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) 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Parker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

After some research, I have found no evidence of a Belgian rugby player named Jimmy Parker existing. I have also found no evidence of Belgium playing Tunisia or Combined Services XV from 1993-94. The lack of information about this person and the events described in the article leads me to believe that this article is a hoax. If it can be determined that this article is in fact a hoax it should be deleted. Jith12 ( talk) 16:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete lack of credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment the appearances for Belgium, even if proven, would not be sufficient to meet WP:NSPORTS. Hack ( talk) 04:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No sources in the article and the only articles that identify a Jimmy Parker playing rugby for the Belgium national team are all Wikipedia mirrors. This fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq ( talk) 14:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No sources in article or any sources elsewhere to prove this person's existance. Also, even if he did exist, the article fails WP:NRU as Belgium are not an HPU and the Barbarians do not play in a fully professional rugby competition. Jith12 ( talk) 15:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Belgium did play Tunisia in May 1994, however there is no team sheet and even if there was it would not be a notable person anyway. [1] Skeene88 ( talk) 18:11, 17 September 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 argument that this should be discussed in context in Foreign relations of Russia is compelling; Wikipedia does not create WP:POVFORKs.  Sandstein  06:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Russian aggression (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD removed without improvement. The topic is vague, too vague to be an encyclopedia article. The author argues that American exceptionalism is also vague. It isn't. It has been a concept developed over 150 years and extensively discussed in politics and in academia. The WP article has 107 references. By contrast, Russian aggression is still a a simple use of two words together, like fatherly pride, or fertile fields, neither of which deserve a WP article. Proposal of Russian aggression as an encyclopedic topic is either (a) original research, or (b) a POV problem. By Googling, I can find almost any two words in juxtaposition. That doesn't mean they are ready for an article. Some of the text could be moved to Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis. That would be appropriate. Rhadow ( talk) 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom. The claim that this term is a media invention is also textbook POV pushing. Nick-D ( talk) 10:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as evidenced by newspaper usage and academic articles Russian aggression is a legitimate topic with literature dedicated to discuss it. As for Rhadow concern that it is just a "two words in juxtaposition" there is thousands of such words already in Wikipedia, and there should be more. The other concern wich is about POV can be fixed because articles are dynamic and I have only added what is available on the topic both from Eastern and Western sources. The article does not take sides it just describes how it is used and what some analyst think on the term. Yes American exceptionalism has plenty of sources because it has been around here for 14 years, this is how it looked when it was created. Plus one should take into account the language barriers there exist to access more content on Russian aggression, contrary to the the case of Am. exceptionalism. Lappspira ( talk) 12:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Articles like Foreign relations of Russia and Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin already cover this topic. This is essentially a dictionary definition. While not excusing the Russian Government's clearly aggressive foreign policies in any way, you could probably create an article about claims of just about any country's foreign policies being aggressive - for instance, a Google search for New Zealand foreign policy agressive turns up quite a few viable sources! Nick-D ( talk) 10:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes redirect and merger into these articles is an option. Second, nobody can deny there is an unique tradition of genuine distrust and/or propaganda towards Russia. A huge country, a military great power with an unprecedented history of expansion that bounds many weaker and smaller states. Russian forgeing policy can cover things like Latin America which is a totally different thing than this. To mix things up is not always better. Lappspira ( talk) 14:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete POV issues. Foreign relations of Russia discusses the topic neutrally. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A textbook WP:POVFORK and an unnecessary one. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  22:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete While it is an interesting subject, I believe NOTNEO applies here. If a lot more people would write papers on the subject so we wouldn't have to do so much OR it would be fine. I also think that Depictions of Russia in Western Video Games would be a great article as well, but… L3X1 (distænt write) 03:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is just a combination of words, not a valid subject. Valid subject would be something like Great Russian chauvinism. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:22, 20 September 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) 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Asynchronous semaphore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research. Notability doubtful. No references since 2011. A search turned up no authoritative references. PROD removed without improvement. Rhadow ( talk) 11:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: nothing in Google news, only a few hundred Google results, which of course doesn't preclude notability, but all of the sources are either affiliated or unreliable (WordPress, for example). I agree with the original research assertion by the nominator because many of its claims aren't even verified in self-published sources. Little indication of passing general notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Looks like this tries to highlight a differecen between a "semaphore" and an "asynchronous semaphore". I don't think any such difference exists. Probably want to leave a redirect to Semaphore (programming). -- Mikeblas ( talk) 15:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as original research and failing WP:GNG. I do not believe even a redirect is necessary, doubtful anyone would ever type that in a search box considering the tiny number of Google hits. Ifnord ( talk) 22:30, 15 September 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) 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

T W White & Sons (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Page appears promotional. Authored by SPA whose only other interest is a brand sold by subject. References indicating notability are not reliable sources. Rhadow ( talk) 10:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Promotional article about a run of the mill car dealership with no significant coverage in reliable sources. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 09:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze. There should be a speedy delete for ads. Ifnord ( talk) 22:31, 15 September 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. ( Rhadow withdrew their nomination) ( non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Multi-pitch climbing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD reverted without improvement. This dictionary definition has been unreferenced for eight years. Its notability is in doubt. Rhadow ( talk) 00:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC) References added. Rhadow ( talk) 14:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The topic is notable. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. A Google search bring up numerous pages on this subject, not just businesses involved with it but also explanatory articles about it. This seems to be a notable topic. 331dot ( talk) 12:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: clearly a notable practice from the sheer number of sources that cover it in depth, for example ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). I'll add some of these and somebody at WikiProject Climbing will no doubt be able to further improve it. DrStrauss talk 13:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I've substantially improved the article ( diff). Rhadow, I note that you have struck out your rationale, do you wish to withdraw the nomination? Thanks, DrStrauss talk 14:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment: DrStrauss -- Looks great to me now. Nomination withdrawn. Rhadow ( talk) 14:35, 12 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Boise Mobile Equipment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article PROD removed without improvement or comment on the talk page by SPA Rhadow ( talk) 00:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep it is less promotional than when it was first prodded, has some rs coverage such as this but on the negative side a lot of the refs and ex links are based on the same press release. Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment What would a reader learn from this article that she could not learn from the subject's website? Nothing. It is neither notable, nor the topic for an encyclopedia. It sure looks like a product catalog that will appear at the top of Google searches, courtesy of WP. Rhadow ( talk) 14:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Still looks pretty blatantly promotional to me. The bulk of the references come from their own website, and the others are pretty generic - a couple of company profiles, a press release, and a local media mention about landing a contract - basically no significant coverage in reliable sources, and a google search didn't turn up any additional significant RS mentions for me. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 09:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze. There should be a speedy delete for ads. Ifnord ( talk) 22:33, 15 September 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) 19:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

