like the first.

The Evening Standard piece is about a product, not the person. You are wrong. The title reads "One to watch … London teenager invents computer for your wrist." The article is about Vats and his achievement, and although the journalist goes into specs for about a third of the article, the product is the side topic. Yvarta ( talk) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Disagree all you want, it doesn't change the facts. The first one you linked [6] is coverage of the monastery and a donation, not even providing significant coverage of the topic in the title, and devotes all of four sentences to the person. The Telegraph piece devotes all of 3 sentences, no in-depth coverage of the subject at all, and provides a quotation which doesn't count for notability. The Evening Standard is definitely about the watch, also providing almost zero in-depth coverage of the subject, instead covering the product and the team, and quoting the subject, which makes it more of a primary source (an interview) than reliable secondary source coverage, and therefore doesn't confer notability on the subject. We have just a handful of sentences actually about the subject among those 3 sources. Not sufficient, not notable. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. I stand by the view that this is the usual vanity bio written by a COI PR person for a PR stunt (creator: Rajeshkumarmediatoday ( talk · contribs), SPA; request for undeletion: Ronks123 ( talk · contribs), SPA, op mentioned "intern for" the subject...). Of course, COI/paid editing are not sufficient reasons for deletion, but they are red flags to keep in mind. The refs are poor: summary of interview followign a PR event, same event, same shoddy reporting, similar low quality reporting on him attending a conference, based on interview and PR materials, mentions in passing in an article about the watch. Those are poor quality sources of dubious reliability, and they do not cover the subject in depth. This article is a PR stunt, we should not be a vehicle for promotion of such vanity. We are an encyclopedia, not a display case for PR professionals (or interns...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 03:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
~~Weak keep~~ - The Times of India and Evening Standard refs look sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, if only barely. The other refs are fluff or worse. -- Finngall ^talk 14:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Change to delete - per Anachronist's correct analysis. That's enough to tip the scales. But no prejudice against recreation if the product takes off and results in better non-PR coverage of the person behind it. -- Finngall ^talk 16:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately Anachronist's analysis is not correct, I suggest you read the new analysis above. Yvarta ( talk) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
My analysis was correct. I suggest you read my response. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - The Times of India is the only example of significant coverage of the subject. @ Finngall: The Evening Standard piece is about a product, not the person, and as we all know, notability is not inherited. The TedX site is a primary source, not coverage. The other sources either give trivial mention or no mention at all. I agree with Piotrus that this is a vanity biography that exists on Wikipedia not to impart encyclopedic information, but to generate publicity for the subject. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems that this person's only claim of notability would be the inventor of the first Android smartwatch. That's worth a mention in the smartwatch article but I am not seeing a case for a stand-alone article about the inventor. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Added a CNET reference to give significant coverage about the smartwatch. Misrasing13 ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Misrasing13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
This is another article about the product, which does not equate to establishing notability for the person, especially given that this article does not even mention the person at all. -- Finngall ^talk 17:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Misrasing13: You've got to be kidding. An article that doesn't even mention the subject has zero relevance to notability of the subject. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Given the massive paid editing issues the article had in the past, I'm not at all surprised to see brand new accounts popping up here. Huon ( talk) 19:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Let's not WP:Cast aspersions, yeah? If you do have doubts about the intent of other editors, you can bring that up at the appropriate forum, so reputations aren't hurt based on assumption. Yvarta ( talk) 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
It is appropriate to identify single-purpose accounts in an AFD discussion, to aid the reviewing administrator. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Move to draft and give the editors six months to bring the article up to encyclopedic standards, or see it deleted. bd2412 T 11:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Mumbai College of Hotel Management and Catering Technology

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

Article is strictly promotional in nature. Violates WP:PROMO. Rogermx ( talk) 21:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Source searches are only providing passing mentions at this time, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Tushar Mahajan

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, case of WP:BIO1E, clearly a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize WP:NOTMEMORIAL, it is an encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 22:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Deletion objection This article is about an Indian Army officer who was killed in action during the 2016 Pampore stand-off Somrajsistece ( talk) 01:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. SL93 ( talk) 01:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete or alternately, redirect to 2016_Pampore_stand-off. Bearian ( talk) 17:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Quebec City mosque shooting conspiracy theories

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

Classic example of WP:FRINGE. In the article's own wording, "There is no evidence that supports these conspiracy theories" so we should not be promoting them. {MordeKyle} ☢ 19:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Read WP:NFRINGE, MordeKyle. Under the section: Notability vs. acceptance, it states: Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. It is notable because it has been reported on by CBC and Global News, two major Canadian news organizations. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories and Pizzagate conspiracy theory either have no supporting evidence or have been debunked. But the articles haven't been deleted because they are notable under WP:NFRINGE. Same goes for this article. TheBD2000 ( talk) 21:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

TheBD2000 I have, maybe you should take your own advice and read it. Specifically the part that states, "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively..." {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

MordeKyle, These theories have already been reported on by CBC, Global News, BuzzFeed, Vice Media, and Patheos. This seems extensive enough to me. TheBD2000 ( talk) 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

TheBD2000 what amounts to nothing more than a brief mention, is not even remotely significant coverage. {MordeKyle} ☢ 22:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

CommentIt "seems extensive enough" to you, that's fine. Understandably as the article creator you believe the sourcing is sufficient. The ensuing discussion will determine if it is. However, a few brief mentions in reliable sources such as CBC and Global are probably not enough, and the other sources are probably less than useful. I'm not certain if BuzzFeed is considered a RS, and Vice is also questionable: what are their editorial standards, for example. freshacconci (✉) 22:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete WP:FRINGE is of course the main issue, as is WP:POVFORK. WP:NFRINGE states that "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." We are not there at this point and per WP:CRYSTAL we can't predict whether or not this becomes as notable as Sandy Hook or Pizzagate. WP:RECENTISM also applies: the actual event, the shooting, is clearly notable. Any conspiracy surrounding the shooting is not at this time. Simply being covered by media is not sufficient per WP:RECENTISM. It must be demonstrated that the topic has moved or is clearly moving into an historical view. It hasn't. freshacconci (✉) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) My initial reaction is not to give a soapbox to such garbage. "Rebel Media's Faith Goldy also doubted the official story," the article credulously states. No, really? Yes, we all know the existence of such articles as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. But this article offers much thinner gruel -- nothing beyond a single provocateur website and one dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist. And importantly, rather little coverage in its aftermath. What we had, I believe, was a passing minor phenomenon, of zero WP:LASTING notability. Delete on that basis. ~~If the editor wishes to try and add it to the main article, he might.~~ Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
I see that the editor has been trying to add content to the main article, and at least one other editor has objected. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
He could add it to The Rebel Media, if nowhere else. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Junk informed speculations, unsubstantiated and born for the onlty reason of easy propaganda and political manipulation, what have to do with Wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia? Nothing. Technically: WP:NOT#OR, WP:FRINGE, WP:POVFORK, WP:CRYSTAL ("..is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."), WP:NOTADVOCATE ("..is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political [...] Scandal mongering"), WP:BATTLEGROUND("..is not a place to [...]] carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear.") Carlotm ( talk) 01:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Carlotm, I don't know where you're getting the idea that my article is "propaganda" from. It is verifiable and well backed by reliable sources and nothing in it is false. I don't know how you think I'm "nurturing prejudice" either. Please think before you write. TheBD2000 ( talk) 01:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

TheBD2000: Carlotm isn't saying that your article is propaganda or that you're nurturing prejudice. The "easy propaganda and political manipulation" is clearly referring to the conspiracy theories themselves. Nor does Carlotm say the sources are false per ce (if I'm understanding his comments correctly). There are clearly some legitimate sources that have discussed the conspiracy theories as a conspiracy theories -- and to be clear (I'm speaking to Carlotm here) that neither the article itself, the available media sources nor TheBD2000 are claiming that any of this is true but rather that the theories exist. This is the tricky part when dealing with fringe topics. An article on Holocaust denial only serves to discuss the existence of that belief itself and gives no legitimacy to the denial of the Holocaust. Likewise, we are under no obligation to give equal time or balance between the fact of the Holocaust and the denial of the Holocaust. If I believed this article's topic was notable, well-sourced, and wide-spread, I'd have no problem whatsoever with the article being kept. The conspiracy theories exist. With the internet any tragic event is surrounded by conspiracy theories almost instantly. What we're attempting to do is establish notability. freshacconci (✉) 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

TheBD2000, I didn't say that your article is propaganda, nor that you nurture prejudice. I said that junk, unsubstantiated speculations can only be born for propaganda and political manipulation, excluding of course another possible explanation: the love of an unstable mind for theories, the less substantiated the better. Nonetheless you assumed a big responsibility on creating a page like this, broadcasting unevidenced fringe theories, as your lede clearly states they are; doing so, you gave them an unwarranted weight. So I ask you why, for what reason, did you, among the thousand you could have, create this one page, infringing specific, important and basic policies of English Wikipedia? Carlotm ( talk) 02:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think that's a fair question. I'm sure TheBD2000 in good faith created an article s/he thought was needed. As I said above, the topic itself is not the issue. We can step back and see that it's disheartening that these kinds of conspiracy theories pop up in the wake of tragedy. But that's not why we're here at Wikipedia. If this was a notable topic -- and in a year in may be -- there would be absolutely no problem with this article existing. We can dislike the topic while understanding the encyclopedic value of presenting information on the topic. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories are an important topic, as distasteful as the theories themselves may be. freshacconci (✉) 03:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Freshacconci, of course we are often on the limes between censorship and legitimate limitations.

