Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 June	11 June >

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 delete. The current article is identical to the previously deleted one and there's been no change in the policy. The previous deletion discussion stands. If an editor wants to re-create the article, they can demonstrate this at WP:AFC. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drug War (2018 film)

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug War (2018 film) and film notability guidelines. Author states in edit summary that reason for deletion no longer applies, but there is no indication of any notability to production or other reason why the previous AFD is not applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have gone with a speedy G4 except for the edit summary. Waiting for User:Ab2ab3 to explain why the previous AFD is not applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 July 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) — Music1201 ^talk 17:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Soller McLay

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

Delete: no grounds for notability proferred; article is comprised of only one-sentence which is laden with POV. Quis separabit? 23:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was "a key figure in the documenting of Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust" POV? Surely you don't deny that they committed atrocities? The Times obituary is headed "documented the full extent of the Nazis’ crimes against humanity". There was also a clear assertion of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have reworded the sentence to be less biased. Admittedly, there aren't that many reliable independent sources covering her. That said, I think being a member (and, in fact, the last surviving one before her death) of the team that prosecuted Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg is notable, and that the sources in the article further bolster her notability. Everymorning (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received obituaries in The Times, The Post-Journal, and Los Angeles Times indicating her significance and international recognition. Passes GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Philafrenzy says, news obits in major media like The Times and the Los Angeles Times is a standard demonstration of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was responsible for "compiling the official U.S. record of the trials". No offense, but that sounds like clerical/secretarial work. The article should be redirected to an appropriate target and any salient info added manually unless there's more stuff to add to the article as it is. Quis separabit? 17:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly wasn't just routine clerical work or she would not have received three obituaries in reputable papers. Those papers have exercised their editorial judgement and decided she was worth writing about. There any number of other deceased people they could have written about. They chose her because they thought her work was significant. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the L.A. Times is a local paper for Soller McClay, publishing an in depth, edited obituary certainly counts as a reliable source. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - She is not notable herself, but the team she worked with was notable and had notable members. Notability isn't transferable per WP:INVALIDBIO: "relationships do not confer notability." Even the sources that appears to be about her are really about the team she was a part of: most of them contained at least as much about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson as they did her. She can't only notable because she *happened* to be the last one to die from Jackson's team. At most she should have mention in Nuremberg trials for her role. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per obits in The Times, The Post-Journal, and Los Angeles Times. An acceptable and suitably referenced stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 17 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gallbladder (disambiguation)

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

The only two entries on this orphan dab page are Gallbladder (Chinese medicine), which is a redirect back to the primary topic, and Gallbladder polyp, which is a partial title match that would never be referred to as simply "gallbladder" and which has a proper link from the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this dab page serves no purpose. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 12 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Buckhouse

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

Only one source (backstage.com - not reliable) that isn't comprehensive coverage, thus not establishing notability. Waggie (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, thin information in the article does not even show notability. There is no indication that any of the roles are major. Second, none of the references and external links, such as they are, confirm all the films listed. He's not on the ImdB page for Transformers, Independence Day or Roswell--presumably he was an uncredited extra. So questions of what we consider a RS do not even arise. DGG ( talk ) 11:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability at this time. Search results are all social media or directories, not reliable third party sources. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a minor supporting actor. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 16 June 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. WP:SNOW and BLP. There is possibly a reasonable article to be written here - some sledging incidents are legendary in the game - but it'd have to be sourced impeccably, and not include minor disagreements like some here. Black Kite (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of sledging incidents and fights in cricket

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

Delete. Reluctantly, but there are serious issues here with WP:BLP to the forefront. See the multiple issues in the attention tag. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the issues raised at WT:CRIC. – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily for the BLP concerns; we need better sources than video clips of the incidents in question. Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources aren't a problem for this kind of thing - there's regular "10 best sledges" articles in newspapers, any on-field altercation gets huge coverage in the MSM, and there's even been a 160-page book (ISBN 9780857200921) that essentially matches this article. There may not be huge numbers of references in there at the moment, but they should be obtainable. Likewise with the recentism, you could probably fill an article just with W. G. Grace sledges. I think the concerns are more the risk of cruft. Another risk is that if this page disappears, then the contents just move in time to the main sledging article. The cruft risk also applies to that main article, but is arguably more disruptive there than in a dedicated sub-article like this.Le Deluge (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly due to BLP concerns and a side of WP:OR. But it's also a coatrack page for any (minor) on-field disagreement between two (or more) players. Some of the most notable ones are covered in the main sledging article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Lugnuts this seems to be a coatrack page listing a number of disagreements people have had. Lack of sourcing also means its a massive BLP issue, and the title is so broad that it has no clear inclusion/exclusion (for example, why isn't the Warner/Root bar fight included?) Overall, not needed, as the notable incidents will be covered elsewhere on Wikipedia e.g Sledging (cricket). I don't support redirecting, as it's not a plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate list and BLP concerns. Ajf773 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a host of reasons. Such a list is, in itself, not notable. If a particular incident is notable then it should form part of an article about the players, match, series, tournament etc... involved. It would also strike me as impossible to maintain or to determine any kind of sensible entry criteria beyond the GNG criteria for sourcing. There are other reasons as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. Can we have an early close per WP:SNOW? St Anselm (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: - I've dropped a note at ANI asking for someone to take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 13 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhupen Dave

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all, of a person notable only for serving on a non-metropolitan borough council. As always, serving in local government is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL: per criterion #2, local political figures can qualify for articles if they're sourced over WP:GNG as the subject of significant press coverage, but do not automatically get articles across the board just because they exist — but there's no sourcing here to show that, or even any real substance beyond "he exists". Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rational above precisely explains what is wrong with this article. Comatmebro (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No significant sources found. Grayfell (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources, offered or to be found. A few stray mentions in local newspapers seems to be it. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:11, 17 June 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. self-promotion for non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiiiiiiiiiip

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

The topic may not be notable enough; in addition, the creator of this article seems to be the DJ itself, and the tone of the article is like an advertisement. Article was deleted yesterday under similar conditions (reason was G11: "The topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own as none of the sources here are substantially convincing and significant"). Jumpytoo Talk 19:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSICBIO. No notable chart-toppers or music awards. Comatmebro (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete not a notable performer at this time. Speedy recommendation based on nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:59, 10 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BaseBean

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

Not notable. It appears to be the name used for a specific example in a single book. There is no well-defined term in current use, and the article as-written doesn't describe an important term in Computer Science. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – appears to be a protologism with very little usage, as seen from Google ngrams. Fails the GNG. — Quasar G. 19:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research, unless this all comes from a Dummies book, which are often user-submitted content / non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 15 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DFT Games

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

It doesn't appear that this company has produced any notable games. I suspect the author of the article is the owner of the company. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears not to be notable per the VGRS search. Delete. --Izno (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Checked a random selection of games created by this company and none have notoriety Jumpytoo Talk 20:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent third-party WP:RS found or given. ww2censor (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other recommendations above. No indication subject meets WP:GNG, WP:WEBCRIT or WP:ORG. (News searches for example return no independent coverage of the company or its works/products). Some trivial mentions and listings for the developer's software - but only insofar as it confirms that the entity exists, and not sufficient to meet notability criteria. Apparent promo issues also of note. Guliolopez (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching found no sources that would show that this passes WP:COMPANY. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. We are a charity, not an online toy store. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 16 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CMI Gold & Silver Inc.

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

Seems to be an unremarkable bullion dealer, other than an involvement (of unknown importance) in a 2002 murder investigation. The cited news articles suggest they are about the investigation not the company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom....Sulaimandaud (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to find any significant coverage of this company in independent reliable sources. Their peripheral involvement in the investigation of the disappearance of Bison Dele does not make the company notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. This is a run of the mill small retail company, for which a murder at the store does not confer notability. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 16 June 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) — Music1201 ^talk 17:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahjadpur

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

This article may not meet Wikipedian Standards as per WP:Notability, as it is a small ward in a City, it should be deleted or merged to its respective City — IM3847 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How is a city of more than 10 million people a town? Its is notable per the first bulletin point on WP:GEOLAND. Badly sourced but notable topic.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sir, are there any differences between Shahjadpur Upazila and Shahjadpur.—IM3847 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- They are completely different places. Shahjadpur is a community of about 20,000 people within Ward No. 18 of the city of Dhaka. Shahjadpur Upazila is an administrative sub-district with a population of about 560,000 located about 80 km northwest of Dhaka. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GEOLAND, as indicated by Vinegarymass911. Comment: This article is very poorly written and very poorly sourced. On top of that, sources are scarce. These, however doesn't warrant deletion. Also, according to WP:BDPLACE, the article about the ward should be under, Shahjadpur Ward. However, the locality of Shahjadpur entirely consists of and consisted within the jurisdiction of the ward. So, I posit, the article should be about the locality/neighborhood and a section (administration/governance/ward) should cover the subject of Shahjadpur Ward. --nafSadh did say 18:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article certainly needs improvement, but notable enough. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 15:33, 16 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Kehr

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

It looks like there is some consensus among sports Wikipedians that referees are usually not notable enough for inclusion (see here for example), so the question is whether this referee's unusually young age makes him notable, and I honestly don't know the answer to that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find evidence sufficient to pass GNG Spiderone 17:53, 16 June 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. Consensus appears to be that this is TOOSOON. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bays Precinct railway station

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

WP:Too soon. The location of the station hasn't been announced. http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/projects/sydney-metro-west-project-overview-nov-2016.pdf says the preferred alignment of the line won't even be announced until late 2018!