ClickTime.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable piece of timesheet software. The article is written like an advertisement (per the 3-year old tag), a search for sources returns very little, and the sources present in the article are either non-independent or mere passing soundbites. The article seems to have been created by a single purpose account too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - references are highly padded with articles that don't mention the company or do so only in passing, not to mention a directory listing. I can't find anything that suggests notability. But promotional content is easy to find - the whole thing. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm not coming up with any in-depth coverage in independent sources, either. This does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY.  gongshow   talk  09:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Many of the sources in the article are about insignificant stuff, or they're just passing mentions. No indication of notability established. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Agree with the points made above. Bluebonnet07 ( talk) 15:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH and potential WP:BOMBARDMENT.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 21:16, 14 September 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. nom withdrawal (non-admin closure) Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  07:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Mohamed Ibrahim (footballer, born 1985) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence subject meets notability guidelines. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  22:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

He's a first tier player. Muhammad Abul-Futooh ( talk) 04:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment the soccerway profile linked in the article shows he has scored 2 goals for Petrjet in the Egyptian Premier League, giving him a technical pass on WP:FOOTBALL. The profile doesn't list appearance data, but you need to play to score. Unfortunately Mohamed Ibraham is not a particularly unusual name, so I'll need to do some more research when time permits. Club Oranje ^T 08:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• There is another footballer of the same name with an article Mohamed Ibrahim (footballer). Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  08:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Having played in the Egyptian Premier League, the article meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Question So you guys are confirming that there two Egyptian footballers with the same name that have played in the same time period in national level games? Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  19:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

No, there are at least 3 that played in the Egyptian Premier League with the same name, 2 of which have pages, and another with a similar name. There is also a Sudanese player with the same name and several other Players from various places with similar names. Club Oranje ^T 07:21, 14 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Daniel Anton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a self publicist with nothing notable to shout about. No evidence from the sources of any notability. He has been in the army, he started up a company etc. etc. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   22:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Correction. Not self publicist but more probably paid to have an article as authored by an almost immediately blocked sock , part of a large sock farm.   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   22:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. His army and business careers are nothing special, routine. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 01:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Some of the refs are incorrectly used. For example, the Senate action doesn't actually say he was promoted (He probably was). The Order of Saint Maurice should have been Order of Saint Maurice (United States) (big difference) and the cited document is just a list without any explanation. The first ref is about a baseball game.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete His army service and medal, while contributing to his notability, do not meet SOLDIER by themselves. Sourcing is scant. Searching for more in a BEFORE doesn't yield much (it does yield police record - of possibly a different Anton - of little notability, though perhaps they may be a motivation for creating a positive wiki page). Icewhiz ( talk) 06:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No evidence of notability. Fails WP:SOLDIER. One appearance on a TV show may be enough for the IMDb, but not here. Some mentions in a book (which is cited twice). I don't think it is fake, but it is largely unsourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:11, 13 September 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 article due to notability, sourcing and COI concerns. Regarding the userpage mentioned by one commenter, I don't believe these concerns apply to pages in user space, so please take it to a separate MfD. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  22:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Zachary Toth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability requirements for WP:ACADEMIC. Nerd1a4i ( talk) 20:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Only two cited papers on GS. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC). reply
• Keep. Meets #1. criteria for notability in all citations listed in: JAMA Psychiatry (very reliable medical journal), Time Magazine (also very reliable American journalism outlet, 2015-not too soon->2 yrs ago) & Columbia (considerably well known American ivy league university) for verified statistically relevant scientific findings about the dangers of air pollutants on brain development, as well as epidurals in neonatal brain development. Zachary R. Toth M.P.A. ( talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. H-index of 2 [2] is very far from WP:PROF#C1. No other notability evident. In addition the article appears to be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY with no significant contributions other than by an editor with the same name as the subject. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete — the Time piece says nothing about Toth as an individual, and the Columbia University one is a uni press release (i.e., not really a source independent of the subject) that mentions his name, among all the other co-authors of the study it covers, but says nothing more about him. Furthermore, merely having a paper in a well-regarded journal does not by itself count towards notability, in the absence of evidence that the paper has had a substantial impact. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment. User page Zachary R. Toth M.P.A. is a copy of this AfD. It should be deleted too. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC). reply
• Delete. Per nom, non-notable and inadequately supported by sources. DaveApter ( talk) 16:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• delete - created by the subject or someone impersonating them, in either case without declaring the COI and putting the article through peer review before it published, per WP:COI. Fails PROF and GNG, and an effort at promotion, which is not what WP is for, per WP:PROMO. Jytdog ( talk) 03:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Agreed: fails COI and PROMO. DaveApter ( talk) 17:00, 18 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Mental Space Psychology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:FRINGE. This is essentially the pet project of one person, with about zero publications from uninvolved authors. Therefore it fails GNG. Lithopsian ( talk) 19:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Google search confirms the nominator's thesis that this is the author's use of Wikipedia to advance original research. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is a detailed article with many references, including references by famous psychologists, such as Amos Tversky. Vorbee ( talk) 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Yes, the article lists papers by famous psychologists, but do any of them actually cover this subject? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Tons of references do not necessarily WP:RS make, and this is one such example. The vast majority of the references are to other subjects or disciplines, such as neuro-linguistic programming (fringe-y enough itself). Extending these references to support the topic here is WP:OR at its most unadulterated especially given the lack of inline references. This is essentially the original author's personal essay and, if they wish to publish such, can do so elsewhere. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:GNG, WP:COI, WP:FRINGE, etc, etc. Almost every phrase I google gets a hit for something written in a book written by someone else. The article's creator is a prominent member of the Society for Mental Space Psychology (see http://www.somsp.com/about).- Location ( talk) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Is there any single source we can say that this was significantly plagiarised from? If so it can be speedily deleted without the need for further discussion. OTOH, if it was cobbled together from multiple sources without any one source being plagiarised enough to be a fatal copyvio then I guess we need to continue. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Not a single source. I looked, and already deleted several sections from different papers. I would have speedy-deleted it if there had been a more obvious source for the whole thing. Some sections may even be sufficiently paraphrased to survive. Then I gave up and decided it should be deleted anyway. Lithopsian ( talk) 17:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Agreed. That was my experience, too. - Location ( talk) 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• If copyvio: Speedy delete.
  If not copyvio: Delete anyway. The subject title gets a whopping 4 hits in Google Scholar, which make me think that it is not a true scientific discipline at all, at least not under this name. The article itself is almost unreadable gibberish (I don't think that wikification would help much) and gives the impression of possibly having been pasted from somewhere else, although it is also perfectly possible that it is an original essay. Either way that is no good to us. This is pure supposition but I can't help wondering if this was written for submission to a journal (hence the ludicrous number of supposed references) and then pasted here after it got rejected for obvious reasons. The other possibility is that it is a joke. When I google for a nonsense phrase like "social sidecar personality" I get nothing but the fact that this has been previously deleted from Wikipedia. Maybe somebody is yanking our chain here? Anyway, it makes no difference. Either way it has to go. Maybe salt it as it has been previously deleted. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails GNG. Also, give the Kitchen Sink Award to the references section. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:58, 17 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Karoliina Tapiovaara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