Allow me; your mention about Holocaust denaials is misplaced, on the side of notability. This case is about running beyond the alternate fake explanation of the last in time terrorist act. It is not even worth to spend a chat about these speculations, less so to write an article. Carlotm ( talk) 03:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

But that's not what we do here. We try to determine if a topic is suitable for inclusion based on policy and notability guidelines. Our only opportunity to really allow personal opinions to enter into it is when we decide if a topic fits well within our policy threshold of inclusion (this article, I believe at this time, is not verifiable per WP:CRYSTAL, which is policy). After that we can only follow the sources. If the sources were there (thereby negating WP:CRYSTAL), there would be no reason to delete the article. We're not speculating, nor are we trying to decide whether or not the conspiracy theories are true. Even if I were inclined to believe that (I'm not), Wikipedia would not be the place for it. But since we're not speculating or chatting about what-ifs, then we're actually free to be dispassionate and weigh the information at hand. However, questioning TheBD2000's motives for creating the article very much violates WP:AGF. Add not just the questioning of motives, but questioning TheBD2000 at all on the matter. It's not relevant and frankly quite rude. freshacconci (✉) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Right, here we have "to determine if a topic is suitable for inclusion based on policy and notability guidelines". And I was doing just that. The fringe theorists are those speculating around actuality. So don't tell me. My rhetorical questioning of TheBD2000, was all but rude. It is my duty "to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians", putting forward clear reasons for that. In the same time I was soliciting an explanation for TheBD2000 being so out of touch with Wikipedia policies. And that is my opinion, of course. Carlotm ( talk) 10:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It certainly is not your "duty" to express doubts about the conduct of other editors, again per WP:AGF. You comment on the article, you comment on the edits; you do not comment on the other editors unless they are doing something disruptive. Are you arguing that TheBD2000 is being disruptive by creating the article and defending the article in an AfD? If that's the case, this discussion is not the place for it. And I can tell you, I see no evidence in this discussion that TheBD2000 has been disruptive. freshacconci (✉) 11:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete with fire. We do not need to accord weight to WP:FRINGE theories by people with no credibility. Bearcat ( talk) 15:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

No credibility? What do you mean by that, Bearcat? It's obvious that Wikipedia doesn't consider the conspiracy theorists themselves credible, but many other articles with conspiracy theories from non credible theorists exist on Wikipedia. These theories themselves have been reported on by many mainstream media, including CBC, Global News, and Vice Media, as well as many minor media outlets. This seems important enough to stay. TheBD2000 ( talk) 15:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

No, it really doesn't "seem important enough to stay". If you have to rely on Patheos and Steemit and the primary source website of one of the conspiracy theorists just to get up to eight citations, then there's just not the depth of coverage that would be required — to make it "important enough to stay", you would need to show evidence that it satisfies the will people still be looking for an article about this in ten years test, not just a couple of pieces of "in the moment" coverage that would fall in the Wikipedia is not a news outlet bucket. Bearcat ( talk) 15:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as a non-notable WP:FRINGE theory unsupported by WP:RS. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

just fyi, User:Bearcat. Patheos is a highly reputable source. However, User:TheBD2000 might want to consider that the Patheos article cited in this article [7] is a satire/take down of this conspiracy theory. Citing this particular Patheos article in this case is sort of like citing Andy Borowitz or The Onion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying Patheos is unreputable for what it does. But it's not news media that would constitute a particularly useful source in an article about a news story. Bearcat ( talk) 11:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete because this has WP:FRINGE everywhere. I don't think conspiracy theories about a shooting at a mosque can be compared to conspiracy theories about a shooting at an elementary school that had nearly five times the number of casualties. Cyrus the Penner ( talk) 20:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

How does the number of casualties matter when we're discussing conspiracy theories, Cyrus the Penner? What matters is the fact that conspiracy theories are circulating about this event, they're receiving coverage from the media, and they need to be covered by Wikipedia! TheBD2000 ( talk) 22:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

- As horrible as this will sound, Quebec City sounds minor compared to Sandy Hook. The conspiracy theories, even moreso. Sandy Hook would make sense, given the gun debate in the U.S., but I don't see how Quebec City would count. The political climate seems much calmer in Canada, from an American standpoint. Cyrus the Penner ( talk) 23:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete people come up with conspiracy theories of all sorts of stuff. Alex Jones for example whose has made up conspiracies about this event has also made up conspiracies about pretty much any other newsworthy event in recent history. My suggestion would be to condense the text and sources and possibly merge them as a section in the main article about the event. Inter&anthro ( talk) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Soak.com

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

small firm, not yet notable. The refs are mere notices or press releases DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Macklin Robinson

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP user without providing a reason. – Michael ( talk) 17:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 17:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep..... from the article.... "Robinson made his professional debut in a friendly against West Ham United".... from NFOOTBALL "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable". NASL is fully professional. The article still needs a lot more, though.... South Nashua ( talk) 18:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Changing to Weak Delete per below. South Nashua ( talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @ South Nashua: a friendly game cannot, by definition, be competitive. For the avoidance of doubt the match he played in was not a competitive game and he therefore fails NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- @ GiantSnowman: Whoops, missed that word. Thanks. It's still hard to understand how this player didn't play a single minute in any competitive game after being signed, but it is what it is, I guess. South Nashua ( talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable soccer player. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Covius

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

Page contains inaccurate information regarding a currently operating business and page was not authorized for creation. Eevans1983 ( talk) 16:18, 29 March 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 March 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy KeepNo valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Exemplo347 ( talk) 19:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment the rationale for deletion is deeply flawed and has no merit. As it stands the article appears to represent a company that is not notable in Wikipedia terms and almost certainly fails WP:GNG. However, I will not advocate closing this as a delete at this AfD. There may be a more appropriate opportunity later. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC). reply

Likewise, if listed correctly by an editor who isn't a ridiculously obvious company employee, I'll be happy to vote properly. Exemplo347 ( talk) 19:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I submitted the request to delete the page, but in talking to my colleagues at the company we'd prefer to keep the page and make edits. How do we close out the request for deletion that I originally submitted? Eevans1983 ( talk) 21:47, 29 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Marc Rosenberg (cricketer)

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

Delete. No citations to verify information and the article is full of POV statements. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: Passes WP:NCRIC as a First-class cricketer, which the nominator should have known. St Anselm ( talk) 20:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

He may well be, but there are no citations and the article is full of POV crap. I'm not going to waste time on it so I think it should be deleted as a very bad article. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

So - remove the crap. There's a link to cricinfo there, which confirms that he is, in fact, a FC cricketer. St Anselm ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Or are you saying you can't be bothered editing it so you think it should be deleted? St Anselm ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

We are here to build an encyclopedia. Not nominate articles for deletion because we can't be bothered to clean then up. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC and has played first-class cricket for four different sides. Johnlp ( talk) 21:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Per the above. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep As they pass WP:NCRIC. If you've removed the rubbish and they're still not-notable, then I'd support a delete (on this, or any other article). Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep – I have just added an infobox to the article. He clearly passes WP:NCRIC with 14 first-class and 6 list A matches played. I must agree with the comments above, this article required cleanup not an AfD nomination – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Erin Lear