Additionally, the Bays Precinct is a large area - the name of the station is unlikely to be "Bays Precinct", and it's possible there may be more than one station serving the area. Gareth (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our requirements for inclusion do not include that the thing has actually been built, nor that it has a stable name or location. Our requirement is that it is notable. That is, that it is discussed in reliable sources. It is certainly getting some news coverage. SpinningSpark 05:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spinningspark. Cites have now been added. Lebepoint (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL point #5 would seem to apply. When this is more than just a product announcement that may or may not come to pass, then an article would be appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete at most merge and redirect to Bays Precinct. Currently fails GNG, cannot make a more in depth article. Just much TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 18:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WAY to soonJkd4855 (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is TOOSOON and there is not enough concrete information for an article yet. MB 03:15, 16 June 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. After reviewing the arguments on both sides of this I am not seeing an overwhelming policy based argument that leads to either a clear keep or delete. Given the level of participation (thanks to everyone who chimed in) I doubt a further relisting would help. This close is w/o prejudice to another nomination somewhere down the road if the article still appears subpar. But I would suggest a reasonable interlude before sending it back here to allow for possible improvements. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treason laws in the United States

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

~~Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG, unsourced. Possibly redirect to Treason#United States. ansh 666 01:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reading the below comments, I agree that the general topic could be worthy of an article. However, I feel like such an article would be more of a broad overview with possibly a sourced list of state/federal laws in it, and a better title would be Treason in the United States (currently also a redirect). Either way, this article is not it, hence my suggestion to redirect. ansh 666 18:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving this. I still stand by the above statement, but at this point it would be more expand and move than redirect and start over. ansh 666 16:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration of the edits. There is more work required to make it into a complete article, so I hope it sparks interest in a few more people. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. US treason laws are verifiable and notable, and it is a valid topic for an article. Yes, it is only a list so far, but each of those list items could be a subheading. Plenty of reliable sources exist. "Unsourced" is not a reason to delete, it is a reason to find references and improve the article. There is much more to be known about treason laws in the US than can be included in the general treason article, particularly with 50 states each having their own laws (something that doesn't happen in other countries). The topic is valid, verifiable and notable. This is thinly veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice of creating a real article. At present, it's sourced only by one general link to all the state laws covering every topic, which is effectively no source at all. Even if it were specific, it'd be WP:PRIMARY; and without more specific cites, it's impossible to determine whether this meets that policy's requirement "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

I believe this is a notable topic, but none of the content present in the article can remain in its current form. A real article would discuss the definition(s) of treason; the balance of power between the state and federal governments, including the issue of preemption; and the penalties. This is just an indiscriminate unsourced list of penalties. Treason#United_States does a much better job of treating the subject than this attempt.

This !vote is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT; it's' a recognition that, once everything that is required by Wikipedia policy to be removed from the article is actually removed, there is nothing left. TJRC (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNTTNT. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sourcing to a single external database is insufficient, however this is a notable subject which deserves a page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Despite the claim inherent in the title the ONLY part of the law considered is the sentencing guideline. Given the nature of treason as defined, and the uh, "United" aspect of the United States I'm intrigued how Treason against one state wouldn't be treated as treason against all states (and so a Federal crime). There's the prospect of an interesting article there, but this article isn't it. WP:TNT. Cabayi (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your curiousity about how treason against one state might not be treated as treason against the United States is something that could be addressed in the article, which further evidences the notability of this topic. A good reason to keep. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements are enough for me to withdraw my Delete !vote, but not yet enough for an enthusiastic keep. Sentencing guidelines need better referencing than the top page of a website. Cabayi (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 18:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Has there ever been an indictment for treason against a state?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll add it to the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, by the way. Another good reason to keep. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least 13 have been charged with treason against various states, six convicted (one received amnesty, the rest hanged). Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the list as it currently stands just provides the info on the penalties. This content is almost completely unsourced. Delete per WP:V & somewhat off topic content. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 17 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Lynch (actress)

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actress and model, whose strongest claim of notability is appearing in a single music video. That's not an WP:NACTOR pass in and of itself, and the other acting roles listed are either television commercials or one-off guest roles in TV series. That wouldn't matter if she were the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG, but nothing here entitles her to an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to show any real notabilty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NACTOR. Not even close. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. —Cryptic 17:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company

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

Non-notable company. I found a few newspaper articles that mention the company (LA Times, NY Times, NYTimes), but these are all routine, perfunctory coverage of ongoing business and legal events. None demonstrate the depth of coverage required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 7 -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per Cunard's research. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's important, when researching events that happened almost 30 years ago, to go beyond Google and search academic databases as well. Compy book (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that google is not the only resource people should be using to find sources. But, if you believe there are WP:RS which establish WP:N to be found elsewhere, please find them and present them here. Even better, add them to the article (and mention here that you've done so). -- RoySmith (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm conducting an experiment on my WP:GREASE theory, in which I WP:IAR with regard to WP:POINT and test to see what happens if I don't intervene beyond that one comment (and this one). Compy book (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ferris, S. (2010). "'Someone Else's Problem' the Failure of the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company". Australian Actuarial Journal. Vol. 16, no. 6. Actuaries Institute. pp. 1–64. ISSN 1442-3065. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The abstract for the 64-page article notes:
  This paper outlines the weaknesses in insurance regulation and supervision, which led to the failure of the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company in Florida in 1991. There are comparisons to more recent failures of financial institutions in Australia, including Goldfields Medical Fund and Commercial Nominees.
2. Ostermiller, Marilyn (February 1998). "The game plan". Best's Review: Life/health insurance edition. Vol. 98, no. 10. A. M. Best. p. 45. ISSN 0005-9706.
  The article notes:
  
  By the fall of 1992, the industry and state receivers had hammered out the concept that became Guaranty Reassurance Corp. It took until April 13, 1993, to get the new industry-owned insurance company in place with John M. Ericson Jr. as its president and chief executive officer.
  Through state guaranty associations, life insurers doing business in states where Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co. had policyholders were assessed the initial $3.2 million to capitalize Guaranty Reassurance. They've also periodically been assessed a proportionate share of money needed to pay for the failed insurer's liabilities, based on their share of the market. Last fall, the final $70 million cash call went out to help fund the reserves for the liabilities assumed by Midland National.
  Midland National--one of nine bidders for Guaranty Reassurance's business-was selected based on the ceding fee they were willing to pay, their financial strength and their policyholder services.
  ...
  In April 1995, a Circuit Court judge approved a $100 million settlement to be paid by Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith; Coopers & Lybrand; and the New York law firm of Sheriff, Friedman, Hoffman & Goodman. Receivers claimed that the firms helped Sanford hide Guarantee Security's financial condition.
  The article provides a timeline:
  The Path to Reconstruction
  - Aug. 12, 1991 Florida seizes Guarantee Security Life
  - Dec. 21, 1991 State sues Guarantee Security owners for fraud
  - April 1991 Senate committee conducts hearings on the failure
  - Apr. 13, 1991 Guaranty Reassurance Corp. opens
  - July 14, 1995 $100 million court judgment awarded to GRC and policyholders
  - April 1997 Transmark agrees to forfeit $2.1 million
  - Nov. 3, 1997 Book of business transferred to Midland National Insurance Co.
3. "Policyholders in limbo". Best's Review: Life/health insurance edition. Vol. 98, no. 10. A. M. Best. February 1998. p. 47. ISSN 0005-9706.
  The article notes:
  