An unsourced, one-liner about the illustrator of a book. No improvement two weeks after concerns raised. COI since the article was created by the author of the book. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. I don't read Finnish so I'm listing this here rather than for speedy A7 in case there is evidence of notability out there that I missed. Meters ( talk) 18:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

It's difficult to find much about the book in question since most sites don't list that ISBN, but according to Good Reads https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36098415-muru-ja-puru it's an 80-page kid's book published Aug 21, 2017 by Books on Demand. I assume that means it's self-published. Maybe we should just speedy this as promotional? Meters ( talk) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can't see that the subject has done any notable work. The book she illustrated is self-published by the editor, see this edit Mduvekot ( talk) 19:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is not only "kid's book", it's a fairytale for children AND adults. The writer's book Ikävää, väki? has been two years the most popular in the category of linguistics at eKirjasto (library), and still is. It collects the statistics of all Finland's libraries. Another book, Naaraan, was 14 months the most popular in poems/aphorisms (2nd at the moment). Isn't this notable if the Finnish references are accepted? So you can imagine that Muru ja Puru has many levels. This book has been published last month, therefore I know it's too early to evaluate it's notability. No chartings are available yet. If the voters want to evaluate all the references, site Risto Rekola should be returned - at least temporarily. Risto hot sir ( talk) 07:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Risto hot sir ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD, and the writer of the book the subject illustrated. reply
  • This AFD is not about the notability of Risto hot sir's book. It is about the notability of the illustrator of the book. Whether the book is only for kids is irrelevant as to whether the illustrator is notable. Whether other books by this author or others exist (notable or not) is irrelevant as to whether the illustrator of this book is notable. Whether the book the illustrator worked on eventually becomes notable is irrelevant as to whether the illustrator is currently notable. The author's website is not a reliable source to help determine the illustrator's notability. Meters ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Karoliina's grandpa is Tapio Tapiovaara and his brothers are Nyrki Tapiovaara and Ilmari Tapiovaara. Risto hot sir ( talk) 21:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC) - reply

• • Whether the illustrator's relatives are notable is irrelevant (see WP:not inherited). Meters ( talk) 19:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Look at the paintings! I've never seen such an artistic eye of a sixteen-year old! Her grandfather had a romance with Tove Jansson during the second world war and he is in fact Nuuskamuikkunen. Risto hot sir ( talk) 22:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Your person opinion that she makes nice paintings does not make her notable. And who her other grandfather had a romance with more than 70 years ago is also irrelevant. Please stop adding unsourced irrelevant points to the AFD. We need reliable, independent sources showing that the illustrator is notable. I couldn't find them. No-one else has supplied any. If you can't provide them either then stop trying to save this stub of an article. It simply appears to be promotion of your book and its illustrator. Meters ( talk) 23:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • This kind of behaviour reminds me of the palindrome conversation where was shown that the Finns are more than thousand times more interested in palindromes than the English people. But what's the answer: just silence. Risto hot sir ( talk) 00:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No sources and no claim to notability. Agricola44 ( talk) 14:57, 13 September 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) 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Seema Sreelayam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