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

Fails WP:ENT, non-notable JMHamo ( talk) 16:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete not enough roles to meet actor notability, and production notability is even further for meeting our guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per WP:ENT. Not enough significant roles and no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 01:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Xander Cage

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

Continously reverted redirect by IP. The character appears appears only in one series, the article remains unsourced, with unique portions (not found in other wikipedia articles) a copyvio of http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jul/29/entertainment/et-munoz29 Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment I just removed the massive copyvio but is there any issue with just restoring the redirect? I only had a very quick look at the history. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - I don't mind the redirect, but the redirect continues to get reverted. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 29 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) 06:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The Monday Night War: WWE vs. WCW

People keep insisting that it notable but I see no sources and no improvement. ★Trekker ( talk) 12:01, 29 March 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 March 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 12:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete This is a series that's only available on-demand to subscribers of the WWE Network. It's made up of archive material with talking heads and voiceovers. Many WWE Network-only programs are not notable and I'd consider this to be one of them. The Monday Night Wars are a notable subject, but this specific documentary series is not. It would be very hard to find reliable sources as so many results will be for the general theme of competition between the two organisations, but I very much doubt that they really exist in the first place. Without references or at least some evidence that this web-only, paywalled series is culturally significant, it's essentially just an arbitrary episode guide. KaisaL ( talk) 21:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Searches turned up very little information, mostly listings. Nothing in-depth enough to show it passes notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - In addition to this being a culturally irrelevant, web-only, paywalled series, it debuted shortly after the WWE Network launched and their subscriber numbers were disappointingly low at that point. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Rivalries and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Countdown both ended in delete around this time and I'm sure this would have too if it had been taken to AfD. The tug-of-war over this article has been going on since 2014, there has been ample time for a case to have been made for this subject's notability but no such case has been made. LM2000 ( talk) 22:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥ 311 19:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Allen Scotting

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

This appears to be ~~a hoax~~ an article about a footballer that does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football

A simple google search for Allen+Scotting yields only links to obviously unrelated law firms.
A search of the Charlton Athletic website yields no mention of a footballer of this name.
There is no mention of a footballer of this name on the Gillingham Football Club website. Shirt58 ( talk) 12:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

This article is definitely not a hoax. There is a link in the article (and has been ever since it was first created) to Barry Hugman's site, where the player is clearly listed as having played professionally for Gillingham. He also has a listing in this book and a full-blown profile in this book, both of which corroborate his professional playing career and either of which I am happy to scan and send to you. -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Oh, and by the way, your claim that there is "no mention" of him on the Gillingham website is demonstrably untrue, because he is profiled here (for some reason you only searched the "current streaming video content" section of the site, and it is hardly surprising that a player who played 30 years ago isn't covered in that particular section) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

He also has a profile on this site (albeit with his name spelt incorrectly), which again verifies that he played professionally for Gillingham -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep - as ChrisTheDude has stated, the article is clearly not a hoax which was the basis of the nomination and the player passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a fully professional league. Kosack ( talk) 12:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - three appearances, according to this back in the 1980s (to technically meet NFOOTY), meaning his playing career is now over is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down ( talk) 13:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:NFOOTY as he has made an appearance in a FPL Seasider91 ( talk) 14:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. @ Fenix down: this is not the usual case (as in those you cite) of a player who made 1 app and then disappeared off the face of the planet. Giant Snowman 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ GiantSnowman: isn't that exactly what it is. He played three times for Gillingham and then played non league football. He just passes NFOOTY and 9bviously fails GNG. What am I missing? Fenix down ( talk) 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

He looks to have had a decent non-league career after his League career. He didn't just vanish, he dropped down the leagues, and important difference. Giant Snowman 17:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

He seems to have played 9 times in the conference for Maidstone and then the rest of his career in the Kent league. How does that enhance his notability? It doesn't help for NFOOTY and appearances alone don't help GNG. I just don't get your logic here. If he had popped up again in the league I could understand it but after Gillingham his career only went down the leagues. Fenix down ( talk) 18:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 10:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
nominator comment: the "hoax" assertion is manifestly incorrect. Struck. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- You've now changed the nom to an assertion that he doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football, but it had already been established that he clearly does...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 11:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. And he doesn't just barely pass it either, contrary to Fenix down's assertions. He stuck around for quite a while after he played multiple games in a FPL, rather than playing one game and disappear off the face of the Earth. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Shin Rin-ah

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. A child actress with no significant roles, although her recurring minor role in a short-lived tv show is her largest. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete article has no reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete Could potentially pass NACTOR with additional references discovered from an expert on this subject, cleanup is needed. However, this fails NACTOR at this current moment and it's my assumption that the chances of that changing are low. South Nashua ( talk) 19:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - can't find reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No sustained coverage means this fails NOTNEWS. Randykitty ( talk) 11:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls

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

This article clearly should be deleted. This game was just a regular season game and it hardly received any media coverage to make it noteworthy. I don't know how a no consensus decision was rendered when I provided plenty of evidence to show that it should be deleted. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 06:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete This article should have already been deleted. The arguments for keep were not strong at all. This was one of 34 regular season games. It was not a playoff game, it was not a crucial game during the season. It only tied for the largest win in MLS, which means nothing. It should just be a part of the Hudson River Derby article. Both teams made the Playoffs in the end. The game barely received any media coverage and the article is treating like a final of a major tournament. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 06:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep per the last two discussions. The nominator in question seems to have an obsession over this article and should be removed from the topic lest we keep wasting time on this nonsense. Sounder Bruce 07:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- Explain to me why this article should be kept it does not meet notability standards. I've give evidence of why and no one has given any evidence to show that this match was notable. This game is being treated like the world cup final, who cares who played in this game it's not notable. Certain sections of this article need to removed and simplified it contains way to much information for a regular season MLS game. Other users in the other two discussions also agreed with me, but for whatever reason the discussion kept ended in no consensus because a couple of people thought it should be kept and provided weak if any reasoning for it. This article makes wikipedia look bad because it's supposed to have important games profiled on it, but a regular season MLS game is not. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 23:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete 7–0 is not a hugely unusual result, even if it is the highest score in the MLS. I also don't see how "Speedy keep per the last two discussions" is a valid argument given that neither of the two previous AfDs resulted in a keep outcome (both ended as no consensus). Number 5 7 10:32, 29 March 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 March 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - I was previously of an opinion that this should be kept as sourcing in the article indicated more than just coverage from match reports the day after the game. However, now more time has passed, I am not seeing any sustained coverage, so not of the opinion that this game has any lasting notability. Fenix down ( talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete as per Fenix down Spiderone 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - notable widely covered record MLS win that satisfies WP:N. -- Jimbo^[online] 12:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep Widely covered and record-setting match which easily satisfies WP:GNG. Can we stop having this argument every few months? It's getting tiring and seems WP:POINT-y. Notability is not temporary. If it were notable before because of sustained coverage, it still is. Arguments that the coverage has stopped at this point are irrelevant. Smartyllama ( talk) 18:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Hudson River Derby, does not merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 19:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) How does it merit being moved in with the other Hudson River Derby games? Unscintillating ( talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep 14 external sources, I think that meets that section of GNG. It is only a regular season game, so I would be okay with a merge, but I think this article is okay on its own too. South Nashua ( talk) 02:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) Sustain previous decisions to default to keep In reviewing the nominator's claims in the previous AfD, the viewpoint is based on personal opinion and does not cite Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or essays. Also, the nominator clarifies in the previous AfD that he/she doesn't want the topic deleted. Instead he/she calls for saving the topic by merging it, and for no identifiable WP:DEL-REASON then deleting the subsequent redirect with its edit history (see WP:MAD. So there is no policy basis for a deletion, and merge and delete violates attribution requirements. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
- Comment My argument is not based on personal opinion. I did a simple Google search and the only sources that covered the game were sources that talk about every MLS game. Google it yourself and you will see that it was not a notable game. Also this article has way to much information, the Copa America final has a shorter article than this which frankly is ridiculous. Not to mention it's almost the same length as the MLS Cup Final article. This game did not receive a significant amount of coverage. The national media or international media did not cover it. It violates WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS in the fact that the game did not receive significant coverage and this article is basically a press release for the game. AllSportsfan16 ( talk) 16:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Nothing indicates this was such an exceptional game as to warrant a separate article. AusLondonder ( talk) 06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong keep plenty of coverage and citations, not to mention this article was nominated and accepted as a DYK candidate. Nothing has changed since the past two deletion discussion and there is nothing to suggest the "delete" votes have any new rational. As one voter put it above "notability is not temporary". Inter&anthro ( talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong keep as per above. Nothing has changed since the last two discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