  When Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co. failed, it had more than 55,000 policyholders nationwide, including about 9,000 in Florida. Most first learned that their life insurance policies and annuities were in jeopardy when a letter arrived in the mail in the fall of 1991 from the Florida Department of Insurance saying the state was taking over the company and that all accoutred values were frozen, with the exception of several hardship cases.
  ...
  In 1990 and 1991, Guarantee Security policies were paying as much as 10%, when the going rate was about 8%. When the state-appointed receiver stepped in, interest rates were reduced to contractual minimum crediting rate, which for most policyholders was 4%. However, nearly all of them--99.6% of policyholders--kept their policies at the reduced-interest crediting rate and transferred to Guaranty Reassurance Corp., the industry-run restoration company. The incentive to stay with the restoration effort was stiff surrender charges and the possibility of sharing in potential court awards. Policyholders who bailed out at that point received only 32 cents on the dollar.
  Under Guaranty Reassurance, the rate was increased to 4.5% in the first year, then 4.75% in the third year and finally 4.875% in the fourth and fifth years.
  ...
  Underwood credits one of the customer service representatives, Louise Simboc, with convincing him to stick out the restoration when he was on the verge of bailing out. In the end, through careful cultivation of assets and court judgments, Guaranty Reassurance was able to cover the nonguaranteed policy values. "I'm so proud of them," Underwood said.
  About 42,000 of the original 55,000 policyholders transferred to Midland National Insurance Co., Fargo, N.D., in November.
4. "Florida receiver collecting on fraud settlement suit; includes resort in Bahamas". Insurance Advocate. Vol. 107, no. 14. CINN Worldwide. 1996-04-06. p. 30. ISSN 0020-4587.
  The article notes:
  
  Mark C. Sanford, his wife and his brother Robert, who settled a civil suit brought against them for their alleged plundering of the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company, are now paying off. They have given the Department of Insurance, as receiver for the defunct carrier, $8.5 million in cash, $3 million in securities and some other properties. Now they have turned over a private island locale in the Bahamas with an estimated value of $3.5 million. The total settlement with the department was for $15 million, even though the state had sought $300 million. But the state also won settlements totaling an additional $100 million from other defendants.
  Insurance Commissioner Bill Nelson called it the largest recovery related to a failed insurer.
  Sanford and William Blackburn bought Guarantee Security in 1984 when it had assets of $100 million. Through some heavy sales in supposedly high yield annuities, they increased assets to $1 billion, but the balloon burst because their investments in so called junk bonds failed to materialize. The suit against them was for fraud.
  The settlement included a pledge that none of those accused of fraud would work in the insurance business again.
5. Craddock, John (1991-08-13). "State seizes failed insurance company". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  The rash of national insurance company failures hit Florida on Monday as the state's sixth-largest life insurance firm was seized by state regulators.
  Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co., based in Jacksonville, was taken over by the state Department of Insurance after an audit revealed the company had a negative net worth of about $40-million, which means its liabilities exceeded its assets by that amount.
  ...
  The failure affects about 6,200 policyholders in Florida. Overall, the failure affects more than 50,000 policyholders, most of whom live in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Florida.
  The policies were single premium life insurance and annuities.
  ...
  Guarantee Security had the same problem as Executive Life: an overload of junk bonds.
  The bonds accounted for about 60 percent of the company's assets. As of June 30, the assets totaled about $600-million. Its assets had been as much as $970-million.
  At one time Guarantee Security had about 90 percent of its portfolio in junk bonds and included such well known names as RJR Nabisco and Gulfstream Land & Development Corp., which developed Tampa Palms.
6. Roush, Chris (1992-06-25). "State funds to take over failed insurer". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  State guaranty funds from across the country have agreed to form a company that will take over the annuities and policies of Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co., the largest insurance failure in Florida's history.
  For consumers who have seen their money frozen after Jacksonville-based Guarantee Security was taken over by regulators last August, the announcement Wednesday means they will soon have access to their money if they choose to withdraw it.
  ...
  It's the first time the guaranty associations have resolved their obligation to policyholders of a failed company by forming a new insurance company.
  ...
  The new insurance company, which does not yet have a name, will assume the $620 million worth of policy liabilities, as well as Guarantee Security's assets, which are predominantly junk bonds.
7. Roush, Chris (1992-04-25). "Burying insurer a gigantic task for regulators". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Surrounded by 4,000 boxes holding 16 million sheets of paper, Daniel Perry and Michael Heekin are charged with making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
  As receivers of Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co., taken over by the Florida Insurance Department in August, Perry and Heekin must lead an operation to save the assets of 57,000 annuity and policyholders.
  Their task: Find more than $300 million to balance up the shortfall in Guarantee Security's books. The company's policies have a value of about $620 million, but its assets, depleted by bad transactions and junk bonds, are less than $300 million.
  ...
  A jury will decide whether Guarantee Security's executives, its accounting firm, investment bankers and lawyers acted legally.
  Regulators filed a $300 million fraud suit in December against its former managers, including Tampa businessman William B. Blackburn, its securities broker, Merrill Lynch, as well as the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand and a New York law firm. Former junk bond king Michael Milken was sued separately earlier this year.
8. Roush, Chris (1993-01-12). "State knew of failed insurer's deals". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Three Department of Insurance examiners have told the Securities and Exchange Commission they thought transactions by Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co. now alleged to be illegal were fine when done in the mid-1980s.
  ...
  At the end of each year between 1984 and 1988, when Guarantee had to report its holdings to state regulators, the company would sell junk bonds to the brokerage Merrill Lynch in return for government-backed notes. That made it look like the company was investing in safer, more stable securities and cosmetically improving its financial books, regulators now claim.
  ...
  In the largest insurance failure in state history, Guarantee Security was taken over by state insurance regulators just one week after those depositions were taken.
9. "MetLife assumes annuities of failed insurer". The Tampa Tribune. Bloomberg News. 1993-10-20. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. has agreed to settle a Florida lawsuit by assuming obligation for 1,000 annuities worth $5 million that had been transferred to the now-failed Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co.
  ...
  MetLife and three other insurers were accused of transferring 7,000 annuities to Jacksonville-based Guarantee between June 1987 and December 1989 without policyholder approval. The holders are mostly elderly people from Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Missouri.
  ...
  Guarantee was sold last year to the National Organization of Life and Health Guaranty Associations, which assumed its policyholder liabilities of about $400 million.
  Florida has filed a $300 million fraud suit against Guarantee owners Mark Sanford and William Blackburn of Tampa, Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and Coopers & Lybrand.
10. "Guarantee Security Life's failure is state's largest". The Tampa Tribune. 1993-08-13. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  State regulators seized control of Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co. on Monday, marking the biggest life insurance company failure in Florida history.
  Guarantee, based in Jacksonville, has about 57,000 policyholders and $600 million in assets. It is the sixth-largest life insurer based in Florida. About 6,200 of its policyholders are in Florida.
  Tom Gallagher, the state insurance commissioner, said losses from junk bond investments pushed the company into insolvency. He estimated that the insurer was at least $50 million in the red.
11. Greenberg, Herb (1991-10-10). "Business Insider: Merrill 'Strongly Denies' Wrongdoing". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  Yesterday's item about a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation involving Merrill Lynch didn't go over well at the giant brokerage firm, which issued a statement saying: "Merrill Lynch strongly denies that it engaged in any illegal or unethical activity with regard to securities transactions that were conducted as far back as 1984 by Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company."
  ...
  To recap: Guarantee allegedly tried to improve its year-end balance sheet a number of times in the 1980s by temporarily exchanging Treasury securities for junk bonds near the end of each of several years. Merrill's name appears prominently in Guarantee's financial statements during the years in question.
12. "Report spreads blame in insurer's failure". The Tampa Tribune. 1993-03-24. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Citing evidence of widespread fraud, Senate investigators urged the Justice Department on Tuesday to look into the failure of a Florida-based insurance company and the payment of more than $50 million to its two chief officers.
  The report on the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co. said evidence indicates that top managers, including Tampa businessman William Blackburn, "misled regulators and defrauded policyholders . . . while paying themselves generous compensation."
  While the report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations criticized Florida insurance examiners for failing for years to detect the company's financial problems, it said the 41 other states in which the company operated also failed to intervene.
  The report also faulted the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand and the brokerage firm of Merrill Lynch for failing to properly oversee the company's operations or to report irregularities.
13. Wemmer, De'Ann (1995-12-16). "6,200 in Fla. To Get Share of Settlement". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  About 6,200 Florida residents who had policies with a defunct Jacksonville insurer will receive notices next week outlining their share of a $100 million settlement against the firm, state officials said Friday.
  Last month, a Leon County judge gave preliminary approval to the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company settlement - the largest consumer payout ever obtained by the state's Department of Insurance.
  ...
  In July, the state struck the deal with the defunct insurer's brokerage firm, Merrill Lunch Corp.; its accounting firm, Coopers & Lybrand; and its New York law firm, Shereff, Friedman, Hoffman & Goodman.
  ...
  Guarantee Security, or GSLIC, was placed into receivership in August 1991. At that time, it was $300 million in debt largely due to a $600 million investment in junk bonds.
  ...
  Merrill Lynch will pay $45 million; Coopers & Lybrand $50 million; and Shereff Friedman $5 million. No agreement has been reached with the company's officers and directors.
14. Knutson, Lawrence L. (1993-03-24). "Senate urges probe of Florida insurer". Star-Banner. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Citing evidence of widespread fraud, Senate investigators urged the Justice Department on Tuesday to look into the failure of a Florida-based insurance company and the payment of more than $50 million to its two chief officers.
  The report on the 42-state operations of the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company said that evidence indicates that top managers "misled regulators and defrauded policy holders . . . while paying themselves generous compensation."
  While the report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations criticized Florida insurance examiners for failing for years to detect the company's serious financial problems, it said the 41 other states in which the company operated also failed to intervene.
15. Collins, Glenn (1995-07-17). "Florida Gets $100 Million in Insurer Failure". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  The lawsuit, originally asking for $300 million but later increased to $500 million, was brought by Florida regulators in December 1991, and involved the failure of the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company. The suit followed an investigation of the activities of the insurer's parent, Transmark USA Inc., which was accused of looting the insurer.
  Guarantee Security, based in Jacksonville, was seized by Florida insurance regulators in August 1991, after the value of its huge junk-bond investments had collapsed.
  The Florida regulators said that officials of Transmark, who were forced out when the insurer was seized, had depleted the company's assets in a series of "phantom trades" between Guarantee and Merrill Lynch. These trades were used to move risky junk bonds off the insurer's books and onto Merrill's books for a few days at the end of several years, from 1984 to 1991, regulators said.
  The investigators charged that these trades inflated Guarantee's worth by hundreds of millions of dollars during the periods when the insurer was preparing to report its financial health to regulators. The transfers allowed the company to appear solvent, the regulators asserted, when in fact the company became insolvent in 1985.
16. Eichenwald, Kurt (1991-12-21). "Merrill Is Sued in Florida Over Ties to Shaky Insurer". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Florida insurance regulators brought a lawsuit yesterday against Merrill Lynch & Company, charging that it arranged false trades with a troubled insurance company to help hide the insurer's deteriorating financial condition from regulators.
  The $300 million lawsuit involving the failed Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company also named Coopers & Lybrand, the insurer's auditors, and Shereff, Friedman, Hoffman & Goodman, a New York law firm that represents the insurer's parent, accusing them of malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. The suit also named the insurer's former top managers.
  Guarantee Security, based in Jacksonville, Fla., was seized by Florida insurance regulators in August. It failed because the value of its huge junk bond investments had collapsed and, regulators say, because officials of its parent, Transmark USA Inc., had depleted its assets. The officials were forced out when the insurer was seized.
17. Paltrow, Scot J. (1993-12-23). "Merrill Lynch Settles Claim It 'Parked' Junk Bonds : Securities: SEC charged brokerage with helping disguise ownership of bonds for Florida insurance company". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Merrill bought large amounts of junk bonds from Guarantee Security at the end of each year in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1988, paying with cash or high-quality Treasury bonds. The firms then reversed the transactions days later at the same prices. The result: Guarantee Security was able to falsely improve its year-end balance sheets.
18. Murphy, John; Jorczak, Louie (Spring 2017). "Whose Privilege Is It? Attorney-Client Privilege Issues in Insurance Receiverships". The Insurance Receiver. Vol. 24, no. 2. International Association of Insurance Receivers. p. 10. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
  The article notes:
  