The article Seema Sreelayam is not a notable person. Most links are also not about the person (those are of some eCommerce website URLs),and cannot even find any articles related to person on Newspapers, which may or may not be notable. There is nothing about this person which makes him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.9.38 ( talk • contribs) 18:00, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I completed the nomination and moved the comment left by the IP nominator at the talk page. Huon ( talk) 18:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Run of the mill author Seasider91 ( talk) 18:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Person has some verifiable references, but lacks recognition in media. Less notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi 1980 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 September 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. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  22:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Bloombase (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable software company. None of the sources in the article amount to substantial coverage under reliable sourcing, and everything I could find online is a press release. The award mentioned in the article is not enough to confer notability. Should be deleted for failure of WP:N. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Just as a note, this had been deleted last September, but it has been around in mainspace for 5 months now, so I feel it might as well go through another AfD compared to G4. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm seeing plenty of press releases, but I can not find in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY.  gongshow   talk  21:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I checked 4 refs and got 4 press releases. If that the best they can come up with ... Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 02:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 19:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Virgil Howe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Keyboard player for Little Barrie but no evidence of independent notability, apart from having "drummed for a period" with another band (of which there is no detail or proof). Unfortunately he died yesterday and has understandably had tributes published in various publications, but these consist entirely of lists of (Twitter etc.) messages of condolence. Not what I'd call significant independent coverage. Suggest charitably it is (re) re-directed to Little Barrie. Sionk ( talk) 17:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep I created this page back in 2006. Various individuals then inputted into the article, but the main content was from me. It existed until Oct 2016 when Sionk re-directed it to Little Barrie for whom he drums (not keyboards, although he plays keys in other projects). I didn't say anything at the time: I think standards have evolved since 2006 and what I'd done then and his level of notability back then probably wouldn't be seen as adequate today. However, Howe's stock has risen since then. Howe's death was announced late last night. An IP editor reverted Sionk's re-direction edit and various people, but chiefly me, have been working on it since. The news of Howe's death has attracted articles in major UK newspapers (e.g. The Independent, Mirror, The Sun) and the music press (e.g. NME). I think that degree of coverage demonstrates notability. No, they're not all terribly detailed articles, but then the news hasn't been out long and his death was unexpected. Given the recency of his death, it seems slightly pointless to start an AfD now, if I might say so. Why not give it a few days and see (a) what the current flurry of editing produces, and (b) what else is published? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Little Barrie as suggested. WP:BAND states "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." The article does state that he produced one album, but unless it charted or had a national/international tour as the criteria state, it wouldn't merit him an article on his own(regretfully). 331dot ( talk) 18:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • • Striking my redirect idea as I'm now a bit clearer on this; consider me a Weak keep. 331dot ( talk) 22:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment He's done much more than one album outside of Little Barrie, but this wasn't well described in the article. I've added a Virgil_Howe#Discography section to make it clearer. Still a work in progress, but plenty there. Bondegezou ( talk) 20:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Aside from his work with Little Barrie, the output with Steve Howe and his session work should satisfy WP:BAND. Needs a few more references, but with those I think it stands up well enough. Plus it's well written and fairly detailed, not the usual rubbish. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 23:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Which aspect of WP:BAND is met by his work with Steve? 331dot ( talk) 23:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

"a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" – Steve Howe (The Steve Howe band, if you like) and Little Barrie are both notable acts. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Bondegezou's comments above and the reliable sources discussing Howe's work already present in the article. 28bytes ( talk) 12:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep The output seems to meet WP:BAND and the detail is good. Bluebonnet07 ( talk) 15:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Again, having a lot of detail isn't a qualifying condition of WP:GNG. Anyone can find a lot of detail from record company websites, fansites and social media. Sionk ( talk) 17:31, 13 September 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 with clear consensus, nac, SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Ihor Ševčenko (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly referenced bio (tagged since 2013) of dubious notability. The award cited is nn itself: some personal foundation award Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. WP:BEFORE. It takes one rudimentary search to find a detailed William Grimes-written news obit in The New York Times describing him as "a leading scholar of Byzantine and Slavic history and literature" and noting his unusual collaboration with George Orwell in the creation of the first Ukranian edition of Animal Farm along with other notable works. [3] And here's an equally detailed Boston Globe obit. [4] Passes WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG easily. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- clear pass of WP:PROF & WP:GNG. In addition to the obits listed above, the Harvard Gazette has an in-depth article: Longtime Harvard professor and Byzantine specialist dies at 87. Plenty of citations in GBooks. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Snow keep. High GS cites for a low-cited field passes WP:Prof. Suggest withdraw this misguided nomination. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:16, 19 September 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) 19:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Tristan King (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a highly covered league for long enough and no individual awards that I can find. Previously deleted in 2008 and recreated in 2013 when he played in 100 pro games, the standard that has since been more strictly defined in NHOCKEY. Yosemiter ( talk) 17:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for the many hundreds of NN articles (often in open defiance of both community consensus and appropriate notability guidelines) made to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these articles, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from satisfying notability. Ravenswing 06:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. 18abruce ( talk) 22:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete and SALT: Fails WP:NHOCKEY repeatedly recreated. AaronWikia ( talk) 00:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