To my mind that's exactly what has happened though, there has basically been no discussion of this match since about a week after it occurred, so it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Can you show any more recent sources which indicate that the match is still being referenced? Fenix down ( talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - The above comment is correct, notability is not temporary, which is why we have WP:NOTNEWS. No enduring coverage of this match. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Royal Amwaj Resort and Spa

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

Just another non notable hotel article. PROD removed without any reason given. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete -- an unremarkable hotel property; not enough sources to establish notability, so WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE applies. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

GG's Faith Explorer Tree House

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

notallowedtohaveit Smartgirl10110101 ( talk) 07:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for GG's Faith Explorer Tree House 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 March 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete WP:G7 Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) Confusingly the author of this article listed it for deletion, so it can safely be speedy deleted under G7 (Author requests deletion). Even if the page were to be unblanked, the previous contents of the article looks like G11 (Unambiguous advertising) and also possibly WP:COPYVIO to me. That and it was completely unsourced. Samario: Talk page 10:19, 29 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) 06:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The MelTones

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

Article about a band, relying entirely on a single primary source with no evidence of reliable source coverage about them locatable anywhere. The only claim of notability that might pass WP:NMUSIC, the use of their music in SpongeBob SquarePants, is one of the things that fails the verifability test: it's not supported by the MySpace profile that it's footnoted to, and the only "verification" I can find of the claim is a handful of YouTube clips of their songs set to still images of SpongeBob (which is hardly compelling evidence of the claim.) Further, the original creator's username corresponds to the name of the band's record label, so there's a direct conflict of interest here. As always, a band is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion has been claimed; it gets an article only when passage of an NMUSIC criterion can be reliably sourced. Bearcat ( talk) 07:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: No significant coverage per WP:MUSIC. SL93 ( talk) 01:35, 31 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) 06:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Shuchi Agrawal

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

Fails WP:GNG: Non-notable individual with no reliable sources to establish notability. The article appears to have been created by a user with a strong WP:COI. Probably qualifies for an speedy but it was prodded and the prod removed by a single purpose account. A Google News search result for " Shuchi Agrawal" or " शुचि अग्रवाल" returned with nothing. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep, The subject is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability since four reliable sources have been quoted. The troubling issue is that the nominator seems to have no reasons to establish the "why" of his assertions. It is not clear how the nominator came to the assertion that the person who started the article has a COI. I did not start the article, and I do not have a COI with the subject. Second, the assertion that I have a single purpose account is also false, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

The search for " Shuchi Agrawal recipes" throws her website as the first hit on Google. The search for just the first name in Hindi " शुचि" throws her website as the fifth hit on Google.

Google News should not be used for India related AFD's. Domasai ( talk) 12:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep The Page is informative and should not be deleted. Adiagr ( talk) 04:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Are you serious? where is that significant coverage in reliable sources? GSS ( talk| c| em) 06:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

: Dear GSS - I would like you to consider doing what is suggested in the AFD deletion process " Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Please mention your reservations on the article's talk page or the main contributor's page first, and that after making an effort to improve the article. Please do not assume COI, where none exists. Domasai ( talk) 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete Clearly promotional. None of the sources are secondary sources. Interviews and PR are not primary sources. ChunnuBhai ( talk) 10:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

: Please take a moment to look at the criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, as done here. Second, please describe how the page is promotional, it is not clear to me (for example). Please also clarify how the sources are not secondary, you language about "not primary sources" is confusing. Thanks! Domasai ( talk) 11:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - all the sources are primary (@ Domasai:, this is covered in WP:PRIMARY - bottom line is, Wikipedia is not interested in what anybody has written about themselves, but what independent sources have written about them) with the possible exception of the sulekha.com interview. Interviews are however not considered a sufficient sign of notability, especially not in a relatively obscure publication. And no amount of cleanup of an article can create notability for its subject. Please note that "notability" is used in a very specific and peculiar sense on Wikipedia, and has nothing to do with "worthiness" or "goodness". -- bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

: I am at a loss to understand how the interview at Prabhat Khabar is not secondary. I am also at a loss to understand how the source from Abhivyakti is not correct - subject is profiled there, there are editorial controls, and it was a good source I could find for the subject. I also do not understand how the fourth source (constantcontact.com) is primary - it shows that the subject is involved in teaching. Your comment about notability being different from worthiness is correct - however, my suggestion to GSS was more focused on the process he adopted for the page using unsupported accusations. My focus is on the content, which may be useful for encyclopedia, his seems to be on deleting something he does not like, by accusing others. That is not approriate behavior. Domasai ( talk) 12:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

As I said, the interview might not be considered a primary source but it does not make the subject notable. The others are primary - a presentation of a professional (such as a teacher) by the organisation that employs that person is primary. GSS used the correct process here - there is no question of liking or disliking, when a subject (i.e. the content) is obviously not notable the article should be deleted. Again, no amount of cleanup can address the fundamental problem of lack of notability. -- bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Domasai: Disliking? Well I spent around an hour before nominating this article for deletion but my WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any reliable, independent sources of information with in-depth coverage of Shuchi Agrawal, I also tried per WP:INDAFD but again found nothing to support notability and same as Bonadea said above no amount of cleanup of an article can create notability for its subject. GSS ( talk| c| em) 12:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable personality; only a limited number of mentions in the sources, but these are of a passing nature and lack the WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE required of them. For example- [8]. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete--Lack of any WP:RS on the subject.The frequent visits of sockpuppets,return of an editor after a 1-year sabbatical to post a rubbish! vote--this smells fishy! Winged Blades^Godric 14:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Winged Blades of Godric: You read my mind! Exactly what I was thinking. GSS ( talk| c| em) 14:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, they did make one edit on 2 January... Happy New Year to us :D

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) 06:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Simpl (company)

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

Procedural nomination on my part: this page was deleted by me in January after an expired PROD. User Roshansam, who advises on my talk page that he is an employee of the company, requested undeletion on March 25. Undelete request was denied by Graeme Bartlett because the content was created by a banned user ( Donemelo). Roshansam came to my talk page to discuss it. I found the page to be not overly promotional and it does have sources, so I agreed to restore the page for a full AfD in order to settle the issue of whether or not we should have an article about Simpl. We may need to write it from scratch because it was created by a banned user, but I thought it better to figure out the notability issue before it gets recreated again. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 05:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 05:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete: As often happens with single-product companies, the article is an amalgam, titled specifically about the company - in which case it should be entitled Get Simpl Technologies but largely about their Simpl product. Considered as an article about the company, the coverage is largely about who provided start-up funding. Considered as an article about their product, the references are a mix of start-up reviews and brief coverage in cross-sector articles. Whether as an article on the company or its product, it seems propositional, possibly WP:TOOSOON to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD ( talk) 06:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Premeditated Chaos: User Roshansam has identified as being part of getsimpl.com ( ticket:2017032910013761). And here's my suggestion - move it to Draft, but delete the edits by the banned user, before the move is made. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as corporate spam. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete article is obviously a promotion piece for a corporation and in this case dead is indeed better. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Owen Asztalos

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

Could have been PRODded, since it does not refer to reliable sources, but since the guy is likely to appear in an upcoming film, it is better to discuss the issue here. Ymblanter ( talk) 06:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete the film he is appearing in has not been released. He is a 12-year-old, and I think we need better sourcing to create bio articles on minors. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Currently, he isn't notable, and the article doesn't cite any reliable sources. He is also appearing in a film that hasn't been released yet. XboxGamer 22408^{talk to me} 18:05, 29 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 Snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC). reply

Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola

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

Article about a large number of unsuccessful lawsuits sourced to nothing but legal filings in which the lawsuits are rejected. No evidence of independent notability or external reliably-sourced coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The article also has extensive BLP issues, because it makes claims that named, identifiable living people are responsible for various corrupt, illegal or unethical actions, again supported by nothing more than Akinlemibola's own legal filings. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

