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) 18:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

The Adventures of Hooligan Squad in World War III (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by a SPA to promote Kasey Ryne Mazak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). No claim of notability. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails every notability guideline. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete When a vanilla search for the title finds IMDB, no reviews, and several copies purporting to be the full movie... well, yeah. Jclemens ( talk) 06:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Not wanting to pile on, just didn't want to see it relisted. Ifnord ( talk) 16:50, 5 October 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. Could also be "keep", but with only 2-1 arguments in favour of the source provided establishing notability I don't feel entirely sure in an unqualified keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Valhalla (2013 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by a SPA to promote Kasey Ryne Mazak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). No claim of notability. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I was able to find several references to add, which also enabled me to add a plot summary and quite a bit about the production. Sources include several paragraphs at the end of a New York Times article on recent ski movies that get away from the "ski porn" cliches, an extended article in the Denver Post (it premiered in Denver), and other coverage including a Norwegian TV channel focussing on the nude skiing scene. Meets GNG. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Very thin referencing (that's a strange new meaning of "several" when describing its passing mention in the Times article and Post story is basically pre-release promotion. Not so much referencing as it is padding. -- Calton | Talk 11:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I can't agree with that assessment of the sources; although I agree that several focus on the nude ski scene, the Denver Post counts as a review in a reputable newspaper, and the NYT article has way more than a mention: as I wrote above, several paragraphs, and it appears to have provided the impetus for the article: "Sweetgrass’s latest film, 'Valhalla,' fully restored my faith in the future of ski movies." Yngvadottir ( talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I am going to have to go with Yngvadottir on this one; the Times article had more than a passing mention and it was a real article, not an advertisement. Ifnord ( talk) 16:57, 5 October 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. A Train ^talk 08:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Turbulence (2014 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. One of a series of articles created by an editor pushing the notability of Kasey Ryne Mazak. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 08:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom - Unnotable. Further, imdb as only source is never a good sign. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and NFILM. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:33, 6 October 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. A Train ^talk 08:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. One of a series of articles created by an editor promoting Kasey Ryne Mazak. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom - unnotable, unsourced. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unnotable flick. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:34, 6 October 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. A Train ^talk 08:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no significant coverage in reliable sources or releases on a notable label. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - can't find any obvious sources, just another metal band. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG and JUSTANOTHERBAND :) L3X1 (distænt write) 01:35, 6 October 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) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails criteria in WP:MUSIC, unsourced, could find absolutely nothing when looking for sources. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete All provided sources originated with the band and are from either their own webpage or a user contributed download site. Nothing independent or third party found. ShelbyMarion ( talk)
• Delete Fails WP:NBAND. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:52, 5 October 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. A Train ^talk 08:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Corrupt Absolute (  | 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 guidelines in WP:MUSIC, no significant charts or releases on notable labels. Also lacks coverage in secondary reliable sources. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete There are definitely references (and somewhat difficult to scare up, since they are under two different names) but they are all either small time or run of the mill coverage of "appearing this week at (venue name)" variety, consisting generally of band talking about themselves rather than objective, third party coverage. Could be worth saving if better examples of significant third party coverage could verify most of what it in this article, but best I can tell there is nothing new about them for over 10 years, and I suspect the band is defunct, having never really "made it" in any significant way. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Shelby, and if bands insist on being clever and crafting names that make them pretty much indistinguishable from background clutter they deserve to fail the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:39, 6 October 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. A Train ^talk 08:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Decoryah (  | 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 notable, could only find passing mentions in a Gbook search. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 06:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a Finnish doom metal band. The only reference provided is to a directory. No claims of meeting any specific notability guidelines. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG and Band. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train ^talk 08:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Domdeparis ( talk) 16:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: the only coverage from a major, reliable source is this Times of India article, of which he still isn't the primary topic of discussion. There's a clear conflict of interest here, as indicated by the phrase My picture. DrStrauss talk 09:36, 2 October 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) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kim Tae-ho (footballer, born 1992) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP about a footballer (reserve goalkeeper) who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (fails WP:NFOOTY) and which doesn't satisfy WP:GNG (only online Korean-language coverage I can find is trivial in nature such as a squad listing). PROD was removed without explanation. Jogurney ( talk) 22:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 22:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Fails NFOOTY and any coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Club Oranje ^T 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down ( talk) 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:46, 3 October 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. ScratchMarshall, if you would like me to reproduce the article into your userspace so you can keep working on bringing it up to the bar of WP:NAUTHOR, just let me know. I'd be more than happy to do so. A Train ^talk 08:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Kate E. Reynolds (  | 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 subject appears to have received no significant coverage in third-party sources. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Rentier ( talk) 20:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

On what basis are AutismDaily / TES / WestInfo insignificant? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 20:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The cited sources contain trivial mentions of the subject and are insufficient to establish the subject's biographical notability as an author. Rentier ( talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete:In two of those sources, the coverage of Reynolds is a sentence or a fraction thereof. The third, while using her book as the source for the article, is doing just that - using it as a source, rather than discussing the book, much less the author. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not pass notability guidelines for writers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• User:ScratchMarshall, the relevant question that you need to focus on is not whether the publications are significant, but whether the particular coverage in them about Kate E. Reynolds is of significant extent. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kate_E._Reynolds&diff=803147040&oldid=802876602 a new source was just added from Library Journal which gave a positive review. This should be taken into considerstion. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 20:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete sources to support notability are just not out there. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  what about

  • Smith, Julianne (15 November 2012). "Party Planning for Children and Teens on the Autism Spectrum: How To Avoid Meltdowns and Have Fun!". Library Journal. 137 (19): 74 – via EBSCOhost. {{ cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) ( help)

  though? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 18:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  For those without access to that source I can confirm that it is a review of a book by Reynolds running to about 200 words. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 11:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