  In Transmark, USA, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Ins., 631 So.2d 1112 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994), the Florida Department of Insurance placed Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company (“GSL”) into receivership. Id. at 1113. GSL was a wholly- owned subsidiary of Transmark USA. Id. The Receiver then brought a lawsuit against Transmark, as well as the former directors and officers of both Transmark and GSL, alleging that the defendants had concealed the insolvency of GSL from regulators. Id.
  Transmark and GSL, while legally distinct entities, were essentially operated by the same employees and had, for the most part, interlocking directors and officers. Id. at 1114. Transmark maintained its legal files together with those of its subsidiaries, and employed the same in-house and outside counsel with respect to various matters. Id. Multiple attorneys (both in-house and outside counsel) testified that “there was no expectation or mandate that communications” with the entities’ lawyers would be treated as confidential between any of the entities themselves. Id.
  The Receiver sought production of documents from Transmark and one of its directors/officers related to GSL. Id. at 1115. Transmark and the director resisted production, asserting that the attorney-client privilege protected the documents from disclosure, and the Receiver moved to compel. Id. Relying on the Florida statutory scheme governing the attorney-client privilege and exceptions thereto, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order compelling production of the documents. Id. at 1116-17. The court noted that there was evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the attorneys jointly represented both companies “in matters pertinent to the transactions at issue in the complaint” and that there was never any expectation of confidentiality in attorney communications between the parent and subsidiary during the time that they were operated together. Id. at 1117. Accordingly, the court confirmed that the attorney-client privilege did not apply to the documents and communications that the Receiver sought. Id.
19. Dunbar, John (1996-04-21). "Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co.s 1991 Collapse Left 56,000 Policyholders in a Lurch -- and the Saga Continues". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2014-08-08. Retrieved 2017-06-11 – via Questia Online Library. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The article notes:
  
  When time came to reinvest, the same agent who introduced Gossett to Paul Revere talked him into putting his money with a different company -- Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co. of Jacksonville. Guarantee was offering policyholders as much as 11 percent interest on annuities and a fat commission for agents who sold them. It sounded almost too good to be true. It was. While Gossett was buying annuities in Louisiana, Mark C. Sanford was in Ponte Vedra Beach, investing in a chain of nude dance bars and filling the driveway of his oceanfront home with exotic sports cars. Sanford was Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co. and regulators would say later the money he was spending on himself should have stayed with his insurance company. Together with business partner William Blackburn, he had taken a modestly profitable insurance company and turned it into the sixth largest in the state. It brought him millions in salary and fees. He bought an island in the Bahamas and minted his own coin.
  Barely three years after Gossett invested in Guarantee, the company was seized by insurance regulators who said the company had been "looted" of more than $100 million between 1985 and 1991, its dire financial condition camouflaged with the help of the company's accounting firm and Wall Street broker.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company received sustained significant coverage between 1991 and 1998 in news organizations like The New York Times, Bloomberg News, the Associated Press, The Tampa Tribune, Tampa Bay Times, The Florida Times-Union, and The Palm Beach Post about its insurance fraud.
19 years after the fraud was uncovered, the company received significant coverage in Actuaries Institute's Australian Actuarial Journal in 2010:
- Ferris, S. (2010). "'Someone Else's Problem' the Failure of the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company". Australian Actuarial Journal. Vol. 16, no. 6. Actuaries Institute. pp. 1–64. ISSN 1442-3065. Archived from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-11. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  The abstract for the 64-page article notes:
  This paper outlines the weaknesses in insurance regulation and supervision, which led to the failure of the Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company in Florida in 1991. There are comparisons to more recent failures of financial institutions in Australia, including Goldfields Medical Fund and Commercial Nominees.
Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company has received continued coverage.
Cunard (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's findings. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's findings, and the general notability of the article. After seeing this at DRV, I was inclined to think this a valid article even as it stood. The sources listed above make this crystal clear to me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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) — Music1201 ^talk 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven the Sword Fighter