STRONGLY OPPOSE DELETION This is sad. It seems that the argument is that if a person does not like the content of an article, that person can delete the article. The lawsuits are also still pending. I think that is also part of the point of the article. How are these claims "outlandish" simply because they revolve around the Mayor of Chicago or Chicago Public Schools? Also, if you follow along with the lawsuits, you will find that there has not been anyone who has justified themselves in the Mayor's Office, even with specific claims. So I will assume you are calling these claims "outlandish" simply because the judges threw out some of them immediately. That's a snobby attitude, even when there is direct evidence for the judges not being truthful. It was clear as day and outlined as much. Also, these claims are referenced to the lawsuits and have never been rejected. These are all public interest issues that need to be discussed, especially when it comes to the public parties involved (Chicago Public Schools, City of Chicago, etc.). It's sickening and needs to be disputed. -- TheWikiKing7 ( talk) 07:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7 reply

Note: it appears TheWikiKing7 is the creator of the page in question. JMWt ( talk) 07:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - first it is not for WP to decide whether lawsuits are legitimate or notable. Second, it is plainly obvious that WP does not indiscriminately collect information about in-progress lawsuits. It isn't anything to do with "snobbiness", it is just a reality of living in a world where there are thousands and thousands of lawsuits filed every day. Only a very small number are notable enough to be on wikipedia, usually because they've been cited afterwards in legal opinion, have changed laws etc. WP:INDISCRIMINATE JMWt ( talk) 07:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete No news coverage of her - which should be there if she were notable. If he court case is notable - then it should enter Wikipedia only after it is covered by reliable sources. Coverage of "Grace Akinlemibola" is limited to - [9] which is limited to a single tweet (in a bunch) from her account. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete There is no news coverage of these lawsuits, so this article completely fails the most basic requirements at WP:GNG. First Light ( talk) 08:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete I do not see how these lawsuits are notable, fails WP:GNG. Not to mention no one knows who she is, so she herself fails WP:GNG. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 13:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete No mention in any press of these lawsuits, should wait for them to be finished/judged upon before writing about them. L3X1 (distant write) 14:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete I see no indication of notability on the part of the filer, given a cursory Google search. There's even less about the lawsuits. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Crap. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I am a serial creator of crap articles and therefore comments such as this me nervous, Beyond My Ken. -- Hoary ( talk) 10:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete If the person filing the lawsuits is unnotable, then a list of the lawsuits they've filed is even less so. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. No secondary sources are supplied. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND to fight rl legal battles in. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 09:11, 30 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 delete. Apparent autobiography with no credible claim of significance and no reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 15:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Grace Akinlemibola

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

Unsalvageable apparent autobiography filled with outlandish claims and references to the subject's own website and legal filings. No reliable sources cited; not a suitable article for the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

STRONGLY OPPOSE DELETION This is sad. It seems that the argument is that if a person does not like the content of an article, that person can delete the article. The lawsuits are also still pending. I think that is also part of the point of the article. How are these claims "outlandish" simply because they revolve around the Mayor of Chicago or Chicago Public Schools? Also, if you follow along with the lawsuits, you will find that there has not been anyone who has justified themselves in the Mayor's Office, even with specific claims. So I will assume you are calling these claims "outlandish" simply because the judges threw out some of them immediately. That's a snobby attitude, even when there is direct evidence for the judges not being truthful. It was clear as day and outlined as much. -- TheWikiKing7 ( talk) 06:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7 reply

The "outlandish" claim I refer to is the "her business is worth $1 billion" — one would expect a business worth $1 billion to have some reliable sources discussing it, and there aren't any. We aren't here to relitigate lawsuits and judges — the fact is, there are basically no reliable sources here, and if an article isn't supported by reliable sources, it can't be part of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

NorthBySouthBaranof, how much her business is worth is not a point at issue in any of the cases. So if that is your "outlandish claim," then perhaps you see how things turn out. Sadly, I feel that you are more fixated on her net worth than the actual lawsuits and (sadly), I think your fixation and disbelief has more to do with her race/gender demographic than anything else. -- TheWikiKing7 ( talk) 07:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)TheWikiKing7 reply

Er, no, and I would request that you apologize for and retract your laughably false accusation of racism/gender bias. If you knew the first thing about me, or even took a look at my editing history on pages related to race and gender issues, you'd not be making that statement. You're angry and frustrated, I understand that, and I know our policies can be confusing to new users — but lashing out with nonsensical personal attacks targeting the person on the other end of the keyboard who is trying to explain those policies is not a path that you want to go down. Cheers. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Corruption Lawsuits filed by Grace Akinlemibola JMWt ( talk) 07:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly ( talk) 07:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete No news coverage of her - which should be there if she were notable. If he court case is notable - then it should enter Wikipedia only after it is covered by reliable sources. Coverage of "Grace Akinlemibola" is limited to - [10] which is limited to a single tweet (in a bunch) from her account. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Not finding any news articles about her or her lawsuits, which means that these lawsuits are not notable by WP standards. Maybe they will be some day, but this this person does not come close to meeting the requirements at WP:GNG. First Light ( talk) 07:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete ASAP I cannot find any reliable sources that supports the claim that she is notable. Fails WP:GNG. Not to mention how incredibly rude the author of the article is. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 13:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails the GNG. Lack of RS. L3X1 (distant write) 14:22, 29 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. Kurykh ( talk) 06:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Liquid ass

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

Poorly sourced - which is all you can find on this product, so it clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Was a redirect to Bubba the Love Sponge, but there is no mention of this term on that page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete/Merge Not notable by itself but could be merged back with other articles that use the same chemicals and or pages that talk about usages of products like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContentEditman ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep It is well sourced; KQED-FM is a huge NPR station and KQED-TV is a huge PBS station. The fact that this article was once a redirect has no bearing on whether it should remain now. The fact that the product is used by the U.S. government for serious training establishes the product's significance. It could not be merged "back" because it is a new creation. It could not be merged "into" articles about products using the same chemicals because its formulation is secret. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 00:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Merge to Stink bomb per WP:ATD-M. Ha ha, funny topic. It has received some coverage (e.g. [11], [12]) and coverage for events that have occurred from its use (e.g. [13], [14]), but the overall depth of coverage is a bit light for a standalone article, in my opinion. The merge target article has no mention of this, so a merge will improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Well sourced article. Has more uses than just a stink bomb. Mghabmw ( talk) 03:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete no credible evidence that it's used as anything but a joke. None of the sources are reliable. The KQED reference is a podcast that specializes in human-interest stories; has nothing to do with KQED TV or radio. Glendoremus ( talk) 05:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- Amy Standen and Judy Campbell are serious journalists. KQED-FM has broadcast this segment, and The Leap is as much a part of KQED as any of the broadcast shows.— Anomalocaris ( talk) 02:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep I completely agree with Anomalocaris, the article is well sourced and significant in the way it used in the military. Pastorma ( talk) 16:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep -- Clear case with RS specifically about the topic. (Article should also be named "Liquid ASS".)-- Froglich ( talk) 06:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep, there are sufficient sources and more newspaper reports available to be used. The product's title may sound, ah, pungent, but it's a real product with serious applications. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:38, 29 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. ( No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

West Suffolk Independent

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject JMHamo ( talk) 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 00:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

a 2-year-old extremely local political party/election list. It does get coverage in local papers [15] and has won a local council seat at least once. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:51, 29 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Eric Draven (wrestler)

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

Fails WP:NBIO with no actual coverage in reliable sources. Trying AfD after 2 deletions and 1 undeletion. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk, contribs) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥ 311 08:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hasn't held a championship that helps establish notability. Nikki♥ 311 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete I do not see why this was undeleted in the first place seeing as how the article's subject fails WP:GNG. Needs to be sent back to it's grave and never be allowed to rise again. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 04:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete, no notability MPJ -DK 03:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable wrestler. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Powerpet Station road

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

Fails WP:GNG, the road only has a passing mention in the references listed. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Concur with nom. WP:MILL road lacking notability or significance. MB 03:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was userfied as User:KAP03/Does Not Commute (video game). — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Does Not Commute

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

Non notable game. GNG, no Google news hits, non RS, as those are tasked with reviewing EVERY game. Crashlands has better sourcing. L3X1 (distant write) 03:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 10:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Deleted. L3X1 (distant write) 14:28, 29 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) 06:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Northeast Leadership Award

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

promotional article with no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete' as spam. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:19, 31 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) 06:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Sanesco International, Inc

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and was created mainly as a promotional article. Has been cleaned up since initial creation, but the assertions of notability don't really stack up. The sources that do mention the article are local, and many of them are about the president as minority business owner, and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Awards are all local, and there is not substantial in-depth coverage needed under WP:ORG and GNG. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 10:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 10:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete as corporate spam; the content belongs on the company web site, especially it's management directory. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Lehigh Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad

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

I have been unable to verify the subject's existence. Adam9007 ( talk) 02:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - This railroad does not exist. Just seems to have replaced "Reading" from the Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad with "Lehigh" and is a close copy with that article otherwise. Dough 4872 05:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 09:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 09:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

redirect to Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad. Based on article text, the rail may have been called this for part of a year. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

A Google search turns up nothing but Wikipedia and mirror sites. The information in the article is likely false. Dough 4872 14:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Philippine School Sultanate of Oman

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Wholly uncited original research. A bit of the promotional material was deleted back in November, but then more was added after that. Way too much commentary and NPOV material. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 04:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete and start over. Comment. This might be notable (and perhaps unique) as a Filipino school in Oman, but the article needs to state its sources. That's a lot of text with not a single citation. I think it's up to JCGDIMAIWAT (and anyone who wants to help) to find references, otherwise it must be deleted by WP policy WP:OR. ~~My delete vote is because~~ it's been over a week with no progress on WP:V. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 05:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. Does have a source. Quality of the article is irrelevant to notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- What is this "source"? It seems to me that the article needs to be completely rewritten with "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" per WP:OR. This requires someone willing to expend the time and effort. I looked for info online, found very little, so more research is required for WP:V. Verifiability doesn't merely mean that the school probably exists, it "means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." As is, the article fails core content policies. I've added the references that I found, but I can't tell if the school is notable with this small amount of verifiable information. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 04:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  - AfD is not cleanup! We do not bring articles here if they need to be rewritten, only if they are not on notable topics. As for sourcing, the school's website is a source, so claiming it is unsourced is completely untrue. It may be poorly sourced, but that is not the same thing. There is obviously enough here for a stub, even if the rest of the article needs to be deleted. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete as completely unsourced. If someone wants to put the work in and can demonstrate that this school has been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then I could support recreation, but this isn't the place for original research. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment. I cited some of the information, and removed a section that seemed entirely unverifiable and non-notable original research. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 03:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. afairly good article , with enough sources to show both existence and importance. We almost always keep secondary schools with a real existence, and there is no reason why this one should be an exception DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 01:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Caution and comment: please note that Google warns that the school website address listed in the article has been hacked. If the article is kept (as it probably should be), appropriate edits should be made. Sources about this school can be found on HighBeam (which collects some years of the Times of Oman and some other ~~UAE~~ regional newspapers) and GNews. "Philippine School celebrates 20th anniversary in style" has substantial content about the school's history and is already cited. Other news coverage more typical for high schools includes "Philippine School Oman Girls Clinch Muscat Secondary Schools League Volleyball Title", "His Majesty Sultan Qaboos' Official Website in Filipino", "‘I Love the Sultan Campaign’ at Philippine School in Oman", etc.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos. Clearly meets GNG whatever your opinion of secondary schools is. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Keep. Sustained notability shown sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

David Phillips (entrepreneur)

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

An unusual one, but I think this is a case of WP:1E. The man discovered a way to get a good deal and there was coverage of this. But was it lasting or truly significant? Boleyn ( talk) 07:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Is anything truly significant? Keep Spencerk ( talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Spencerk (creator), how do you think he meets WP:NOTABILITY? Boleyn ( talk) 20:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Boleyn hi Boleyn, if the article was refocused to become 1999 Healthy Choice promotion scandal, or something, would that fit wp:notability guidelines? thanks Spencerk ( talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Spencerk, possibly, if there was good enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, although not from what is on it so far. Boleyn ( talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Boleyn Thanks, yeah. Given its international coverage, its treatment in a major motion picture, and the place the story has in culture, I think it can be worked on. Thanks for your help Spencerk ( talk) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

*Delete - this is about as classic a case of WP:BLP1E as I've ever seen. I do recall this stunt. It lasted in the news long enough so that he gained his 15 minutes of fame. The subject has done nothing significant since. I remind the gentle reader that truly is not part of WP:GNG, and fame is not the same as notability. Bearian ( talk) 01:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Well-covered at the time [16] [17], people have continued to write about him [18] [19] [20] and Phillips' story was the genesis for a feature film by a leading American director [21]. Rename/refocus can be discussed outside of AfD, but this is readily sourceable content of continuing interest and shouldn't be lost. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - I can learn. I can change. Arxiloxos has proven to my satisfaction that the subject is notable, with ongoing coverage of his life and "stunt". I still hate everything Adam Sandler has done since Big Daddy (1999 film), and no amount of arguing will convince me otherwise. Bearian ( talk) 13:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

24AM Studios

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

Unreferenced article, probably promotional in intent, about seemingly non-notable company probably created by the company's founder. Off with his head! TheLongTone ( talk) 16:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 01:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete/Merge Note that 24AM Studios is not the production company, or its owner R. D. Raja the producer, of most of the movies listed in the article. R.D. Raja seems to only have played an insignificant "promotion consultant" (not even sure what it means) role in those movies. However, 24AM Studios recently produced a film that received significant coverage by the Indian media. It is not appropriate to have an article on a production company that has only been briefly mentioned by secondary sources that cover the movies it produced (such can article can only host a list of its productions). Thus, it could be merged with the article on its owner R. D. Raja. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 23:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete as the article content seems dubious as described above, also no evidence of significant rs coverage Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael Brauser

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

Notability. I see nothing here but a bloke doing a job, with run-of-the-mill coverage. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. Michael Brauser is an exceptional businessman. Certainly a business career involving multiple nine-figure exits is notable? This is not a run of the mill guy. His involvement in the inception of the data fusion industry was a catalyst for all the big data companies that exist today. The explosive growth of Naviant, Seisint, Interclick, and Cogint are testaments to his talent and effort. Happy to add more on this if needed. Btaylor902 ( talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - Definitely notable for doing "his job" as a manager and investor - passes size criteria. Article may need some cleanup (e.g. trimming philanthropy, additional sources). Icewhiz ( talk) 09:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

"Doing a job" isn't an automatic entitlement to a Wikipedia article, especially when that job is as obscure as this guy's. -- Calton | Talk 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. No even close to meeting basic notability standards -- hell, of the companies cited above ( Naviant, Seisint, Interclick, and Cogint), only one even has a Wikipedia article. And the sources for the already thin claim to notability are passing mentions and straight-up press releases. This is a straight-up vanity bio, probably a paid one at that. -- Calton | Talk 15:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 01:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. President of a medium size company without a WP article seems to be the highest accomplishment, so I wouldn't expect significant references. And the actual references are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete -- reads like a vanity page, and achievements are not remarkable. Wikipedia is not a web host for promotional CVs of CEOs, esp when the company itself is not notable. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete per K.e. coffman. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Tiffany Benson

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

Benson was a college basketball player. Her coverage there is not sufficient to pass our guidelines for college athletes, and she has not played in any professional competitions that would make her notable per our guidelines for basketball players. My search for additional sources didn't come up with anything else that would be a reliable source adding towards GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and shows no signs of passing WP:GNG. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Question - is the WNBA the only professional league for women included in the WP:NBASKETBALL notability guideline? Hmlarson ( talk) 21:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
- Yes, this is currently the case. Others certainly could be added if it can be demonstrated that the league receives enough coverage that every player who appears in even one minute of one game would be likely to meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 02:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Where does the Australian Women's National Basketball League fall as an example? US-based Google News search results 1 Hmlarson ( talk) 18:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

My recommendation if you want to test it that you can take the 11th or 12th player from the bottom 6-8 teams in the standings and see if they meet WP:GNG. The WNBA is heavily covered, so I feel good that it meets that standard. There are actually a number of prominent men's leagues that are not included in the guideline as they didn't seem to meet this standard. Rikster2 ( talk) 18:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Seems like an odd and rather random suggested measure of notability that is not inline with other sports. See WP:NHOCKEY for example. Hmlarson ( talk) 20:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It isn't at all. The whole point of sport-specific guidelines are to help editors identify figures who likely would meet WP:GNG. That's the standard for Wikipedia, not any sport achievement or appearance. A person isn't notable because they appeared in a WNBA game. They are likely notable because the level of coverage for that league is such that each player has had significant, continuing coverage in reliable, independent sources over time, which means you can reasonably assume that anyone who has played in that league is notable. Rikster2 ( talk) 22:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 23:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Spirit of the Game (film)