SALT seems a bit much, when it was re-made in 2013 (5 years after it was first deleted), he met the then lower standards for NHOCKEY. It is not like this page has been getting re-made by vandals and the like. Yosemiter ( talk) 16:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete I can't find any evidence he meets WP:GNG. And the NHOCKEY standards have been strengthened since he was created so he no longer gets a reprieve that way. - DJSasso ( talk) 11:44, 18 September 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 Willie Earl Green.  Sandstein  06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The Denise "Dee Dee" Walker case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Murder case which appears to be non-notable per WP:NCRIME. Little major coverage aside from the CNN article. DrStrauss talk 15:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Question Based on the article, which includes the reversal of aan erroneous conviction for murder, there should be extensive news coverage. It's not in the present article. Has the nom. done the required WP:BEFORE search? DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Willie Earl Green (whose exoneration seems to make this notable). There is some more coverage (including a whole book - with the exonerated man as an author (though it seems he wasn't the main author), written incidentally after the Wikipedia article): [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. If kept standalone - it needs to be renamed (e.g. Murder of Denise Walker). Icewhiz ( talk) 10:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete this and Willie Earl Green. My news archive searches on the murder found nothing. I'm not saying that there might not have bee a news story that I missed despite using a variety of keywords, only that there couldn't have been much. What did come up was a BLP1E-type flurry on Green's exoneration. The Los Angeles Times reported the story, Green always maintained he was innocent, kept his nose clean in prison, got an associate degree, worked in the prison library and married his penpal - all while in prison. He had been convicted based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness who was high on cocaine at the time of the murder; also police had falsely informed the witness that Green had previously been convicted of stealing from the murder victim. Judge therefore ruled that Green did not receive a fair trial. Sum total of coverage appears to have been two news stories in the Los Angeles Times, neither very long. Plus an AP story and a UPI story that got picked up by a number of newspapers. All in March 2008. It is a story that tugs at the heartstrings. But I am not persuaded that either the murder victim or the falsely assused man are notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete- (Note: I'll accept if this is a merge but a redirect is not helpful for this unlikely search term) A tragic turn of events but this clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I just cannot find the significant and WP:DIVERSE coverage necessary to argue a level of notability. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Willie Earl Green. As a stand-alone crime, it was not notable; as a condition it is. Bearian ( talk) 13:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Merge per above arguments, though possibly the resulting article should be named to reflect a focus on the case and not the people, per WP:1E? Artw ( talk) 22:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Bearian. The murder is not exceptional but the semi-exoneration is. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It looks like this is heading towards a merge. Normally, after such a merge, the title would be redirected to the merge target. In this case, it's such an unlikely search term, that seems pointless. However, moving this to Dee Dee Walker or Denise Walker, and then redirecting that title would make a lot more sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 00:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Alwyn Hamilton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Rebel of the Sands (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a writer, whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NAUTHOR is that she exists. And for referencing, what we have here is two primary sources (her own website and her "our authors" profile on the website of her publisher) and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and she doesn't get to talk herself into Wikipedia either -- she has to be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources, written in the third person by people independent of her PR team, to clear WP:GNG. I'm also bundling her debut book, which doesn't have any properly sourced indication of notability either -- its sole source is the exact same Q&A interview that isn't cutting it in the BLP. Bearcat ( talk) 16:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Alwyn Hamilton, and Rebel of the Sands, too. There are multiple RS of criticism of RoS and also for the sequel. Hamilton passes CREATIVE. I've added sources to her article, but don't have time to work on RoS, though you can see the sources that would be useful for the book in Hamilton's article. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 00:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Hmlarson ( talk) 04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep the author's article; "Redirect" the book article to the author article. No need for two article on these closely related subjects. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Ample evidence appearing in the footnotes for a GNG pass, no need to apply the AUTHOR SNG. Carrite ( talk) 15:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Additional sourcing improved article, establishing notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep both. I expanded Rebel of the Sands with sources (e.g., New York Times, The Guardian) to help show that it meets WP:BKCRIT.  gongshow   talk  22:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep x2 ("what is all that white fluffy stuff", now now coola:)), Rebel of the Sands meets WP:NBOOK, with multiple reviews (in addition to those in the article, a lot more out there ie Deseret News, common sense media, Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, New York Journal of Books School Library Journal, Booklist, The Horn Book, School Library Connection, VOYA Reviews phew! that will do:)) and being a NYT best seller, Hamilton meets WP:NAUTHOR, with this book held by over 1000 libraries worldwide (not just Canada and USA but numerous other countries ie. UK, NZ, OZ, Holland) so it is "well known", and has had plenty of reviews. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:00, 13 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Churchix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Carefully crafted paid article (per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Shauryanegi) that fails a number of criteria. Churchix is a division of Face-Six LLC, and so fails WP:PRODUCT as it's parent company has questionable notability. Sourcing is a major issue, as while the article has many citations, most of them cover the field of facial recongition and make no mention of Churchix itself, and even those that due only mention it in passing or as part of a list. These failures qualify the article for deletion per WP:MILL and WP:PROMOTION as Churchix is not individually notable. SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - promotional, thus failing WP:NOT. The usual paid editor tactic of putting in dozens of sorta-related refs doesn't help Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 17:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - but rewrite. The article is heavily promotional, but there's considerable press coverage. Mostly negative. "Skipping church - Facial recognition could be tracking you" - Washington Post. [11] "Face recognition software knows when you are skipping church services." - Engadget [12] It's notable as a Big Brother system. The article needs a rewrite and a "controversy" section. John Nagle ( talk) 19:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:REFOVERKILL applies here. The sources, as listed above are routine coverage and what tips this over the edge is the terms of use violation. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete clearly promotional coverage is routine lacks significant coverage and fails WP:PRODUCT. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:35, 14 September 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) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Theodoric Chew (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Article contains unnecessary puffery and promotion of the subject. The subject's notability is in question, as the majority of the sources cited lack any depth, only mention the subject in passing, or are user-generated content. Note that while Chew is employed by notable companies, notability is not inherited and press releases do not grant notability per WP:NOTE. Compounding this is the fact that (per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Shauryanegi) an editor was payed via Upwork to create this article. SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nom. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom ,he is working in a notable company but it is not notability is not inherited and every employee in notable company is not notable.Lacks indepth WP:SIGCOV and is promotional. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 05:15, 14 September 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) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