  Which, at best, contributes one of the multiple reviews that WP:NAUTHOR calls for. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:59, 5 October 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. A Train ^talk 08:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

fails WP:BIO. References 1 & 4 don't resolve, references 2 & 3 are from his personal website, reference 5 is promotional material for a book written in 2006. CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 10:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, one of the most prominent German bloggers. Here is a reliable source naming him Germany's most well-known blogger. Lots of references in the German article. — Kusma ( t· c) 09:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep, from his German wikipedia page , it seems relevant Samat lib ( talk) 14:58, 29 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. David Eppstein has made a persuasive argument but none of the editors arguing keep have returned to revisit their positions and this debate has now been open for almost three weeks. As WP:RELIST discourages third relists, I'm going to call time. If someone wants to re-nominate this article for deletion in a couple of months they would be well served by taking some notes on David Eppstein's approach when they write the nomination. A Train ^talk 08:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO on given sources CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 10:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, fails WP:CS and WP:PROF — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Subject is the leading German academic on Mediterranean fire ecology, widely published and works in a relevant field. (pun not intended) I see sufficient evidence to show the subject passes NPROF. This is one of six German 'authors' the nom sent to Afd in 30 minutes, however IHO only 2 of those are worthy of deletion. --@ EC Racing: WP:CS is not a notability guideline, what did you mean? Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Links in the article don't demonstrate this. Under references we have 1) the subject's blog, 2) a page from a university that doesn't even list the subject's name, 3) a dead link to ARD with no page found and 4) link to the subject's blog (again). This is hardly sufficient to demonstrate one of the 9 points listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Furthermore, Google search turns up no independent coverage to satisfy general WP:BIO or notability guidelines. User has a Wikimedia page, if that is of interest? CelenaSkaggs ( talk) 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The fact that the links in the article don't demonstrate notability isn't relevant at all. You should consider reading both WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST before you nominate any more articles for deletion based on your perception that the links that are presently in an article determine notability. It feels like you're wasting the community's time with many of these noms. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 17:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Just as User:Aguyintobooks said, Nef really does check out as a leading, well-known and eminently sourceable expert on fire ecology. User:CelenaSkaggs, I thik you need ot slow down and run WP:BEFORE you hastily delete articles. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. To test the hypothesis that he is a leading expert on Mediterranean fire ecology, I used Google scholar to look up the top citation counts of papers on the subject. I found:
  • 559 for Naveh, "The evolutionary significance of fire in the Mediterranean region", Vegetatio 1975
  • 412 for Pausas et al, "Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterranean basin?–A review", Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009
  • 315 for Keeley et al, Fire in Mediterranean ecosystems: ecology, evolution and management, 2011
  • 239 for Díaz-Delgado, "Satellite evidence of decreasing resilience in Mediterranean plant communities after recurrent wildfires", Ecology 2002
  • 191 for Naveh, "Fire in the Mediterranean–a landscape ecological perspective", Fire in Ecosystem Dynamics 1990
  • 187 for LeHouerou, "Fire and vegetation in the Mediterranean basin", Proc. 13th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf. 1974
  • 157 for Moreno and Oechel, The role of fire in Mediterranean-type ecosystems, 2012
  • 157 for Noy‐Meir, "Interactive effects of fire and grazing on structure and diversity of Mediterranean grasslands", J. Veg. Sci. 1995
  • 153 for Gimeno‐García et al, "Changes in organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and cations in soil as a result of fire and water erosion in a Mediterranean landscape", Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2000
  • 150 for Paula et al, "Fire‐related traits for plant species of the Mediterranean Basin", Ecology 2009

In contrast, among Neff's publications I find one well-cited one on general fire ecology in which he is in a middle position among six authors ("Reconstructing past fire regimes: methods, applications, and relevance to fire management and conservation", and note that without restricting to the Mediterranean the citation counts of other works are also much higher) and then other citation counts much lower (43, 33, 25, and then single digits). I conclude that the hypothesis is not confirmed. It may be that he is the leading German expert in Mediterranean fire ecology, but I don't see why his nationality should be relevant to his notability, especially since one would not expect Germany to be a center of research on this topic (it is not a Mediterranean country). Since that was the only plausible claim here for notability, and in general his citation counts do not show that he is a high-impact researcher in this area, I conclude that we do not have evidence for WP:PROF in general, nor for WP:PROF#C1 more specifically. Without evidence of notability, we cannot keep the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete--Per Eppsteins's superb analysis. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 07:02, 6 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

This is an advitorial. Should be deleted per WP:CORP and WP:PROMO. Sources on the article are primarily the company itself, organizations whose sole purpose is to promote business in the state or region, a smattering of local news stories that primarily consist of interviews with the principals of the company, and two brief mentions out of Chicago and Detroit in articles about tourism in the region. It is chock full of unsubstantiated claims of importance that do nothing but serve to promote. John from Idegon ( talk) 19:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep Reliably sourced. Meets WP:GNG. Was a "first" in its field. And it was a DYK. Obviously, no compliance with WP:Before. John from Idegon's content dispute is no reason to Delete; it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC) User:7&6=thirteen 19:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep for reasons of User:7&6=thirteen. -- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 20:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 20:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Several editors, myself included, have worked to remove and keep out advertorial language from this article, leaving only what could be substantiated. It meets GNG with RSs and even, as 7&6=thirteen points out, passed DYK review. I'm not sure what prompted this nomination but IMO it is clearly misguided. — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• keep Meets WP:GNG. Samat lib ( talk) 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The topic is adequately covered in sources that appear sufficiently reliable and independent, the article is not blatantly promotional, and the company has a claim of particular notability reflected in "The company makes a wider variety of gem stones than any other company in the world" (with multiple sources to support the claim). The company may not be among the Fortune 500 and seems to have only attracted local interest, but it is adequately notable. — BarrelProof ( talk) 20:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per everyone above - The factory is covered in reliable sources and as such meets GNG, BEFORE doesn't appear to have been followed. – Davey2010 ^Talk 22:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