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

This was given GA status in 2014 by Bilorv, and would probably pass a GAR now. However, there are concerns with the notability of the subject (a trait not required for good articles). As it stands, the article's sources are mostly Tumblr. There are articles about the episode in magazines like The A.V. Club and Cartoon Brew, but these are a little too much like fan blogs for my liking. There is no coverage in mainstream media, and even the articles in the magazines mentioned could be seen as trivial coverage, as they seem to post recaps for all the episodes (cartoon brew and AV club). Hence, this episode appears no more notable than any other, and seems to fail WP:GNG. — Quasar G. 17:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the sources mentioned by Quasar in the nom are sufficient to demonstrate notability. I don't see how a critic reviewing every episode of a season makes any individual review trivial coverage; it just adds to each episode's significance (e.g. every episode of The Simpsons is notable, and has an article, even though most are "no more notable than any other"). I've never come across Cartoon Brew elsewhere (though I do believe it to be a reliable source) but AVClub is certainly not a fan blog. Therefore, I believe the episode is notable, though only just about. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sites like The A.V. Club are perfectly fine to demonstrate the notability of entertainment. The Tumblr blogs being cited are official blogs being run by the creators of the show, which is why they're being used to cite behind-the-scenes info. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 16:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this were the BLP of an actor, then we should be concerned about the sourcing. We have bigger fish to fry. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 16 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NAStartUp

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

Non-notable company/organisation. Google gives hardly anything but Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc accounts for them. Yintan 17:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom......Sulaimandaud (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no claim to notability & WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 11 June 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Only one clear Delete !vote though it sounds compelling. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Neville

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

British sociologist without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent (third-party) sources. (?) No searchable third-party coverage, and of his two obituaries, Freedom (newspaper) is only in archives and Total Liberty is not a reliable source. He isn't listed in WorldCat Identities and appears to have no notable/major publications for scholar notability guideline consideration. No other potential redirect targets. czar 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I don't know how anyone could argue that obits in two news journals with close connections to the subject could be significant coverage. If he had a London Times obit, that would be a different issue. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I found a slew of books published by a Peter Neville: WorldCat identities. Is this the same Peter Neville? The article does not say anything on book authorship, so I'm not sure. If this is the same Neville, then there'd be a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR, with multiple published, widely held books which have non trivial reviews, for example:

Peter Neville, Hitler and Appeasement: The British Attempt to Prevent the

Second World War (London and New York: Hambledon Continuum, 2006),

ISBN 1 85285 369 7; ISBN 978 1 85285 527 7, pp. xiii + 240, £19.99.

Reviewed by: David Dutton, University of Liverpool

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Neville (died August 9, 2002) was a further education lecturer and sociologist known for his activity in and writings about the anarchist and peace movements in the United Kingdom.

Our article's about a sociologist, not a WWII historian. czar 05:57, 17 June 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. After two relists, lack of participation-consensus undeterminable. Defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPA Cup

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. Greenbörg (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Greenbörg (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a amateur/low-level league with no real notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milkywhale

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

Is not notable. The sources listed are not notable (4 are from a self published source and one is a local news source). A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources, so this article should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 16:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. --Lockley (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I attempted to indicate notability, but there's nothing really reliable and available online. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:25, 11 June 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) — Music1201 ^talk 17:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

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

Non-notable Harry Potter fanfiction. Vast majority of references are to chapters of said fanfiction. Fqn9010e0754032 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the plot summary may need to be cut, this fan fiction work has received attention (cited in this article) from Vice (magazine), the Hindustan Times, and the Washington Post-affiliated blog The Volokh Conspiracy. HPMOR seems to be well more notable than the typical fan fiction work. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and trim plot I agree with Metropolitan90 (and David Gerard's comment on the article's talk page). GojiBarry (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GNG, it's received lengthy coverage by at least three independent reliable sources (Vice, WP, The Atlantic). K.Bog 20:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's the most RS-covered fanfic I can think of other than Fifty Shades. It's pretty clearly notable. That said, the plot isn't. I would cut the plot section entirely. I already said before on the talk page that the plot section was rambling fancruft, and it blatantly is. Let me note: none of the RSes even mention the plot. They talk about it as a story that brings science to Harry Potter, but there's two scientific experiments in the whole thing and they're both before chapter 30. The plot is not actually worth us covering - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Reduce - as per above; I support keeping the article, but the "Plot" section must be reduced to 1 paragraph. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually two now, but one explains the divergence - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The current version is much better now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. --Lockley (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable outside a small internet fandom and most of the refernces in secondary sources are either simply starts for longer thanks about the harry potter fandom or personal blogs.Zubin12 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dilasa Medical Trust

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

Written as advertisement, notability not demonstrated. The creator removed the speedy template. Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. use of WP as a webhost to publicize the organization. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Have added citations from multiple media/TV channels in India. Also added citations for the tweets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaubals (talk • contribs) 07:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To meet notability, independent, reliable sources with substantial discussion of the topic are needed. The videos you added say that the show was an infomercial. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam; no value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 15 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfricaMetro

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

Article is/was unambiguous promotion that exists only to make a space to put an external link. Besides that, the topic appears to fall under our criteria for web content, and not a news organization.

Literally the only independent coverage I see is here, which besides not being a reliable source, is itself trying to sort out whether its actually a real site. Moral of the story: it's a best an aggregate blog, and at worst a copyright violation machine.

They certainly try to act like a news site. So for example, their top story, as it was when I found it, Bald Men Are Being Hunted Down In Mozambique, says it was added by "Senior Reporter". But down at the bottom is a teensy reminder that their source is actually NPR, and sure enough, it's copied verbatim from here.

So in a nutshell, not only is this patently non notable, but we can't even link to the main site because we're linking to blatantly copyright infringing material. TimothyJosephWood 15:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question It may or may not be notable, but I seen no evidence it was promotion. The article makes no claim to being other than a news aggregator. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ DGG The original version when I tagged it as spam contained wording such as: "Its roster of bloggers includes many people from African politicians to its extensive network of prominent writers" which is a red flag that it is being written for promotional purposes. It is reasonable to remove the unsourced promotional content from an article and retain other less biased sentences as a short stub, but the newspaper is not notable anyway, which is why I tagged it. The article as it stands today has been edited and doesn't seem overly promotional to me in its wording, however, as the nom has pointed out, the article misrepresents the subject in a highly favorable way, which is promotional in my opinion. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research & WP:PROMO. I've looked for sources and could not find any. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 16 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elude

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

To have an article on Wikipedia, the content needs to be verifiable in reliable sources and the subject needs to be notable. "Notable" in this case means it must have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Coverage in mainstream press, scholarly journals, books, etc. I searched for sources on this to try to save, but could not find any reliable sources at all, unfortunately. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This provider was only just rolled out this month: It hasn't had time to become notable. I would recommend to the author that this topic be revisited in six months or so. Ten days in business is nothing. Oddly, the history of this page indicates it was started by RedPanda25 back in February, but it was a redirect page to Wiktionary. Could it have been accidentally hijacked? Instead of deleting it, perhaps it should be reverted. — Myk Streja ^{[citation needed]} 18:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I probably should have looked closer at the history and just reverted back to RedPanda25's version. Certainly no opposition to restoring the redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elude cannot be deleted, since it is a required link to the Elude e-mail provider in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_webmail_providers.

Jgamleus (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jgamleus: A link to an artcile is not required. Presumably, there is a reliable source for the comparison, and that it is not original research. A citation to that source in a footnote in the Comparison of webmail providers article would be apprpriate. --Bejnar (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced WP:ADVOCACY; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article makes no claim of notability, there does not appear to be any independent significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG --Bejnar (talk) 02:22, 18 June 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. I am interpreting the two oppose !votes as keep. And I concur that a poor choice in article name is not a compelling argument for deletion given various lesser remedies available. - Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization in Europe

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

The article does not match its title. What is described is not colonisation. Rathfelder (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, it may be simply the less commonly used meaning of colonization, per https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/colonization. After all, Hominidae are creatures that are establishing themselves in this area. But surely this must exist elsewhere? It's a highly notable topic. I've sorted this to the archeology discussion, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Awkward title—the movements of ancient hominids are properly called dispersals, but sometimes also colonisations or migrations—but that isn't a reason for deletion. It looks like it was originally intended to be broader in scope, and perhaps there is room for an article about colonialism within Europe, but obviously this isn't it. I suggest we rename it to something like Hominid dispersals in Europe to match the current scope. The content is decent and could be a good starting point for an article that supplements Early human migrations#Europe. – Joe (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sole rationale to date is 'article does not match its title,' which is not, in and of itself, really a reason to delete. Oppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A rehabilitated article about Colonization in Europe or Colonization of Europe might discuss the Plantation of Ulster if not also Magna Graecia and the Roman Empire. Decolonization of Europe, by the way, before various national independence wars were added, listed the Crown Colony of Malta and British Cyprus. In this article, the present section on Non-European colonization (Umayyad conquest of Hispania, Mongol invasion of Europe, Ottoman wars in Europe) matches more closely with the meaning you're looking for. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator might have possibly been influenced by what he found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonization of Europe, which does involve human 'colonization' in the more familiar sense. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the term is used in biology/ecology to refer to the spread of a novel species into virgin territory, so the page is not misnamed. However, because most people think of the geo-political rather than the biological meaning when they see the word, a rename to include the word Hominid in the title may limit confusion. Agricolae (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: part of the problem is with the creator's intent to mix apples and oranges. The non-filled-out heading framework indicates the intention to include not only hominid dispersal but also the Migration Period tribal movements and even historical conquests. There is no reason to do this, as they are each distinct topics, and since none of the more recent time-frame material has been added yet, I am going to specify that the title is referring to hominid dispersal and remove the heading framework for the other topics to keep the page focussed. Agricolae (talk) 17:15, 15 June 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) — Music1201 ^talk 17:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional review