KAIS (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Only listed source is WP:PRIMARY. Drm310 🍁 ( talk) 16:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom, article suffers from a lack of significant coverage and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Many notable subjects are made by the article in question but per policy WP:NOTINHERITED these do not confer notability on the subject musician.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 16:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:MUSICBIO. Seems to be a talented guy and may well be notable in the future, but for now all he really has is some self-released records on Bandcamp and gigs around his local Vancouver scene. The two most notable claims in the article, winning an award at the London Independent Film Festival and an honorable mention in the International Songwriting Contest, are both for the video of one of his songs and its director, not for the actual song itself. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:38, 13 September 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) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Cody Corbett (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources covering his comings and goings in lower minor leagues and his training camp appearances. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a highly covered league for long enough to presume notability (he is at 93 games in the AHL and at this rate he is several years off from the 200) and has not won any major individual awards (an All-Star game appearance is the highest I found). Yosemiter ( talk) 15:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. This article is a start towards GNG but not enough. Rlendog ( talk) 13:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY and all of the coverage appears to be routine sports reporting, which means WP:GNG is also not met. Papaursa ( talk) 23:34, 18 September 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

T. J. Syner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with a bunch of WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in high enough covered leagues to presume notability and no major individual awards. Yosemiter ( talk) 15:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as this person does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:NHOCKEY. 331dot ( talk) 19:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for the many hundreds of NN articles (often in open defiance of both community consensus and appropriate notability guidelines) made to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these articles, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Ravenswing 04:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog ( talk) 13:46, 16 September 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Joey Sides (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources. Has not played in a high enough league for long enough and has not not won any major awards (only a an All-Star game appearance, not a First Team All-Star) to pass WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter ( talk) 15:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for the many hundreds of NN articles (often in open defiance of both community consensus and appropriate notability guidelines) made to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these articles, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from satisfying notability. Ravenswing 06:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog ( talk) 13:44, 16 September 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Ben Wilson (ice hockey) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough to presume notability and has won no individual awards that I can find. Yosemiter ( talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Ravenswing 16:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Behn Wilson with an h is a notable hockey player, but not Ben Wilson. Rlendog ( talk) 13:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The leagues he's played in are all ones where notability is not automatic for all players, but requires a higher burden such as playing a certain specific high number of games in that league or winning pre-eminent honours — but he meets neither of those higher standards, and there's no alternative evidence that he would pass WP:GNG on the strength of the media coverage. Bearcat ( talk) 14:44, 19 September 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Mihaela Alexandra Grigore (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the footnotes actually lead to any coverage in independent sources. Any one of them are simple photos or self-promotional profiles on self-published websites. - Andrei ( talk) 15:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - vanity page about an entirely non-notable individual. No independent sources showing the subject might meet WP:BIO. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Written by SPA whose 1st edit was creating this page. All OR, no RS. Seems to be a vanity or fanpage. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:00, 13 September 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) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Eric Kattelus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough to presume notability and has won no individual awards that I can find. Yosemiter ( talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY, WP:N and WP:GNG.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog ( talk) 13:39, 16 September 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) 19:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Kyle Bushee (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE sources about signings and such. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league for long enough to presume notability and has won no individual awards that I can find. Yosemiter ( talk) 15:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog ( talk) 13:37, 16 September 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