*Delete since most of the references rely on PRIMARY sources (interviews, company announcements) and although the references are all secondary independent publications, the articles themselves are not intellectually independent and therefore fail the criteria for establishing notability WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Another reference is an inclusion in a list of activities in the Idlewild region and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A topic must have at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty and therefore must be intellectually independent. Perhaps one of the Keep !voters above can provide two references that they believe gets this topic beyond the notability argument? -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep  Nothing in Google scholar.  I found that there are two more search terms, ICT and Shelby Gemstone Factory.  The Pure Michigan source only has a paragraph, but it still contributes to GNG notability.  The Oceana Herald Journal 40-years article is helpful.  The Detroit News article requires going to a library.  Nom has a point to the extent that this article could use some toning down from the fawning, and I've made some edits in that regard.  But there is also a sense in the sources of family friendliness, which if we follow the sources, some of this will show up in the article, and this is not a reason for WP:PROMO deletion.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hi Unscintillating which references are available online? Can you post here? -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 20:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Like I said, the Oceana 40-years article is helpful.  I had trouble with several of the sources, but I don't do video, so it might be that explains two that I couldn't see.  I also had trouble with the Northern Express source, but I found it in a Google cache.  Have you looked at Google Books?  I recall one of the snippets is from 1994, where while the claim that is still being made appears to no longer be true, was likely true in 1994.  As for the technology, the best source I found was the FAQs page from the company.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • As creator of the article I used several library books, as I have like these reference books I used in producing 500 Did You Know articles. During this article's Did You Know, there were no objections to any of the references used. I also used newspaper clippings for references.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 09:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep There does appear to be a small number of references, a lot of which are travel guides and such like, that provide details on Shelby Gem Factory or mention the factory. For example, Michigan Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. Given that others here have stated there are also references available that may be difficult to find available online, I'm satisfied it meets the criteria for notability. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment WP:Snowball? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:38, 5 October 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Ai Uehara (  | 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 my field, but I doubt that any of these awards are notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable actress. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Judging adult actresses is not my cup of tea, but this is one even I heard of, since she has been on regular TV and in the news. So in terms of WP:GNG, there is a lot to consider, all these being major media sources (not adult sites): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. I cannot judge the awards, but these sources say she was the best selling AV actress for a while with a big following even in China. Michitaro ( talk) 11:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Nothing special here, GNG not met, notoriety is not necessarily notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- does not meet notability guidelines for actors / adult actors; the coverage offered above is insufficient for GNG. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies if better sources can be found, especially given that good sources may be non-English. A Train ^talk 09:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

2010 Baltic U18 Athletics Match (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A small-time sporting event for underaged, there is not even a main article for the event. Geschichte ( talk) 21:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Non-notable sports event. Wikipedia is also not a results database. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:08, 3 October 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) 18:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Ian Schultz (  | 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 some WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails the current SNG of WP:NHOCKEY by winning no awards as far as I can find and not playing in well covered league for long enough to presume the coverage would exist to pass GNG. Possibly could be a redirect to Jeff Schultz#Personal life. Yosemiter ( talk) 19:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 00:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete still not a notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete or possibly redirect. Fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:06, 2 October 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) 18:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:GNG.Fringe research. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 18:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 18:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete No notability in itself. Could be possibly redirected to Panchakarma. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 20:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:56, 5 October 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) 18:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Scott Mathis (  | 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-type and WP:PRIMARY sources while lacking significant depth from others. Fails the current tightened WP:NHOCKEY as he was only a conference First Team selection and not a NCAA Div. I All-American. Yosemiter ( talk) 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Since he was last nominated the criteria was changed and he no longer meets NHOCKEY. - DJSasso ( talk) 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso ( talk) 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso ( talk) 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 00:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:17, 1 October 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) 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG after an extensive search for sources. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. In the time since the last Afd the requirements of NHOCKEY were tightened up and this player would unquestionably fail to meet them now. DJSasso ( talk) 17:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. DJSasso ( talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso ( talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 00:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails NHOCKEY and no other GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:06, 2 October 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. A Train ^talk 08:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

PagerDuty (  | 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 company, all sources are WP:MILL e.g. venture funding. Additionally created by a likely UPE and SPA. jcc ( tea and biscuits) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've used their product before, so no !vote. I'm not sure I'd consider [16] to be WP:MILL, and $40 million in funding is close to the point of presumed notability for "tech startups". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete No intellectually independent references, all are based on PRIMARY sources or company announcements, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 11:46, 5 October 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.Am satisfied by Mark's overhaul. Merge proposal may be discussed at t/p.Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Essay and/or a host of OR(To quote--The author of this text once conducted.....) .Does not seem to be notable by itself.A redirect may be plausible. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 17:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete The article seems to be based on a couple of references in the paper. It does not merit it's own article. Can be redirected to design of experiments or other relevant article. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 18:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Old wine, new bottle. The term is Convenience sample as it is defined in the article. Rhadow ( talk) 00:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep or merge to Nonprobability sampling. I have rewritten the article, eliminating OR and adding RS references. The article is now backed by six book sources. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows this to be a common technique of nonprobability sampling in epidemiology, and is different than convenience sampling. There is enough material out there to support a reasonable stub-class article. But merging to nonprobability sampling would also be a good option and might provide better context. -- Mark viking ( talk) 05:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- Based on well referenced rewrite, I suggest we go in whatever way Mark viking suggests. Rhadow ( talk) 12:27, 29 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train ^talk 08:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:Artist. Unreferenced BLP, essentially orphaned, and I can barely find any Internet sources. None of her awards is remotely notable or verifiable. The article even contains sentences about a completely different (male) person: "Like Wang Guangyi, Xu Beihong and Wu Guanzhong, Zhang Xiaogang is becoming to the best-selling contemporary Chinese artists and is a favorite of European collectors. He is represented in Beijing and Paris, Boston, New York City and Blossom Art Collection in Los Angeles." [17] shows it's not vandalism. Note: it's going to be confusing trying to find sources because there are many other artists with the same name, e.g. this artist is male and a graduate of Wako University in Japan; this artist (link in Chinese) is a 1967-born female graduate of Shanghai University. Our Zhang Xin as mentioned in the article and verified here is a female alumnus of China Academy of Art (even though that link says she was born in c. 1948 and not 1953 as the article mentioned, but that's a relatively minor issue). Timmyshin ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