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

~~I don't see any evidence of WP:N notability for this film under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Largoplazo ( talk) 00:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn based on sufficiency of sources presented below. Largoplazo ( talk) 20:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 08:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep sources provided by Duffbeerforme appear to satisify WP:NFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab4gab ( talk • contribs) 12:53, March 29, 2017 (UTC)
Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by Duffbeerforme. Deseret News and The Salt Lake Tribune are especially reliable. Largoplazo, whether or not to keep an article depends on the notability of the topic itself, not what it is shown (or not shown) in the article. Would you mind withdrawing your nomination? Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 20:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm well aware that assessment of the notability of a topic is independent of the information or sources given in the article. It isn't clear why I should withdraw my nomination. If others have found evidence of notability that I didn't come across (granted, I'm a little surprised at my own failure to turn up all these sources in this case), and the outcome is Keep, then it will be Keep. I have no problem with that. Largoplazo ( talk) 20:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The goal of withdrawing is to conclude the matter expeditiously. No need to continue soliciting additional feedback if everyone so far, including the nominator, agrees to keep. Erik ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 20:54, 29 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) 06:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

N&J Quarterly

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

Unremarkable niche quarterly with short print run. https://web.archive.org/web/20091001191841/http://www.njquarterly.com/ Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 00:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete No evidence of notability and seems to have had a very small circulation at its peak. Triptothecottage ( talk) 01:14, 29 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) 06:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Rhea (Magazine)

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

New-ish publication. Makes no assertion of notability. Prod contested. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Too new to be significant, and not much shows up on searches.— CycloneIsaac ( Talk) 20:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Calvin Lee (footballer)

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

While I'm sure that Calvin is a good goalkeeper, and he may yet rise to play fort he senior national team, he doesn't yet reach notability level. The teams he has played for are, at best, semi-professional, and all the cited references mention him in passing rather than being directly about him. What's more, there's only one editor on this article, nearly all of whose edits are on this page and closely related pages - not in itself a problem, but a possible indication of a WP:COI. No objection to this article being recreated if Mr Lee rises further as a footballer, but this is WP:TOOSOON. Grutness... wha? 00:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack ( talk) 06:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 11:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Libor Milian

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

Contested PROD, non-notable singer. — Train2104 ( t • c) 14:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

delete ; no coverage. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete, nobody has pointed out how they meet WP:MUSICBIO, and it is hardly apparent from the blurb bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 07:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable musician. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Not sure why this has been relisted. KaisaL ( talk) 01:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, more promotional than anything.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:23, 29 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. No surprises there. On the one hand, there are opinions that the article still reads like an advertisement; on the other hand, it is obvious that the subject is notable by virtue of scope (employees, revenue), an argument which I have taken into account (arguments as to companies' purported ineptitude, however, were not factored in this closing). Please note that the article could always be trimmed, even to a single sentence if need be. El_C 07:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

DXC Technology

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

Marketing skit. All the detail is information about new company from merger. scope_creep ( talk) 13:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, We will contribute more to this article as soon as we can. We have a content plan but cannot publish it until after April 3. Is there another way or section for corporate content? How do companies get their corporate profiles added to Wikipedia without it being considered marketing skit? ^[1] HJDXC ( talk) 13:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)HJDXC^[2] reply

"Keep as a placeholder". There is a need to capture CSC's and H-P's background, triumphs and disasters. The triumphalism of this Initial Pabulum Offering is enow to provoke many to spill the beans ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterFV ( talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for corporate content, whose appropriate place is on a corporate website. Regarding future changes to this page, now that it has been created, please do not edit directly but instead suggest changes on the Talk page, as per the conflict of interest guidelines. AllyD ( talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Once this actually happens we can determine how to handle the merging companies' pages - and whether a new page is needed. LynxTufts ( talk) 15:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak keep: The apparent intention by a connected contributor to apply a "content plan" is a concern, but one which should be managed through normal edit oversight to ensure adherence to the terms and conditions. As to the question over the current article, the new firm has already been discussed in the UK Parliament in the context of job loss programmes in the lead-up to the merger, which, along with press coverage, may be enough for retention, albeit on a somewhat negative basis. AllyD ( talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Merge or Delete: If merits mention, merge into a main HP related article also mentioning other related merged or acquired companies. PaleoNeonate ( talk) 20:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep. The company has 170, 000 people. - Vald ( talk) 14:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete for now; when the company establishes stand-alone notability, then I'm sure a non-COI contributor would create such article, without needing a "content plan". There's no rush to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep : A quick google search for DXC technology yields around 450 billion results so imo it passes WP:GNG. Since the company now exists (as of today, April 3rd) it also no longer contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. Parts of the article would benefit from being rewritten by a willing non-COI contributor but that is not a reason to delete the article ( WP:ATD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofaclass ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment I still can't see how this article is notable. Size alone isn't an indication of notability, and both the CSC company and the HP division have been consistently failing for years. I briefly worked for CSC in the late 90's in their consulting division and they couldn't tie their shoelaces without instruction. Truly. They have been criticized in the UK a number of time by the UK government, by the press and trade papers, including Computing for shoddy and late work. HP is in the same bracket. They have been failing for at least decade, and sent my favourite networking company, 3Com into oblivion, done a number of dodgy and mismanaged deals, some very large ones that have had to be written off, and then finally the deal was done to cast the massive division adrift. It's crying shame really. So where is the defining notability in the new company? Size doesn't count. It is advertising, plain and simple. scope_creep ( talk) 15:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Reading your comment it would appear you have a substantial ~~WP:COI~~ bias regarding this article. Based on WP:ORG the article is notable as it has received coverage on numerous sites (some have already been listed in this discussion). Also, a company does not have to be notable for good reasons to be notable. As for the article constituting as advertising, WP:ATD clearly states that editing pages is preferable to deleting them where possible. Since this page doesn't have much content on it anyway, removing or editing any content which could be considered promotional is definitely possible. Sofaclass ( talk) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete to completely obliterate this promotional article, with no prejudice against recreation through the Articles for Creation process if/when it can be proven by an unconnected editor that this company passes the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 ( talk) 16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment @ Sofaclass. Working for a company 25 years ago, and I have a substantial WP:COI. Really? Don't be silly. The whole article is a marketing skit, designed to promote the company and at the same time say to use: Wikipedia, we will use you anyway we want, even if it means subverting both the Spirit and the Letter of WP.. It clearly violates WP:NOTADVERTISING as the article was created minutes after the company was created as part of a world wide marketing effort. It is curious how you happened to appear just after the article appeared. Have you perhaps been sent in to defend it. scope_creep ( talk) 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

@ scope_creep My mistake, bias not COI. Sorry. Recent edits have been made to the article so whilst still possibly violating WP:NOTADVERTISING I would not describe it as a 'clear' violation and any violating content could be removed easily. From the username of the creator of this article, it definitely suggests a COI with them, though the page has changed a lot since then and reads much less like a promotional article (though still arguably violating WP:NOTADVERTISING). The article was created on 15 February, the company first came into real existence earlier today. And no I have not been 'sent in' to 'defend' this article from possible deletion. Sofaclass ( talk) 18:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment Curious how it took you only four days to find WP:AFD and come in a defend the article. The name was choosen on 15th February with a press release released on the same day, and as if by magic, a full article appears, made by User talk:HJDXC who as a WP:SPA is clearly a WP:PAID paid Shill. Any marketing agency worth it's Salt would know how WP works and particularly how the WP:SPA policy works. scope_creep ( talk) 19:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

References

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) 06:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

BH Mallorca

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

Unremarkable hotel. Cabayi ( talk) 12:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 12:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Very non-notable. See also related AFD for Tito's, creator seems to be obsessed with the arrest of the owner of this hotel and that club, so clearly not contributed because the buildings are thought to be notable, but because the creator wants to publicise someone's arrest, therefore violation of WP:BLP. Mabalu ( talk) 13:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per Mabalu's reasonings that the article was created only for malice and to make innocent employees feel unneeded wrath from the arrest. Nate • ( chatter) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: The WP:BLP aspects have been edited-out, but all that is left is a statement that the hotel exists. No evidence of notability presented or found. AllyD ( talk) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
A Google News search finds some sources, but it looks like the majority may be unreliable/tabloid journalism, such as The Sun. Mz7 ( talk) 21:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Anwar Shahjahan

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete No evidence that this subject and the organizations he founded are notable. Case of WP:RESUME and/or WP:AUTOBIO. — Stringy Acid ( talk) 02:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh ( talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Inter Alia (Jesse Dangerously album)

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

Non-notable, unsourced since 2015 Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nominator and lack of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:10, 29 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 deleted by User:Bbb23 per WP:G2 ( non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Tatum's Dedication to Animals

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

I made it on accident whoops SellyStew ( talk) 23:47, 28 March 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 March 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 29 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) f eminist 03:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

The DailyER

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

Usually college media needs years to work up notability. This one is nine years old and almost all the references are passing mentions. Mark Schierbecker ( talk) 04:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - passes V, NPOV, NOR, has decent coverage in the Lincoln Journal Star, would not really fit at the Daily Nebraskan or UNL articles so no good merge destination. Smmurphy^(
Talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lee, Melissa (2007-12-05). "Students eager to start satire newspaper". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
2. Dunker, Chris (2015-03-29). "UNL students will keep funding satirical newspaper". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
3. Lee, Melissa (2007-12-13). "UNL board OKs satire newspaper". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
4. Mertes, Micah (2009-08-18). "Omaha concert to benefit UNL's DailyER Nebraskan". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
5. Klein, Jamie (2007-11-14). "Students aim to put comic spin on news in new publication". The Daily Nebraskan. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The DailyER to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 01:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep – Appears to meet WP:GNG per the sources listed above by Cunard. Unfortunately, I cannot access most of the sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 06:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Little Fictions Tour

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

fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Search results are stuffs related only about the album Little Fictions — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 17:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 17:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:06, 29 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

XTRMST

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

Non-notable per notability guidelines for music. - The Magnificentist 05:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep – Passes WP:BAND / WP:GNG per available sources, including those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which is WikiProject Albums' list of recommended sources for expanding articles that primarily or exclusively cover musical topics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC) reply

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete – Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, The subject does not appear to be notable nor do the sources seem to establish notability. MassiveYR 🌟 ( TALK) 13:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep per Northamerica1000's sources plus this from Vice's Noisey section, New Noise magazine, AVClub. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep – Also keep per all of the coverage above. Carbrera ( talk) 16:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC). reply

Keep Sourced Orange County Register and Alternative Press. Both are highly reputable publications with a long history. The band also contains two artists who are considered notable, and both of those artists are in at least two ensembles who are considered notable (in the case of Davey Havok: AFI, Blaqk Audio and Dreamcar (featuring most members of No Doubt.) In the case of Jade Puget: AFI and Blaqk Audio.) citing rule #6 of notability "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. [note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." Lacroixawayoflife ( talk) 00:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh ( talk) 06:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Fatstone.tv

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

Fails WP:GNG RoCo^(talk) 19:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 04:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:05, 29 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) 06:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Doug Geed

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

vanity page, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 03:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete no indepdent sources to establish notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:05, 29 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) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Selangor Bio Bay

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

Non notable "hi-tech area" fails WP:NGEOG because its not a natural place (like a pond or creek) or a road. If it is an actual structure, those have to pass GNG (at the least), and this doesn't. There are 4 or 5 news sources, but WIKIISNOT a list of every corporate structure ever. L3X1 (distant write) 02:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The nominator is mistaken. The guideline here is WP:GEOLAND, which covers populated places. In this case, it would seem to be a district, and so I believe GNG would apply. Gnews does reveal some articles. Searching for the Malaysian name might yield more. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

So it appears that this is an actual structure, and thus not covered under GEOLAND. The MY press has 5 or 6 articles on it, but I don't think that is enough to establish notability. In light of 22 Cortlandt St. AfD, I think this sin't going to pass GNg either. L3X1 (distant write) 14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

First ping didn't take Shawn in Montreal L3X1 (distant write) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

No, it is clearly stated to be a "970-acre high-technology area. So it's clearly not a single structure. With all due respect, you should not be nominating articles for deletion without understanding the content. It couldn't be more clear that this is not a single structure, and I'm having trouble understanding why this is unclear to you. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

The nominator is using "structure" to mean something different. Yes, erected populated places -- collections of structures that form districts -- are clearly covered by WP:GEOLAND. But that is besides the point. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll do the nominator a service and make his or her case, succinctly. This appears to be a stub on a recently announced planned high-tech business district. It is therefore likely not yet notable, even when local language sources are taken into account, based on what we can find. I have categorized it and added it to Template:Selangor, to get some eyeballs on it. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete This is not a "legally recognised populated place", but rather a commercial development (an office complex). In addition this is WP:TOOSOON with sparse coverage. Delete for now. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Non-notable commercial development. MB 04:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Ella Mai

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

A7 was rejected, ~~unnamable~~ unnotable musician, MUSICBIO L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep I don't believe that a musician being unnamable is an acceptable reason for a deletion nomination (honestly, unless this was a typing mistake, I would tend to consider such a reasoning quite prejudiced). Ella is quite famous actually, and qualifies on MUSICBIO. Called a "UK sensation" by Billboard, [31] and the "new queen of the breakup album", [32], Mai has released multiple EPs [33] and has appeared repeatedly on Billboard top charts: #20 on Billboard R&B Albums, [34] #8 on Billboard Heatseekser charts, [35] #38 on Billboard top R&B/Hip Hop albums, [36] and others. Here's her Billboard biography, [37] and some other significant coverages: [38] [39] [40] [41]. Lourdes 03:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

It was a typo, thanks for pointing it out, Lourdes. L3X1 (distant write) 13:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep appears notable based on sources. 198.58.162.200 ( talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep: Notability has now been shown. SL93 ( talk) 22:08, 29 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 Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Global Force Wrestling

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

As of February 2017, none of the very few taped Amped shows has aired in any format anywhere internationally, with a majority of the talent who worked on the initial tapings having subsequently signed to work for WWE, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, or Ring of Honor.^[1] It only had few irregular non-televised professional wrestling events, then folded like Hulkamania Tour. Even Jacques Rougeau held more and larger professional wrestling events under his "company" named Le spectacle familial Jacques Rougeau,^[2] but we didn't create articles for that as it was not deemed enough. Some reliable sources are there because of Jeff Jarret, not GFW. Eliken ( talk) 21:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

^ {{cite web{{subst:!}}url= https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/595z09/doc_karl_still_on_the_gfw_roster_page/{{subst:!}}title=Doc & Karl still on the GFW roster page. • /r/SquaredCircle{{subst:!}}publisher=}}
^ http://www.wwe.com/classics/wherearetheynow/mountiepart2

Keep I've been critical of GFW and have nominated all of its forks for deletion, including all of its championships and Amped. I agree with everything you said about GFW but nothing you said justifies deletion. It's a troubled promotion but it passes WP:GNG and that's all that matters here. I'll also note that the Hulkamania tour you cited as an example also has an article. LM2000 ( talk) 21:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. LM2000 ( talk) 21:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, thanks for your input! However, GFW is certainly not a "professional wrestling promotion." If anything, it's a series of irregular non-televised events held by Jeff Jarret, like the Hulkamania tour by Hulk Hogan. Some reliable sources are there because of Jeff Jarret, not GFW.-- Eliken ( talk) 21:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Clearly passes GNG and warrants an article. Averaging over 1,000 hits per day as per Pageview Analysis. Dannys-777 ( talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per LM2000. JTP ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 15:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep I don't like GFW. A huge hype, a huge deception. Also, I proposed for deletion various articles (personnel, templates, titles) However, the promotion is notable. Various sources talks about GFW and Jarrett says the promotion stills active. I^hate GFW, but not so much to support the deletion. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep - I've also participated in deletion debates to shut down articles on GFW side topics, but the promotion itself is clearly notable by Wikipedia standards. A hot mess, to be sure, but notable. -- Finngall ^talk 15:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per LM2000. ^{(talk page stalker)} Crash Under ride 15:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Checkuser note: The nominator is a notorious sock. As far as I'm concerned, this can be snowkept.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

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

[1] /info/en/?search=Accenture

[2] ttp://www.zdnet.com/article/dxc-technology-to-emerge-from-csc-and-hpe-enterprise-services-merger/

[3] {{cite web{{subst:!}}url= https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/595z09/doc_karl_still_on_the_gfw_roster_page/{{subst:!}}title=Doc & Karl still on the GFW roster page. • /r/SquaredCircle{{subst:!}}publisher=}}

[4] ttp://www.wwe.com/classics/wherearetheynow/mountiepart2

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]