C. J. Motte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Only finding WP:ROUTINE type sources which are not typically enough for WP:GNG. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league (at least not yet). His All-WCHA team selections is not the same as the NCAA All-American teams, and therefore is insufficient to presume notability. Yosemiter ( talk) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. This is one of his stocks in trade: someone who won an award that he claimed (in violation of both consensus and the explicit text of the guideline) met the guideline's criteria. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I am not sure I understand how he fails WP:NHOCKEY but somehow Jamie Russell passes. Both got WCHA honours, is it some distinction between coach and player that gives one award more weight than the other? 18abruce ( talk) 14:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Reply: Neither do; I'd already withdrawn my vote on the Russell AfD. Ravenswing 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Don't see enough for GNG, and fails NHOCKEY. 18abruce ( talk) 19:05, 14 September 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 argument that this content is WP:OR is compelling, and not successfully rebutted. Creating a similar article that is based on reliable sources is however possible.  Sandstein  06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced for two years, comprised of original research. Proper sourcing is not possible, as the topic is by design "monsters that are similar to other monsters in other works of fiction". Bright☀ 14:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete this festival of fannish OR. Mangoe ( talk) 16:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No citations provided to similar cross-comparisons in reliable sources that would demonstrate notability under WP:NOTESAL. (Will change !vote if such citations are added.) —chaos5023 ( talk) 20:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete fancruft listing that compares franchises and book series, all of which is original research and not of encyclopedic value. No reliable source news articles that attempt to juxtapose the franchises' monster lists on a large scale. For a similar discussion see Talk:K-pop#RfC:_.22Is_a_most_viewed_list_from_several_sources_acceptable.3F.22 AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC) updated 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete As it stands, the article is full of synthesis and OR. I am not aware of ay reliable sources that discuss all these varied fictional series along all of these parameters. Once synth and OR were deleted, there is nothing left. Whilst I appreciate the work that went into this table, it is just not up to Wikipedia verification requirements. Hence, delete. -- Mark viking ( talk) 03:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete This looks more like someone's private research project. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The very first source that I found when checking this out was this whole academic book about the subject from a reliable publisher. Notability is a function of the article subject, not of the current state of an article. The previous comments all seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no indication that any attempt has been made to find sources. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Irrelevant. That book starts right in about Moby Dick, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fantasy creatures listed in this article. And the table of contents also has little or nothing to do with the article, devoting chapters to King Kong, the Island of Dr Moreau, and cryptozoology. Seems to me you judged the book by its title. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  And it seemed that you judged this article by its current contents rather than its topic. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 07:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  "Monsters in contemporary fiction" is a source-able and notable topic, "monsters that are similar to each other in contemporary fiction" is an un-source-able topic that is necessarily synthesis. Bright☀ 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Darned right I judged the article by its content. That's all we have to go on now. If the content is to be entirely replaced to follow what reliable sources say, then that's the same as deleting it and starting over. Therefore, my point still stands. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:NOR, WP:FANCRUFT and not well sourced synthesis. Ajf773 ( talk) 07:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or draftify. Per my comment above: The only reliable source even mentioned so far has nothing to do with this article. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Once again, notability is an attribute of a subject, not of an article as it is currently written. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Only if the content has anything to do with the notable subject. In this case, it doesn't. Therefore, it needs to be rewritten completely, which is the same as deleting and starting over. Once it is deleted, nothing prevents anyone from starting a new article about the subject that's actually notable. Simply titling an article after a notable subject doesn't mean it should be kept. The content matters. If we just keep the article title, it's no better than a placeholder. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• No, not a placeholder, but a stub, which is the usual start for an article about a notable topic. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• A stub needs to have content to avoid speedy deletion. You would have to replace the present content entirely with something else. There is nothing preventing anyone, including you, from creating such a stub once it is deleted. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep per 86.17.222.157's argument that it's the subject matter and not the article which determines notability - a salient policy point which I hope the AfD closer will take under advisement. There's absolutely no doubt that the article itself is in terrible condition, but the majority of the fictional universes included here have been written about fairly extensively, so I would think that the material - which at this point is almost totally unreferenced - is referencable. I'd suggest that the creator and major editors of the article be told that they have a set amount of time -- say a year -- to get the referencing up to snuff, and if it hasn't been done by that time, it can be brought back to AfD. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  I have seen no evidence yet that the subject (a list of fantasy works cross-referenced with the creatures therein) is a notable subject at all. Even the one reference the IP address mentioned above isn't about that, the book is about the evolution of an entirely different genre of creatures in literature. Just because a mere title sounds notable doesn't mean that it is. Just because you believe it's notable doesn't mean that it is. Come up with some evidence. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Once again you seem to be agreeing with the creators of this article in defining the subject by its current content. The subject is defined by the title, and the book that I cited clearly has significant reliable coverage of types of fantastic beings in contemporary fiction. That is as long as "contemporary" is defined from the viewpoint of an old man like me rather that of many Wikipedia editors for whom 1999 is a lifetime away. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  Once again you don't seem to understand that article titles without any content cannot be kept on Wikipedia. The content is what matters here. If you replace the content completely with other content, that's no different from deleting the article and creating a new one. Once again you haven't offered a policy-based reason to keep this. (And by the way, 1999 feels like a very short time ago to me, to give you perspective on my age.) ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Completely arbitrary list that randomly groups certain things while ignoring others. A "complete" list would be the largest article on this site, yet would have no value. — Xezbeth ( talk) 06:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - but it needs secondary sources discussing/comparing the "ecology" or "bestiaries" of different fantasy worlds. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  That's exactly the problem. Do you know of such sources? If they cannot be found, then this article cannot be kept. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - but it needs work. It could be used for navigation: "Lists that fulfill  recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." ( WP:LISTN) I added Stargate with links to specific creatures. The scope of the article needs to be improved: what is classic (include "gothic"?), which settings (franchises/multiple media, equivalent to 20? books/10? movies/100? episodes), which types (10? max, generalized). I would say inclusion of a setting needs at least 3? columns/articles to link to in the table. Sources could be added to column or row headers or individual cells. These beings tie in with Jungian archetypes, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, The Seven Basic Plots,.... StrayBolt ( talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm still not seeing where the creatures are being compared across the various franchises and with a large-scale "does it have vampires? Werewolves? Fairies? Medusas?" kind of treatment. Yes, you can find sources that show a certain monster type is in the film but so what? The individual types of monsters are comparable like with the vampires, as there are books on vampire fiction, but not collections like this. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete--Per all above(and Anchronist).The closer may be reminded that argument in the likes of --There exists sources...., without any evidence is in it's essentiality a null vote. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 06:12, 20 September 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) 19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Kyle Bigos (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Only finding WP:ROUTINE sources insufficient for WP:GNG. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a high enough league to assume coverage and his highest award I can find was a Junior A tournament MVP. Yosemiter ( talk) 14:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The product of an editor who ultimately received a community ban on new article creation for many hundreds of NN article to bump up his page creation count. As with the vast majority of these creations, the subject here is a journeyman hockey player in the mid-minors with an undistinguished career and no awards, noteworthy or otherwise. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Undistinguished minor league player, fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. 18abruce ( talk) 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom Rlendog ( talk) 13:35, 16 September 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.  Sandstein  06:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1940 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1945 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1968 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1974 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1979 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1980 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1984 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1988 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1997 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2000 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

As a compromise position at a time when the notability of non-winning election candidates was still a matter of debate, consensus started to permit non-winning candidates to be given mini-bio subsections in merged lists. So I'll grant that all of these were good faith creations at the time. However, consensus has now deprecated that, so that lists of this type are now permitted only to follow the table format demonstrated by Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election: their names can be present in the table, but per WP:BIO1E we're not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore. Non-winning candidates simply aren't a matter of enduring public interest for that fact itself — if they're not notable enough for a standalone article, then they shouldn't have the content equivalent of a standalone article embedded into a list either. None of these lists are even comprehensive — the closest to a complete list in the entire bunch is 2006, which includes just 13 candidates out of a possible 308. If there were actually any editorial will to get these cleaned up for comprehensiveness and the removal of the biographical sketches, then I'd happily leave them alone — but that cleanup simply isn't and hasn't been happening at all, so the ones that aren't conforming to the rules they have to conform to need to go. Bearcat ( talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 22. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've updated the 1940 article to the proper format (for one province), and I'll suggest that the nomination for that page should be withdrawn accordingly. I could add the other provinces and update the other pages as well (though not right away); given that the subject matter is considered encyclopedic, I'm wondering if it would make sense to simply move the pages out of the main article space until such time as they've been properly updated. CJCurrie ( talk) 05:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd be willing to support that alternative as well. Bearcat ( talk) 15:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep All - Bearcat is completely misrepresenting BIO1E when they say we are "not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore." That is nowhere in the guideline, nor should it be — I would advocate IAR to trump any such nonsense even if that were in the guidelines, which it is not. The rest of the nomination is purely an editing matter. Carrite ( talk) 18:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