1. If this page is indeed the same person as the subject (and she seems to be based off of what the article calls her blog), not only was she born in 1948 rather than 1953, but is from Tianjin rather than Jilin City. Our article may be incorrect.
2. I imagine the masculine pronoun bolded above is a grammatical error. Referring to female-identifying people as he is an extremely common error for native Chinese speakers to make, given the homophony of Chinese pronouns, and that it is an error is plausible given the context: "…then started her career as an art editor of Shandong Pictural and a painted traditional Chinese painting…. Zhang Xiaogang is becoming to the best-selling contemporary Chinese artists…." Lacking a source, I can't tell if Zhang Xiaogang is referring to our subject or not: it might be her nom de 筆 or something, but that it refers to a different peson entirely seems likeliest.
3. The external link called " Interview by LA 18" shows no content for me in any browser.

Delete, I guess: it's a BLP and the sourcing seems at first blush like it's going to be impossible. Apart from one page I found talking about an exhibition she did in Las Vegas in 2007, just about every search result is a false positive (or exact duplicate of the one page that profiles her). Snuge purveyor ( talk) 02:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Zhang Xiaogang is a different male artist. Those 2 sentences were c&p from that article. According to [18], Tianjin is her ancestral home (China) which isn't necessarily one's birth place/hometown. Timmyshin ( talk) 03:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Right you are. Stricken. Snuge purveyor ( talk) 10:00, 30 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) 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fail to see how he passes WP:GNG. Sole coverage is trivial and is limited to a few mentions of name in different RS. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 16:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 16:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Few mentions of the name in RS does not qualify wikipedia notability. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 16:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 17:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:56, 5 October 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) 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Won a few non_notable awards, the likes of which are doled out in abundance by various state govts. and the central govt. Looks promotional. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades of Godric ^{On leave} 16:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Promotional and per Wikipedia notability guidelines. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 16:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete pure advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable dentist. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:24, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Tehreek-e-Tahaffuz-e-Pakistan (  | 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 organization is considered inherently notable per WP:ORGSIG. The organization must have a effect on the society in order to consider notable. I think this ORG was founded in 2012 and was dissolved in 2013 having NULL effect on the society. Secondly, An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it per WP:INHERITORG which is clearly the case here. This ORG is only notable because of a notable person. This ORG also fails WP:ORGDEPTH and fails WP:ORGCRIT. We can easily cover one line information on the person who founded this organization. I would urge to avoid the keep comments if you have any support for the founder of organization. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 11:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: wow, I would have thought a discussion like this would have elicited a bigger furore! But yeah, notability isn't inherited - just because its founder is notable doesn't mean that it is notable. As nom says, any coverage independent from its creator is mostly passing, failing coverage depth guidelines. DrStrauss talk 17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• I have seen many AfD disussions about political parties in Western countries where it has been accepted without question that a political party that has contested a national election is automatically notable. I suppose that merely being a party taking part in a national election in the fifth most populous country in the world, but which is mostly populated by brown people outside the Western world, doesn't qualify this for similar consideration. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As per notability criteria, there is plenty of coverage on Khan's TTP. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] -- Soman ( talk) 09:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly meets the standards that are used at AfD for political parties contesting national elections in much smaller countries inhabited mostly by white people in the West. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Could you point me to these standards please? This seems like a classic case of playing the race card per your comment about race. And such minor parties often elicit more significant coverage, maybe it's systematic bias, but this is AfD, not a place to right great wrongs. DrStrauss talk 21:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. Doesn't have to satisfy anything else. And notability is not temporary. - Mfarazbaig ( talk) 22:06, 3 October 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. Closing as a soft deletion. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Shoutoku Brewery (  | 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 company. I failed to locate any significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The claim of long establishment since 1645 has not been verified. — Za wl 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 17:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mark the train ^Discuss 17:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:31, 5 October 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) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

V. Saajan (  | 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 indication of notability. Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - non notable film-maker. XFhumu ^Talk 22:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as it stands. Film editors are rarely notable, and there's nothing here that suggests that the subject meets the notability requirements. WP:PROMO copy includes;

• "He is considered ^{by whom?} one of the leading contemporary film editors in the Malayalam film industry, and has introduced several new editing techniques into the region's films."

K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 Randykitty ( talk) 12:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

SirionLabs (  | 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:MILL company with nothing passing WP:COMPANY. Purely WP:PROMO Zackmann08 ( ^{Talk to me}/ _{What I been doing}) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- SPA written promo piece. Insufficient CORPDEPTH. Rhadow ( talk) 00:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising, with language such as:

• "The Sirion platform significantly reduces the cost of supplier governance by automating complex procedures across key governance disciplines!" Etc.