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

Unreferenced, incoherent, tendentious original research. Rathfelder (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to judicial review, essentially the same topic. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Constitutional review is a well-defined and very rich of single featurs that make id different from it's broader genre - judicial review. If the article may be improved (an I agree), ok, but would it be ignoring four hundred thousand entries between quotes the best solution? Millbug ^talk 17:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it be--I mean, keep. It's a legitimate topic. It's one more imperfect Wikipedia page, but it's not an illegitimate topic. (For that matter the same could be said of the judicial review page.) Innisfree987 (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if really the current content is no good, which I am not competent to determine, then stubify the article. It will be better than nothing while we wait for someone to develop this topic which I am enclined to believe is very much notable. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A valid stub on a very notable topic. In countries with separate constitutional courtss, constitutional review is a significant aspect of the government, and it often differs significantly from judicial review as we generally think of it. The current article doesn't do a great job of demonstrating that, but what do you expect from a stub? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:51, 15 June 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Pelehac

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

Seems like a classic BLP1E, with the event, being recorded dancing, not being particularly notable either. AniMate 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – BLP1E certainly applies here, and even that one event was not particularly notable, with little to no coverage in reliable sources. — Quasar G. 13:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one post 2008 google hit of any particular note - [1] (appears in one of the photos) - which is not much at all.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above; if he gets to be a general, we can put it back up. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Passing trivia at best and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a classic case of BLP1E. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 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 under A7. Hut 8.5 21:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maygas

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

Unremarkable organisation. Promotional context. Unsourced _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a possible hoax; the only reference is their website, which doesn't claim to be a business. Google search shows multiple unrelated businesses of the same name. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unsourced article making no claim to notability, even self-deprecating in tone. Nothing here to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, not even enough in my opinion to exceed a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molybdenum Company of South Africa (Pty) Ltd.

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

Non-notable company. A WP:BEFORE search indicates no significant coverage in reliable sources. Possibly a couple of mentions elsewhere but they are passing (-careful to note a Chinese firm of the same name), and insuficient to pass WP:ORGCRITE. Likewise, there is no depth of coverage in the sources provided- they are all primary and self-published, and so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like promotional article ..Sulaimandaud (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- self-cited & promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 11 June 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) — Music1201 ^talk 17:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colors X-Factors

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also not notable per WP:NCRICKET. Greenbörg (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Greenbörg (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:CRIN. Everest Premier League is a senior player tournament;[2][3] teams playing senior tournaments are accepted as being qualified on notability guidelines per precedent and per WP:CRIN. Note to the nominator: WP:NCRICKET doesn't apply for cricket clubs. Thanks. Lourdes 11:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:CRIN. Agree completely with Lourdes, who makes a great point about the nominative conditioner. The guidance also reads "all clubs and teams taking part in senior cricket matches are automatically qualified"; the Everest League is plainly a senior league. Climate7298 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 10 June 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. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get a Clue!

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

Non notable book, Fails BOOK & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 14:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect to Lizzie McGuire books (which is unreferenced). It's a valid search term, and assuming the info in the lead is correct, it's worth preserving. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other books at Lizzie_McGuire_books#Mysteries are redirect titles so it seems rather pointless to keep this one?, That aside we already have Get_a_Clue_(disambiguation) so if closed as above then this should be moved to something like "Get a Clue! (book)]] and then this redirect should be redirected to Get_a_Clue_(disambiguation), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't source it. A spinoff of a notable TV show, but not a notable book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Everyking (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, fails WP:NBOOK. --Bejnar (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely unsourced. A merge would be nice, but w/o references there is nothing to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 18 June 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Spiteri

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

Initially nominated for CSD due to copy/paste copyright violation, but CSD removed without significant changes of the content and disruptive behaviour continues. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jone. Sorry i did not do it intentionally as am new to wikipedia and was trying to figure things out. I have taken your feedback and will learn more about some guidelines. I have also made significant changes to the article. Please review the same. Appreciate your feedback. Apologies for my behaviour. User: DG999

Where was the text copied from? KSFT ^(t|c) 16:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KSFT: here is the link http://www.greatestphysiques.com/ryan-spiteri/ you can also check revision history, thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sourcing is weak and does not establish notability. When looking for sources I found a Maltese soccer player who might be notable, someone in the Detroit area who is also a personal trainer but doesn't seem to be this Ryan Spiteri, and nothing about this article's subject at all. There arguably are still copyright issues, too. Huon (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two of the sources given -- digenieus.com and fitness-show.au.com -- are both clearly promotional; it looks like the first one may actually be Spiteri's agent. There's nothing else that establishes notability. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 18 June 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 Materialscientist (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attu tamil short film

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

non-notable film. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 13:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not notable self promotion ('film' link) KylieTastic (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable film; obvious WP:COI from now-blocked editor. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to assert notability. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 07:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Herman

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

People generally aren't referred to by first and middle name, so this is a decidedly odd dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a makeover. Almost all the people in this disambiguation are indeed first and middle name matches. They would be WP:PTMs as people typically aren't referred to by their first+middle names alone, and I don't see any exceptions from a cursory search of each of these names. That leaves Charles Herman-Wurmfeld, where Herman isn't a middle name, but one of his compound surnames. Sometimes people acquire their second surname later in life or drop their second surname for simplification, but I don't see evidence of either case where he might be known simply as "Charles Herman". That being said, we've got a couple people mentioned on Wikipedia so we can create a valid disambiguation page at this title after (almost) all the current entries are deleted. "Charles Herman" is a character in A Beautiful Mind (film), and a "Charles Herman" was the inventor of the Wonder Wheel. I don't think it'd hurt to include Charles Herman-Wurmfeld in a see also, along with the {{look from}} and {{intitle}} templates to catch the first+middle name people in search results if necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but replace the partial matches (which I've put in a see also section) with {intitle}. Per WP:PTM: Instead of listing partial title matches, consider adding the {look from}} or {intitle}} templates in the "See also" section, which link to all articles starting with or containing a particular term, respectively. I've added the 2 entries Tavix suggested (well done!) and one of my own using dabfix. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend, what do you think of the suggested option? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Enough entries (barely) have been uncovered to make this a useful dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 12 June 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. The delete arguments, in particular David Eppstein's careful analysis, are more convincing. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Adelson

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

This professor doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, and I can't see evidence that she passes the WP:GNG. She's mentioned in passing in very many sources, but I can't find in-depth coverage anywhere. Slashme (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as per nom, no in depth RS coverage. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets Wikipedia policies

I hope that this posting can address the comments of editors Slashme and Deathlibrarian 1. With respect to the issue of passing the WP:PROF

a. Professor Adelson’s page documents that she has done academic work whose representation in Wikipedia serves the online community well. Further the page’s reference articles are by leading scientists in key refereed journals. As to the impact and importance of the work, as a faculty member at Yale she was invited to the National Science Foundation to serve as a Program Director and create a cognitive science program (reference 8 in the page under question). She served repeated elected terms on the Executive Board of her professional association SIG:CHI and during that time twice co-chaired their international conferences and edited the conference proceedings(see vita link below). Her work on the results of meditation practice is endorsed by the Dalai Lama (reference 10). Her work on categorization explained how we understand abstract concepts. Previous work had only looked at our understanding of the physical world (reference 5). Her work on analogical problem solving (reference 3), memory organization (reference 4), problem deconstruction in conflict resolution (reference 6), and discovery and insight processes (reference 7) have, along with her other several dozen papers received over 2,000 citations in refereed articles building on the work. Dr. Adelson has authored dozens of refereed publications; received over a million dollars in refereed competitive research funding and been asked to speak at institutions such as UC Berkeley and TJ Watson research center. (The above is documented at: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/vita.pdf

b. Her work on meditation also has significant intellectual and societal impact: She is rendering original Buddhist texts into language useful in society today. This has allowed her to develop meditation practices which have helped hundreds of people with concerns like chronic pain, interpersonal relations, and eating disorders (this teaching is made accessible through the websites of the Philadelphia Meditation Center ( http://www.philadelphiameditation.org/ ), the 24th St. Sangha ( http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/The%2024th%20Street%20Sangha%20.pdf) and the main and neighborhood branches of the Philadelphia Public Libraries; Philadelphia has a population of 1,600,000). (This work is documented at http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/ and http://crab.rutgers.edu/~adelson/The%2024th%20Street%20Sangha%20.pdf )

c. The two paragraphs above address meeting criteria 1, 4, and 6 of WP:PROF.

d. Editor “Slashme's” comment: “She's mentioned in passing in very many sources, but I can't find in-depth coverage” does not address a Wikipedia criterion. “Deathlibrarian’s similar comment “no in depth RS coverage” seems to refer to the same issue; again, this is not a Wikipedia criterion.