I am not misrepresenting anything whatsoever. The rule for candidates most certainly is that if they do not qualify for a standalone article, then we are not allowed to simply paste the same depth of content about them into another article and keep it just because that other article is titled as a list instead of a standalone bio. BIO1E and BLP1E apply to all articles which contain information about people, not just to standalone biographical articles titled with an individual person's name — lists of people are still subject to the exact same content policies that govern what we can or cannot say about a person in any other article that might contain biographical information. And as for cleaning them up being an editing matter, the issue has been lingering for years without anybody taking on the task of doing anything about it — there is a point beyond which "could be cleaned up" ceases to be a compelling rationale anymore for keeping content that isn't getting cleaned up. And I suppose YMMV, but at least to me seven years of nobody actually caring about cleaning these up does fall on the blow it up and start over side of that line. Bearcat ( talk) 18:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep nowhere in 1E does it say that such "mini-articles" are not permitted. As Carrite already said, this is a gross misrepresentation. CJK09 ( talk) 21:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply

1E doesn't have to specifically mention "mini-articles" to be applicable — it deprecates maintaining any extended biographical content at all about 1E's beyond mentioning their name where it's contextually relevant to do so, and doesn't have to individually readdress every possible form that such deprecated content might be presented in. Bearcat ( talk) 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete mini articles about candidates who did not win are clearly against our policy and guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notability policies only apply to articles, not sections within articles. In fact, it is entirely appropriate and in many cases recommended to merge such non-notable topics into sections within a larger, notable article. And in any case, AFD is not cleanup, and if the topic is notable, which nobody has explained why it isn't and even Bearcat implied that it is by citing, and not nominating, an article that is in the so-called "proper" format, then it should be kept and cleaned up. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Again, this has been over seven years of not getting cleaned up, and there has to be a deadline beyond which if an article still hasn't been cleaned up it doesn't get to sit around anymore continuing to wait for cleanup that isn't happening. And secondly, notability policies do apply to sections within articles; for example, a "list of people from city" is not allowed to contain non-notable entries at all, and articles are not allowed to contain extended biographical sketches of people who are named in them but don't qualify for standalone BLPs. Bearcat ( talk) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Wrong. See WP:NODEADLINE. Smartyllama ( talk) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

That's a user essay, not a binding policy, so I'm entirely within my right to have and express different views as long as I explain my reasoning in depth (which I did) and don't just rest on "I can ignore that just because it's an essay" arguments (which I didn't). Bearcat ( talk) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete all. These candidates could be listed in individual election articles, but there's no justification for lumping them all together in one big list. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You mean exactly what was done? There are separate articles for each election. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, or what you think is being done here. Smartyllama ( talk) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, there are separate articles for each election already — Clarityfiend's whole point was that those articles vitiate the need to maintain these articles alongside those. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep notable subject. The rest might be an editing issue if it is a real issue at all. Agathoclea ( talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

It most certainly is a real issue, and these people are not notable subjects. Bearcat ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep The notability guidelines relate solely to what topics are suitable for an entire article and have nothing to say about what information may, or may not, be included as part of a broader article. Thincat ( talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Our notability standards most bloody certainly do govern what can or cannot be included as part of a broader article. BLP1E/BIO1E, for instance, do not just apply to standalone biographies, but govern how much we are or are not allowed to say about an individual who falls under it in any article: an article about an event is not allowed to contain BLP1E-related biographies of individual participants in it; an article about a company is not allowed to maintain biographical sketches of individual people who work at that company, and on and so forth. Our standards for the notability of individual people pertain to all articles, and not only to standalone biographies titled with a person's own name. Bearcat ( talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC) reply

That is, I think, mistaken. WP:BLP policy certainly applies everywhere but you cited WP:BIO1E which is part of the notability guidelines. WP:N says (nutshell) " The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." The first paragraph says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It also says "although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." so this is a matter for talk page consensus, not deletion. WP:BIO1E is part of WP:Notability (people) which in general refers back to WP:N. Here, I accept, the nutshell says "Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article." (italics added). WP:Stand-alone lists is referred to which simply suggests what might be done "typically". BLP apart, all this is guidance and people should read and understand it as best they can and then form a considered opinion. Such matters are decided by consensus and people are not to have their !votes rejected if they do not !vote in a particular way. The hard rules you refer to do not exist. People are allowed (but are not required) to adopt strict rules for notability though the guidelines suggest not to do this. If there are BLP matters that is another matter entirely and potentially contentious material must be referenced or removed. Thincat ( talk) 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Sure, there is no rule that we can't maintain a list of the candidates — there is a legitimate question as to whether such lists are necessary if they simply reduplicate information already present in the election's basic results tables, but that's a separate matter from this. But the rules do dictate that the list cannot contain extended biographies of any individual candidate who doesn't qualify to have a full standalone biography located at his or her own name — if a person does not qualify for a full standalone biography located at their own name, then keeping the exact same content about them, just because the article's title isn't their name, is not an alternative path to retention. Bearcat ( talk) 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Come on, closer, step up to the plate. This is not a hard call. Carrite ( talk) 10:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Amy Burvall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E -- no notability beyond that Lombardanian ( talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Did you say in your edit summary "The article Amy Burvall should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. She lacks notability, and be page appears to be maintained by an associate who resists any changes.)"? If so 1) I am not associated with her in any way 2) Is this AFD a form of revenge for reverting you? Are you 209.117.61.226? Philafrenzy ( talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC) reply