Created by Special:Contributions/Saurabhmathur2006 with no other contributions outside the topic, and sources to the company itself or unsuitable WP:SPIP sources. I've requested a speedy deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Category:Libraries in Pennsylvania. Consensus is that the subject either does not exist or at the very least has received no coverage from significant third-party sources. Patar knight's excellent suggestion to redirect the article makes the most sense here. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Can't find a single reference to a state-wide library system under this name. Nothing shows up about it under PA state government sites. Very few results on a general search under the exact phrase "Pennsylvania library system". Most results only use this exact phrase when referring to their own library system existing in PA, or the University of Pennsylvania library system. Only one file from 2003 (incidentally when this article was created) that says the article name in full as its own entity. No serious additions to this page since its creation in 2003 leads me to believe it was referenced once in 2003 and then never again. Overall, lacks WP:GNG so much that I don't even think it exists! SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 15:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. I see no evidence that a "system" exists, just standard interactions between libraries (which may or may not be in Pennsylvania). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Category:Libraries in Pennsylvania as a reasonable search term. It's not unreasonable to think a state-system can exist, we might as well take them to the category page where they can find articles on the libraries in the state.---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 22:31, 5 October 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) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Ciaran McKnulty (  | 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 on footballer which fails WP:NFOOTBALL - No evidence player has played in fully-professional league. Sources are limited to WP:ROUTINE match coverage and a self-created (archived) profile on the Everton website (which may not even be the player). OZOO (t) (c) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OZOO (t) (c) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. OZOO (t) (c) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable football player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete amateur footballer does not meet subject specific guidelines (NFOOTBALL) and any coverage appears ROUTINE per nom. Club Oranje ^T 23:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. None of the sourcesi nthe article are specifically on the player, they are about his team. Fenix down ( talk) 09:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:22, 4 October 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Existing sources in article aren't enough for this person to meet WP:GNG, and a google search didn't turn up anything useful. Ravensfire ( talk) 20:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 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 keep. Clear consensus that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) J 947^{( c) ( m)} 20:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Gisela, daughter of Charlemagne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Too obscure to merit a stand-alone page - the infobox is larger than everything that can possibly be said about her. That she was child of her father and that she was baptized and perhaps educated (unreferenced claim), is no basis for notability, nor is the fact that this otherwise obscure royal daughter is sometimes confused with her more-noteworthy aunt. Changed to a redirect 5 years ago, but just reverted. Agricolae ( talk) 14:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae ( talk) 14:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Merge somewhere, definitely don't delete. Probably too little for a standalone article, but the info is legitimate and significant, and needs to be kept somewhere.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 14:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Changing my vote after the new additions.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 15:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I have (after the AfD, which happened while I was typing it out), included reliable sources for everything except her tutor, which is still in need of a citation. In popular culture at least 3 books feature her as a main character, there are numerous references to support the fact she was one of Charlemagne's better known daughters. I disagree with the original AfD reason since that was based on a incomplete stub. Notability is not temporary, a significant princess of the holy roman empire during its epoch is a relevant biography to have, even on the limited dozen or so sources available. NB. they are some older sources available as well, the information comes from somewhere, an expert could add to this article. ^[1] A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 15:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. If we are discussing (for almost a month!) a speculative 3rd yet to be born modern offspring to the grandson of the queen of a monarchy that has very little actual real power ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge) - we should definitely keep a non-speculative child of arguably the most influential monarch in European history if sourcing supports it. Following article improvement - there is both sourcing and more content - meeting GNG. I'll note that sourcing here is difficult as there were multiple Giselas in the Carlogininan line (including here co-contemporaneous abbess aunt), and that it actually seems possible (per some of the sources) that a few years after her aunts death (who was abbess of Chelles) this Gisela as well was appointed to be abbot of Chelles. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Looks like a decent, encyclopedic article after the additions. Rentier ( talk) 16:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I don't buy the inherented notability of royal family, especially if they haven't done anything particularly astounding in their life, but this is well-sourced and meets WP:GNG. Not much can be said about Gisela but that is not a result of a lack of sources. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Nominators Comment This article has been expanded since nomination, but much of the expansion is decoration, based on non-WP:RS (self-published material, non-notable trash-fiction), and references to a sister as if it was relevant to her, or books that don't have the information that is claimed (e.g. name, death). Further, it has plastered on multiple passing references to make it appear as if there is broad specific coverage, rather than just a single-sentence mention in these books - a bunch of passing references to an otherwise obscure girl not pass GNG. I have cleaned it up, but maintain that there is not enough here to ever have more than a stub, and a redirect to her father's page is more appropriate. Agricolae ( talk) 21:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Added note: I tried to clean it up by removing the problematic material that wasn't supported by the citations, but my efforts were reverted. I then tried to simply tag the problems, but my efforts were reverted. This is not the way it the process is supposed to work. If I can't even point out the problems, let alone fix them, it is impossible to have an open and well-informed discussion of the merits of this page - any page can on someone obscure can be bulked up with inappropriate citations to look like it is well-supported. Agricolae ( talk) 23:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Nice to see how you claim there are no WP:RS sources after removing them all, I suggest you refrain from editing this page until after the AfD, but you are entitled to say the references are rubbish, I just disagree and will let others judge for themselves. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 21:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Except what I removed were non-reliable sources and sources that didn't support the claim they were cited for. It is awfully ironic that you stuff the article with dubious material during the AfD period then say nobody should edit the mess until the AfD is over. Agricolae ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Nothing was sourced from trash fiction. Her portrayls in several trash fiction titles was noted, as we often do regarding portrayls in popular culture for bios. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Let me get this straight - your defense of it is that it isn't bad sourcing, it is Original Research? Oh, in that case it's just fine. Agricolae ( talk) 21:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Saying that a fiction book about Gisela daughter of Charlemagne is a portrayal of Gisela daughter of Charlemagne... is not OR. I think it is best you avoid editing the page concurrent to your afd advpcating. Icewhiz ( talk) 04:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Original Research is when an editor reaches a conclusion not found in a source, when they collect information and draw their own conclusion. None of the cited sources says that there are several works of fiction on Gisela. It is the editor's own research (a Google Books search, or perhaps their own bookshelf) that has led them to the awareness of such literature, and it is their own research that has led them to generalize about it. If there are no secondary sources that mention this literary corpus, neither should we. As to your other suggestion, . . . no. The article has been stuffed with irrelevancies, unsupported assertions, excessive citation and false citation just to make it look pretty for the AfD, and now you suggest I just leave even the most egregious examples unchallenged. You can't even get past the first citation, supposedly providing verification for the utterly ludicrous alternative name of Gisela Charlemagne Carolingian, entirely absent form the source. Elsewhere a reference to the subject's birth is used as reference for their death, and there are two self-published lulu.com books paraded out there like thy are real references. It is a mess and people here are basing their !votes on the highly-deceptive presentation, with its false-citations and flawed citations. The whole AfD system doesn't work if all it takes to avoid an Deletion is to stuff an article full of dubious material and declare it all sacrosanct until after the process is over. How about this? We go back to the version when the AfD was proposed, removing all of the stuffing, and nobody edits it until it is over? No, I thought not. Indeed, part of the process is to improve borderline articles, but we don't improve them by waiving all standards of verifiability and preventing the removal (or even tagging) of unsupported, distorted, or undue material until after the votes are in. Agricolae ( talk) 07:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Apologies for adding to a wall of text with a wall of text, I couldn’t summarize it.
  