2. As to editor “Slashme’s” comment, “I can't see evidence that she passes the WP:GNG”, it does not seem to apply; that appears to be the set of criteria for topics, not for individuals; this is the page of an individual. (However, if the notability of the topics on which Dr. Adelson has worked needs to be addressed, that is documented in the page’s 2nd reference by Nobel Laureate Herb Simon, and in the 4th reference by CMU’s J.K. Mellon University Professor John Anderson).

3. It may serve the online community well to have an accessible record of Dr. Adelson’s work and to be able to contact her in order to build on it. Mjholloway1 (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Mjholloway1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* Keep In response to editors Slashme and Deathlibrarian's assertions I see the following documentation:

Criteria 1, 4 & 6 of WP:PROF are met. (See the documented publications and appointments on the page; paragraphs 1 and 2). As to RS, the references are by the most respected scholars in that field publishing in the most respected peer reviewed journal's (e.g. see Ullman, Newell, Ericsson, Fodor and Anderson; reference #s 5,2,3,8,4 respectively). The criteria for WP:GNG, topics of notability, do not apply. This is a person's not a topic's page. However, Adelson's topics are notable (again see e.g. Erickson, Fodor, Ullman, Newell, the Dalai Lama & Anderson; reference #s 3,8,5,2,10,4 respectively). The criticism that the references, while quite numerous, do not give lengthy descriptions of Adelson's research is: a: not a Wikipedia criterion and b: not the convention of writing in this field. However, the numerous references reflect that Adelson's work was the impetus for many, including these, subsequent significant works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnie A. Silver (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC) — Arnie A. Silver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepI find that this page more than meets the criteria for the notability of a professor. Google Scholar shows that more than 2,200 other scientists have used Dr. Adelson’s work as a scaffold to build further understanding. Additionally, paragraphs 1 and 2 and the reference section of the Adelson Wikipedia page; and her vita all show long and consistent service to her field through notable appointments. Given this, is there an underlying motivation to the delete request? Rachel Allen (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC) — Rachel Allen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:PROMO and WP:TNT. I believe she does pass WP:PROF#C1 but the article is so promotionally written and badly sourced that it would be better to delete it and start from scratch than to keep any remnant of it in its current state.

I checked the first five references in the current version of the article. Reference [1], Curtis, Krasner, and Iscoe, mentions her work only trivially as one of six works cited to support the sentence "Nevertheless, few software development models include process components identified in empirical research on design problem-solving". Reference [2], Newell and Simon's "Human Problem Solving" [4], appears not to mention her (the only hits I found for her name were for someone else with a similar name). Reference [3], Ericsson and Lehmann, again cites her work, in paragraphs on pp. 285, 293, 294, and 295, but in a similarly trivial way that fails to support any claims in the article. Reference [4] cites her work as one of six references for the statement that "the structure of cognition changes from domain to domain and behavior changes as experience increases ... this shows up in comparisons between novices and experts" and fails to support our article's claim that she studied "memory organization". Reference [5], Ullman et al [5], cites her work multiple times, none of which support our article's claims that her work studies "categorization processes in the domain of computer science".

I.e. none of these scholarly references actually says anything nontrivial that supports our article. They are all merely passing and routine citations of her work as one would expect to find for all academics at all levels of significance. And the fact that what they say is so far removed from what our article claims they say indicates to me that active deception may be going on, not mere incompetence in citation. I didn't check all the rest of the references, but even the non-scholarly references are suspect. For instance, reference [10] is used for a very specific claim, "Her research on how intensive meditation effects perception and action in interpersonal and professional conflict is endorsed by the Dalai Lama", but in fact the reference itself (an image on Abelson's own web site that purports to be a scan of a letter from the Dalai Lama) speaks only in vague terms about the Shamatha Project.

Given these severe sourcing problems, and the apparent promotional intent visible in efforts such as putting such a scan online (and the apparent recruitment of new editors to participate in this AfD), I think we must delete. However, if an experienced editor works to save the article by removing the bad sources and trimming it down to something verifiable, I might be willing to change my opinion.—David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, she doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Only seems to be mentioned in passing if at all. It also appears to be more of a WP:PROMOTION violation for a meditation teacher trying to use prior academic work to justify an wikipeida bio to include the mediation stuff. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately for the author, I find that there is not much worth salvaging from this because of WP:PROMOTION. Sifting whether she meets WP:PROF or not ends up being a judgment call. I chose to judge no. I thank David Eppstein for his analysis above. --Bejnar (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that the article should be kept because it is a notable political family. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benn family

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

List of five politicians who happen to be related to each other, with no reliably sourced indication that the group has any inherent notability as a group. Everybody here is already listed in the surname page at Benn anyway, so there's no need for this as a separate standalone article -- as constituted, the only discernible purpose to this is genealogical rather than encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tentatively - if it can be sourced well - it seems to have been a political dynasty of sorts. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I think Emily Benn should be deleted due to not meeting WP:NPOL, but other notable relatives such as Stephen Benn, 3rd Viscount Stansgate aren't listed on this page. Merging this to the family's title of nobility, Viscount Stansgate, seems like the best option here, redirecting to Benn is also a possibility if there are other notable families with this surname. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you argue for a redirect to Viscount Stansgate but my worry is that if people are looking for information on the family, which is not impossible, they may be puzzled by the title they are redirected to and wonder why they ended up there (and they might give up without bothering to read the article, which does explain). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The Benns are now one of Britain's most notable political dynasties". We have numerous similar pages about other political families. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a notable political family. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Obscured by Clouds. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 17:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stay (Pink Floyd song)

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for songs, specifically "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." Although a nice song, and there are good sources, it wasn't a single and there are no notable covers by other artists. There's nothing here that isn't already said in Obscured by Clouds already, aside from the third paragraph in "Analysis" which looks like something Louis Balfour would say on The Fast Show's "Jazz Club" (except adding "mmm, nice" after each sentence). The "(Pink Floyd song)" disambiguator means a redirect to the album is not suitable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why "redirect to the album is not suitable"? Somebody looks for this or links to this, should go to the album. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because we generally don't expect readers to type disambiguator terms in brackets. We could expect them to go to Stay, a disambiguation page, which would then take them to Obscured by Clouds. (I can't find policy at the moment but I have seen this happen on a number of occasions). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We may not "expect" readers to type the disambibuator, but some do (I certainly do when I suspect there may be a disambiguator like this). So I don't see why it is better to send those readers who do type the disambiguator to a dab page rather than redirecting them directly to the album. Rlendog (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the disambiguation page for Stay already links to the album. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. People could realistically put the current title into the search box, and redirects are cheap. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete let it be covered in the article about the album the song is on. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure that redirecting would contradict this rationale. Rlendog (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This song appears to pass GNG have been documented in reliable sources, [6]

Strong, Martin C. (2004). The Great Rock Discography (7th ed.). Edinburgh: Canongate Books. p. 1177. ISBN 1-84195-551-5.

Mabbett, Andy (1995). The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd. London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-4301-X.