There is no original research in saying several works of fiction feature her as the main character, and then supporting the claim with reference to three books with her name clearly on front cover, you don't need to have a reference which says it, it is incredibly obvious, it like needing a reference to prove people can walk, even though sources say people walk.

Its my own research which informs me of everything i write, not everyone blindly copies a single source, and Wikipedia would be pretty useless if that were all that was allowed. Research to discover information, putting the information into proper sentences with sources to show its verifiability is fine and not original research, which is where something is a theory or hypothesis not directly supported by sources. a set of facts is not original research.
You say we should not mention that she is relevant in popular culture, yet most articles have sections devoted to that purpose, with heading lie 'in popular culture'.
The article has not been 'stuffed with irrelevancies', the article simply gathers all the limited information on a historical figure that has survived the last 1200 years, and uses books that focus on a whole set of people to illustrate what is known about her, if this was a price then it would be alot easier, but hey this came from the systemic bias against women biography worklist, women have less written about them in historic sources than their male counterparts.
You got the name wrong, it is not 'Gisela Charlemagne' is it 'Carolingian' which is the surname of her royal house, which was stated in the source, someone has helpfully put this into a royalty infobox now.
You clearly misunderstood the 'death reference', as that was infact a reference for a her birth, as is stated in the article, her death date is not clearly recorded.
Self published books should be judged on the merit of the author, neither are being used to support anything of note anyway.
Regarding your long winded way of excusing why you nominated an article for deletion whilst it was being edited, I obviously disagree that leaving it in its improved state is unduly influencing anything, people do look at the references and check the content, I cannot see any problem with presenting all that is available and letting people judge all the aspects of this article, rather than saying there is not mention of her and its an irrelevance.
The material in the article is there for people to judge, I am not the only person to work on it, and others have made various changes and comments as well, so I don't feel like this is a personal battle between my version and your version (which was my unreferenced stub framework anyway). A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 10:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

A lot to answer: 1) I see bears at a zoo, so obviously there are bears at that zoo. That doesn't mean I am justified in adding to a Wikipedia article on bears that they can be seen at said zoo. It would be both WP:UNDUE and a conclusion based on personal observation - Original Research. Having a few non-notable trash-fiction books does not make someone notable in popular culture. 'In popular culture' sections exist but are highly controversial, particularly since they tend to become a dumping ground for every obscure pop-culture reference. Most pages that have not removed the section entirely maintain a strict requirement that to be included, a pop-culture reference need not only exist, but have been proven noteworthy by mention in some secondary reference, which then avoids both the UNDUE and OR problems. 2) Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. If there is insufficient material for someone to be notable, that is unfortunate but "The mass of [women and] men lead lives of quiet desperation". Past biases of historians are unfortunate, but no excuse for statements that are unsupported by the cited references, just to have more to say. 3) Gisela Carolingian is equally preposterous. You say it is the family surname of the royal house, but surnames didn't exist in Carolingian Francia, and the family never had one (genealogical websites and self-published books notwithstanding, the first French monarch to have had a surname was 1000 years later, when the blade dropped on Citoyen Capet). Equally important, you made the claim look authentic by adding a citation to a source that said nothing of the sort. 4) You say that I misunderstood as a death reference a citation documenting her birth and not her death. It was given at the end of a sentence that only mentioned the lack of information about her death, so if you agree it has nothing to do with her death, there is not one problem but two: it shouldn't be attached to a sentence it does not address and no reference actually documents the statement made. Likewise, if neither self-published book is "being used to support anything of note anyway" why are they there at all? The role of citations is to document the verifiability of claims being made, not just as decoration. 5) You are not presenting all that is available and letting people judge, you are going well beyond what is available, playing fast and loose in a way that makes it look like there are more sources, better sources and more detailed sources, than there really are, exactly the point at issue in an AfD. Agricolae ( talk) 16:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The self published books were being used to support that old latin thing, but since a reliable republication has been found now, that is no longer needed. the sentence about her death was added by Icewhiz, who has resourced it now. I have found references to support the sentence on pop culture now also. Considering what I was able to find with a half hour search I am surprised this was nominated at all. Dysklyver 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It is appropriate that thresholds for inclusion of minor historical persons be generous. Reliable information has to be collected from snippets. A redirect to her fathers page is not appropriate because sufficient information doesn’t belong there. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) oops, already there. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• keep but rework. I've just looked at the sources and what they are supposedly supporting and have left a long comment on the talk page. See Talk:Gisela, daughter of Charlemagne#Serious problems with sourcing. But ... this is clearly not well researched and is indeed full of sourcing problems. Use of any work from lulu.com is a serious problem. Stating that a daughter of Charlemagne has a surname " 'Carolingian' which is the surname of her royal house, which was stated in the source, someone has helpfully put this into a royalty infobox now" is so wrong that it's not even funny. Surnames do not appear in the historical record for Western Europe until the 11th or 12th century. Charlemagne did NOT have the surname "Carolingian" ... that's the name that later writers/etc gave to his family but its still not a surname. There isn't any doubt there was a daughter of Charlemagne named Gisela, but this article as it stands with the current sourcing does not meet wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Having looked at your comment on the talk page I am in agreement with most the suggested improvements, however I feel the problem is mostly based on the lack of sources for things like the death date, as opposed to the birth date, which is surprisingly easy to source, inclusive of baptism. It is definitely stated somewhere she never married, as none of Charlemagne's daughters married. I will try to locate a reliable source for that. Whether royal surnames are technically correct or not is not supposed to be funny, it is a name many people seem to use (and are used in modern genealogy by laypeople), despite royalty never having surnames. Any assistance in the improvements is of great help, I am not a historian, I don't think anyone else working on this is either. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 12:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Those aren't improvements, those are serious serious problems. That many problems with sources not supporting the information given is actually enough to have the article deleted, since nothing that's accurately sourced in the article is really enough to establish notability. To recap, over 3/4ths of the article is not supported by the references that purport to support it. Some acknowledgement of that being a problem would be nice. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete The current article is full of unsupported speculation, false claims and poorly sourced or not sourced statements. Not enough is known about Gisela to justify an article, and in the creation of this article not enough care was taken to distinguish her from other similarly named individuals. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I know you always vote delete so I won't try to change your mind, but did you actually bother to read anything here? I doubt that you could back up anything you claim, there are no false claims, no unsupported speculation and just because you say nothing is known about her doesn't mean its true, [34]. And great care has been taken to distinguish her from the other Gisela's (there is traditionally one in every generation of this royal house). Dysklyver 19:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Your claim that I always vote delete is false, I at times vote keep when it is justified. I base my claims about the problems with the article itself on the well reasoned explanations of these problems and the false claims as put forth on the talk page. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Ok I take that back, you have voted keep in <1% of you AfD votes, 3 times infact. I 'would love' to see you further justify the Cambridge University Press being called a self-published source btw. Dysklyver 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep: WP:NOPAGE may apply here but the article, in its current state, has valuable information that could be merged somewhere. Some of it is poorly sourced but the good stuff needs to be put somewhere. Maybe have an arbitrary time period between AfDs and if we've merged it somewhere then we can redirect it. DrStrauss talk 14:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Agree. The article contains valuable information, albeit “uncertain” as is common for most of that time period. Charlemagne is already a large article, merging to Charlemagne#Family makes for too much unfocused material. Charlemagne‘s children might be a good new subpage to merge and a edirect to. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
    • It could feature all six of Charlmange's legitimate children, or perhaps just five, and leave Louis the Pious separate. It could also mention the other 14 illegitimate ones. how many children did charlemagne have. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver| Dysklyver 15:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• There is now a significant amount of discussion on the sources on the articles talk page. various new sources are there and not on the article, and a set of sources are also available in the edit history after being removed. Dysklyver 22:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Adequate sources to demonstrate notability. May not be a lot of detail, but the individual has coverage in the historic record and suitable for an article. If someone felt that merging all of Charlemagne's children into a single article, that is a different discussion after concluding this AfD. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• If not kept, merge to her mother Hildegard of the Vinzgau and amend the article on her father to point to the section in her mother's article. However, I would not object to keeping an article on a child of a king as notable as Charlemagne. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

I am against a merge to the mother, only 16% of our biographies are on women, and merging them together is not my favoured solution. especially as more sources are available. Dysklyver 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment. All Charlemagne's other legitimate children have articles. Dysklyver 23:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets WP:GNG, this does need some retooling but I think this does meet our criteria for inclusion. -- Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:15, 4 October 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) 18:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Largely promotional article, that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR (As it applies to being an editor to various VG websites). On the surface, the article made many claims for awards and the like, but the sources shows the awards to various companies, with Nazih Fares never being mentioned. There are no relevant hits from VG project's WP:VG/RS source search, and no real hits in Google News, etc. Of the four sources remaining in the article, two are primary, and one is behind a paywall and I cannot verify. I suspect it is about the organization, not Nazih, though. Full disclosure: Please see the history, I trimmed considerable amounts of refs that did not support the article from what I could see. -- ferret ( talk) 14:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret ( talk) 14:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Note as well that the article's subject originally created this article, and it was CSD'd as G11. The user who recreated it appears to have restored the original content with minor copy editing, so another G11 may also be appropriate. This came to my attention after the article's subject added his site as a review on a video game article. -- ferret ( talk) 14:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per failing the WP:GNG (Sourcing is either rarely specifically about him, or passing mentions about him). WP:PROMOTION/ WP:COI issues as well. While this variant of the article wasn't created by Nazihfares, he has historically used Wikipedia as a personal promotional tool, whether it being creating the initial article about himself as Ferret mentioned, to adding his own product reviews as a source on Wikipedia to getting his userpage deleted on promotional grounds, so I've got a suspicion he could be related to this article's iteration too. (This article's creator, Shashanksinghvi334, suspicously came out of a 2.5 year time of inactivity to come back and create this article last week.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