Manning, Toby (2006). "The Albums". The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd (1st ed.). London: Rough Guides. p. 164. ISBN 1-84353-575-0. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read and cited from all three of those book sources, and they are trivial passing mentions in the context of Obscured By Clouds. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts. If, as the nominator stated "there are good sources" I could be open to changing to "keep," but someone would have to do the research. Right now there are 2 sources used for this song in the Obscured by Clouds article, neither of which is within an album review, but neither of which seems to be particularly substantive - Povey does have a short paragraph on the song, for which I can give a little credit towards notability but not much, and I don't know what is in the Mabbett source but unless there is more than what is referenced in the Obscured by Clouds article that moves the needle even less. As to the sources listed by Valoem, I unfortunately misplaced my copy of this Mabbett book but if I recall correctly it had a short paragraph on most songs, for which I can provide some credit towards GNG (regardless of the form, it is certainly not an album review) but again not much. Strong rarely has more than a sentence on album tracks so unless someone has evidence to the contrary it does not help towards meeting GNG. And I doubt the Rough Guide has much more - Mannings "Rough Guide to Pink Floyd" has a sentence that refers to the song. Given how much has been written on Pink Floyd's music I can't deny the possibility that this songs meets GNG, but there needs to be more evidence.Rlendog (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in regards to the three above sources, Stay is mentioned more than once in the rough guide. I've currently requested this book to check if anymore information can be extracted. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have this book, and I'll check it later tonight when I get home. I see we've gone past the token relist day/time for another 7-day sweep, but I'd be grateful if this can stay open until the end of the day (UK time). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly forgot - there's nearly 3/4 of a page on this song (page 197) in the Rough Guide. It's part of the section called "Floyd's Finest 50" and is ranked at #25, which is in chronological order of release. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly strengthens the notability argument, although I think it still could use another substantial source to get over the bar. Rlendog (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Lugnuts. It's a valid redirect, even if consensus is that it doesn't meet our notability criteria. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 19:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. This article has been considered notable enough for an article for 11 years, notability which has not changed merely because of the passage of time. There are numerous books, magazine articles, newspaper reports discussing this song. It is victim of three things: the title is a common word, making online search difficult; many sources were published in the 70s, and thus not readily available online; those proposing deletion are disregarding physical books made of paper (such as those cited in the article). Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There wasn't a consensus 11 years ago that the song was notable. The previous Afd was closed as unnecessary because a merge to the album was proposed and could be done without an Afd discussion. Meanwhile notability guidance for songs has been revised and separated from singles and albums. Nothing wrong with taking another look today. Gab4gab (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is the weakest possible response to my argument because it attacks a single phrase and ignores the substance. Read it this way:

Notability is not temporary. Notability has not changed merely because of the passage of time. There are numerous books, magazine articles, newspaper reports discussing this song. It is victim of three things: the title is a common word, making online search difficult; many sources were published in the 70s, and thus not readily available online; those proposing deletion are disregarding physical books made of paper (such as those cited in the article).

It also misses the point because I didn't mention the previous AfD, which was only 8 years ago. I was referring to the history of the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you were just saying it was considered notable because it hadn't been deleted for 11 years. I thought you were referring to a previous consensus discussion where it's notability was considered. My mistake. Gab4gab (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a victim of two things 1) not saying anything another article already does and 2) not being an appropriate search term for a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. It's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, not independently notable. I agree that it is not an especially likely search term, and would normally allow the disambiguation page to take the traffic, but the above convinced me at least some people (the commenters above) might type the whole thing. --Bejnar (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs #7 and #8 in the "Analysis" section provide information that is not in the album article and would be WP:UNDUE if it were merged there. SpinningSpark 14:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This song was released in the USA as a single ("B" side of Free Four). It was already mentioned in the lead, I have added as a section in the article. This adds to notability, and was denied in the original post. I'm not sure of the consensus on "B" sides, but to me there is little difference between "A" and "B" on vinyl. However, I acknowledge that it was not available on a single in other markets. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - let's try to reach a consensus with this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky keys attack

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

An attempt to redirect this article to an appropriate section of an existing article that covers all relevant content was reverted. This minor exploit does not meet WP:GNG, with all coverage of the term "sticky keys attack" limited to blogs and other user-generated content. The reference in the article does not refer to the term "sticky keys attack" and the method described in the article is not the method described in the reference. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide to exploits. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a short "how-to" article referenced only to a "how-to" website. It violates WP:NOT which speaks against such how-to guides. Besides that, there is no indication this computer trick is notable. Edison (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not sure what this is, but WP:MANUAL comes to mind. In any case, no value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SM Shetty

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

Sources cited do not demonstrate notability. I have failed to find better sources. Maproom (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with proposer Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail GNG and looks promotional. FITINDIA 10:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. would need total rewriting. The article is somewhat confusing. The very notable founder and chairman of the SM group of companies is Henry Sy, not Shetty. As far as I can tell Shetty is the chairman of the group's operations in India. The group's Indian operations are large enough that he is quite possibly notable, but the article does not have sufficient sources to even clarify just what his position is. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks WP:NOTPROMO.Redhat101 Talk 05:39, 13 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Butt

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

This person does not seem to hold a respectable enough position to have their own Wikipedia article. Also, the only reference provided does not support the existence of this person i.e. http://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/deaths

I also suspect that this article was made by the person themselves but that is a different matter. Thank you. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks slightly hoaxy to me. I can't find anything online about this person, and tbh I'm inclined to speedy this - claiming to be a former diplomat is no credible claim of significance. Further, the original creator was called porkiepie11 with some other questionable contributions, inserting unsourced facts. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails nationality Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Someone with this record (and with the CMG) would have an entry in Who's Who. There is nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia L. Stacey

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSICIAN or WP:GNG. About half a page in Entertaining Tucson Across the Decades, Volume 3 is about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the sources are connected with the subject, there are no independent reliable secondary sources cited. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Also tries to rely on connection to a notable musician, which does not meet WP:FAILN. - GretLomborg (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced original research and WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 17 June 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 merge to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016#Bernie Sanders campaign. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie or Hillary?

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

Lacking of any proper significance or formal impact on the subject of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Otherwise, many other memes to come from the election of equal or greater impact or notoriety ought to have their own articles as well. Wikipedia isn't Know Your Meme. Maymster (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016. Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash and Texts from Hillary could also be merged there. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's had enough attention from reporters (admittedly B-list) that I think Bernie or Hillary? is now "a thing". If you insist on redirecting, though, how about Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 as a target? - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme - GretLomborg (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016#Bernie Sanders campaign. There is enough her to merge WP:PRESERVE; just not enough notability - especially not WP:LASTING - for a freestanding article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016. No lasting significance; one of many flash in the pan internet memes during the 2016 presidential campaign. Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016#Bernie Sanders campaign. A redirect would be preferable to a merge here; agree with the nom that the meme thing got to go. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016. The meme recieved coverage in reliable sources from mid-January to mid-March, which was the height of the Democratic primary. However, I have failed to find a single source citing the meme published after the conclusion of the Democratic primary. As such, I believe that the meme was notable within the context of social media during the campaign, but that it does not have enough sustained coverage to justify a standalone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016 § Bernie Sanders campaign, which presently has only one short sentence about this topic. This will improve the merge target article per WP:ATD-M, making it more comprehensive and informative. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ting

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:26, 10 June 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) 12:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails relevant guidelines Spiderone 06:57, 17 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 01:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdul Basit Al Qadri

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

This biography written on a person may not meet wikipedian standards as per WP:Notability IM3847 (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained coverage across multiple sources. What I'm finding is an encyclopedic entry on his burial place and photos of the shrine, but not actual explanation of or even strong claim to notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without reliable sources, this fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:48, 12 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Sah Abul Fazal Al Qadri

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

This Biography written on a person may not meet the wikipedian standards as per WP:Notability IM3847 (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 03:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another in a very long string of obscure South Asian religious figures. Those familiar with this area know the common outcome - most of these subjects are marginally notable even on a local level and are entirely lacking in broad and sustained coverage to satisfy even the WP:GNG. Such articles are generally made in good faith, but the creators miss the point that a date of death and photos of a tomb on Google images don't constitute notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with Syed Abdul Basit Al Qadri, this individuals predecessor, without reliable sources, this fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:48, 12 June 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LEG1 Linking the European and North African Power Networks

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

GNG, Unencyclopedic, contains words like "we" which make it look like a COI, reads like a COPYVIO but I can't find what if anythign has been pilfered. RevHistory already shows some copyvios were removed. Way too long etc etc, but fails the GNG and is promoy d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Com In this diff the writer confesses to having a COI and states the article is written by the corporate team in order to promote. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diclosed COI in the talk page and added more citation. GP2020 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has come.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still nobody. Lego bot should be reconfigured to send out invite to AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another week no new comers
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Qaradaghy

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

Autobiography with claims of meeting the notability guidelines, but without an actual source. Good faith google search isn't turning up a single reliable, independent source, but it's likely sources are not in English, so taking to AfD for more eyes. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP but in any case does not meet WP:KICK.PRehse (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no credible sources Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:25, 11 June 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.