  This did look like a sock or a UPE to me also. -- Izno ( talk) 14:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ZettaComposer ( talk) 12:56, 5 October 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. Up to editors as to whether a redirect should be created.  Sandstein  10:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Quadrophenia (song) (  | 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 bit of original research. Absolutely nothing that can't be (and probably isn't) said on Quadrophenia already, and not a suitable redirect term. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment on the contrary, it's quite common and perfectly acceptable for songs that don't warrant articles to redirect to their parent albums as people still sometimes search for the songs online, so the question is whether this was meets WP:Notability (music)#Songs. In other words, people need to determine if there's enough material on the song itself to grow beyond a stub AND if it is covered enough outside of album reviews and artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 14:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Snuggums: what Ritchie333 means that because the song name is the same as the album name, anybody searching for the song is going to bring up the album title anyway, so there's no point having a redirect. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Exactly that - if it was a suitable redirect term, I'd have just done that rather than come here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NSONGS.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. All seems very redundant, and as has been pointed out above, anyone searching for this song title will be taken to the album anyway. -- Michig ( talk) 19:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete: fails WP:NSONGS, not notable outside of the album and anything that is useful/relevant can be added to the Quadrophenia article – but really, there's nothing that would be missed. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per others, fails NSONGS DocumentError ( talk) 08:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I wish there was a way we could tell if readers had typed in a search term or used an existing link to get to an article. This article receives an average of eight hits a day, and Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. On the other hand we have Wikipedia:Redirects are costly. Either way, this is probably not the place to discuss the deletion of a redirect (which is essentially what this is). My feeling is that the title should be redirected to Quadrophenia, and that the resulting redirection is then discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. My own feeling is that as the term is a viable search term, it could be used by readers familiar with our system of parenthetical disambiguation, but - as I said, this is not the place to be discussing the deletion of a redirect. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ SilkTork: Assuming that the links to the song page have been stable, it looks like the IP editor who reverted the redirect back into an article on June 17, 2018 re-added all the current links. [35] [36]. So if we set the pageviews tool from July 1, 2015 to June 16, 2017, we would capture the period from when the page view tool went up until the links were added, which would've been when this was a redirect. Doing that gives 162 hits over 23.5 months or just under seven hits a month. Given that the album is unlikely to be renamed, this redirect would probably fall under the WP:CHEAP reasoning more than the costly ones.---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 00:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete I believe this is an instrumental that was never released as a single. A redirect is not appropriate per Ritchie333. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to album as a valid {{ R from subtopic}}, since there doesn't appear to be another song called Quadrophenia that would challenge this one as the primary topic. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 00:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • From January 2009 to June 2017, this was in fact a redirect to the album, [37] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 00:31, 6 October 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) 18:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Techie Premier League (  | 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 is not suitable for Wikipedia as it lacks notability criteria (Professional cricket tournaments like these may not be suitable under WikiProject Cricket guidelines) especially the article creator may have a conflict of interest. Abishe ( talk) 13:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Fails WP:CRIN and only site linked to is that of the tournament itself. There are no links establishing WP:N per the standards of GNG and a google search just finds facebook page / WP:UGC cricket pages which do no more than indicate that league exists. Spike 'em ( talk) 15:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - in no way is this a professional cricket tournament. It appears to be a tournament played between commercial companies and possibly by professional people - but clearly not by professional cricketers. It fails WP:ORG, the key notability guideline in such cases, as it is not the"subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" (wee WP:ORGCRIT) and is not obviously national or international in scale (see WP:CLUB) and so fails the GNG. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all the above entries. Non-notable. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete as non-notable. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete per all of the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:59, 29 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) 18:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Can find no in-depth sourcing for this unreferenced article (and has been unreferenced for years). Their website is no longer in existence. Can find no sourcing to validate even their discography. Due to several groups of musicians using this moniker (or similar, e.g. "The Alliance"), even wading through the Allmusic site does not give much light. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I can't find in-depth discussion of the subject in reliable sources, meaning that we can't verify the article's content. Thus, it should be deleted. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. — Za wl 15:57, 1 October 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) 18:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

Fails criteria in WP:MUSIC as the article explicitly states they have only released a single demo without anything on a major record label. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 05:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete: one self-released four-track demo EP, and no other releases ever... definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No one is suggesting deletion; though I agree with the nominator that this is a way to get attention to the article. It could be reverted to the last clean version but that is a content issue and should be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) J 947^{( c) ( m)} 20:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

This article contains overwhelmingly extensive amounts of copyrighted material interwoven with original text and has remained that way for well over a year. It would require a great undertaking to parse through this information and sort original from copywritten; as such it may be best to start fresh. I'm hoping this nomination will spur discussion of potential solutions as I believe this is a needed topic--but the article can't stay like this. PureRED | talk to me | 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep (in some form) Early revisions (e.g. [38]) are fine, and it appears that other much more recent versions are also fine, so there is no need to delete the article in its entirety. As long as we find a clean version to revert to, we can just delete offending revisions. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• I agree with you, this was just a fast and dirty way to get some extra eyes that are more experienced than myself on this article considering the severity of the copyright issues. Just practicing some WP:IGNORE. :P PureRED | talk to me | 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment The copyright issues need to be fixed. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for you work on this! PureRED | talk to me | 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply