Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kennebec Regional Development Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotionalism for small business development organization ; no real justification for notability and only very local references DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 22:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the first reference were an article on Wikipedia I would call it a coat rack. It starts out talking about the park, then most of the very short article trumpets the virtues of the T-Mobile located there. The second ref shows that it exists. The third ref connects to its website. It seems some people are putting any old thing on Wikipedia. This organization is not noteworthy - the coverage is local because this is of regional concern. Also, sources other than those connected with the organization are needed. There has to be more coverage than it simply exists to be considered notable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UGC 10 (edit | 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 notability is established, and apparently none exists. There are no published papers specifically about this galaxy, only catalogue entries and lists. Lithopsian (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searching GScholar for "UGC 10" finds about 150 hits. Many of those are false positives, but there are two papers [1], [2] that have some info about UGC 10. There is also the simbad entry UGC 10 A, which seems to be a synonym for UCG 10. These together aren't enough for notability, but that the galaxy exists, along with basic properties, is verifiable. --Mark viking (talk)
  • Delete, while it certainly exists, there's no evidence of notability. Huntster (t @ c) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The best I can make of the available sources is one or two primary sources which are a short report of the discovery with little or no follow-up. No notability for it's own article. DeVerm (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the two peer reviewed journal sources mentioned above cover this galaxy then it is notable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also listed here [3]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Cohen (judoka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Irrelevant martial artist. All references listed are either passing mentions or lists that briefly speak of Cohen. Nothing in-depth to explain his notability can be found. ALongStay (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!(formerly APerson) 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my opinion. The Championships are not the same as the Pan-American Games where gaining a medal would contribute to notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still thinking about this but he certainly has had a long career at almost the highest level-don't think I would choose the word Irrelevant.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly the coverage is weak--judo gets virtually no coverage in the U.S., even during the Olympics. However, a 5 time U.S. champion (plus 4 time runner-up) along with winning 4 medals at the continental (actually inter-continental with North and South America) championships seems like significant accomplishments. Definitely meets WP:MANOTE (yes, I know that's an essay) but his accomplishments seem superior to the requirements of other sports listed at WP:NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was in the top 3 five, not four, times at the PanAm championships.Mdtemp (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 21:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maddi Poteet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and no sources provided to indicate she played in W-League to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD removed by page creator with no explanation provided. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 20:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If she has played for Melbourne Victory then she can be notable per WP:NFOOTY. One of the sources within the article mentions her as Maddi Moon. I couldn't find anything substantial on google. Views of experts on Australian football will be helpful here. Hitro talk 13:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @HitroMilanese: I tried to find some sources that would back up that she played for Victory, but she's not listed on the team's current roster and there don't seem to be any articles elsewhere referring to her on the team. Also, Moon is apparently her married name since according to a brief mention here (which mentions nothing about her being a soccer player) she married a minor league baseball player named Logan Moon this past April. RA0808 talkcontribs 16:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homonationalism (edit | 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 was created by the same editor (DaddyCell (talk · contribs)) who created the Heteropatriarchy article, and I was unsure whether to bundle the deletion nominations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion says "If you're unsure, don't bundle it." My argument for the deletion of this article is the same as the one for the Heteropatriarchy article. This article falls in the neologism territory. And, per WP:NEO, I'm usually not for neologism articles on Wikipedia. This term is covered in some WP:Reliable sources (see, for example, the Google Books search), but I still question its WP:Notability, and whether it should be a standalone article even if it is WP:Notable; see the WP:No page section of WP:Notability. I argue that this topic can be covered in an existing article with no need for a separate article and that our readers will be better served that way regarding the topic as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major term in critical theory — an interdisciplinary field that crosses philosophy, political theory, gender studies and more. It grows out of Lisa Duggan's scholarship on the homonormative, and was developed by the scholar Jasbir Puar.This is not a neologism. Is is an important, operating concept with a growing bibliography behind it. It isn't unique to Puar's work, but can be found in the work of diverse scholars. (A simple google scholar search affirms this, producing 2,415 results on a search conducted just prior to posting this.) Note: Jasbir Puar's page has been subject to homophobic and racist vandalism. This query isn't, I hope related to that. Note: Homonormative has an entry, as it should. Judyholliday (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a major term in critical theory, that should be fairly easy to prove. Perhaps you could provide more sources to show its relevance? Also, you assert that it is an "important, operating concept", but what makes it so important? I don't get that from the article itself. Of course, it was just created a few days ago, so perhaps it just needs a bit more time. I'm asking these questions before !voting here because I'm not sure how I feel about this AFD. I like the article, and I think a case can be made for the significance of the term, but as it currently stands, it does seem to go against WP:NEO. -- Irn (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some references — just work with "homonationalism" in the title (excluding Puar's many publications)
Cameron Greensmith and Sulaimon Giwa, Challenging Settler Colonialism in Contemporary Queer Politics: Settler Homonationalism, Pride Toronto, and Two-Spirit Subjectivities. American Indian Culture and Research Journal: 2013, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 129-148.
Paolo Bacchetta and Jin Haritaworn, "There are Many Transatlantics: Homonationalism, Homotransnationalism and Feminist Queer-Trans of Color Theories and Practices" in Mary Evans, ed. Transatlantic Conversations: Feminism as Traveling Theory (Routledge, 2016)
Gianmaria Colpani and Adriano José Habed, "'In Europe It's Different': Homonationalism and Peripheral Desires for Europe" in P.M. Ayoub et. al. (eds), LGBT Activism and the Making of Europe (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) -- note, "homonationalism" appears in the title of other articles from this volume
P Hubbard and E Wilkinson, "Welcoming the World?: Hospitality, Homonationalism and the 2012 Olympics" in Antipode: a Radical Journal of Geography (2014). Full article available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12082/full
See also, for more mainstream use:
Christiaan Rapcewicz's "Homonormativity, Homonationalism and the Other 'Other,'" Huffington Post Feb 2, 2016. Full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiaan-rapcewicz/homonormativity-homonatio_b_6889606.html
Tyler Lopez, "Why #Pinkwashing Insults Gays and Hurts Palestinians," Slate June 17, 2014. Full article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/17/pinkwashing_and_homonationalism_discouraging_gay_travel_to_israel_hurts.html
The term is used by Sarah Schulman in "Israel and 'Pinkwashing,'" New York Times, Nov 22, 2011. Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/pinkwashing-and-israels-use-of-gays-as-a-messaging-tool.html — there, she cites Puar: "What makes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies so susceptible to pinkwashing — and its corollary, the tendency among some white gay people to privilege their racial and religious identity, a phenomenon the theorist Jasbir K. Puar has called 'homonationalism' — is the emotional legacy of homophobia. Most gay people have experienced oppression in profound ways — in the family; in distorted representations in popular culture; in systematic legal inequality that has only just begun to relent. Increasing gay rights have caused some people of good will to mistakenly judge how advanced a country is by how it responds to homosexuality."
I could go on. It is not in widespread popular use, but it widely used in scholarship and appears in op-ed pieces in mainstream publications. This makes it a technical term in wide use by specialists (working esp. in political theory and LGBT studies), and available to the reader interested in related issues. Other technical terms with decent entries include performativity, posthuman and transhuman. Homonationalism shares some aspects of its profile with these terms, but it is in more popular use because it is so handy — thus its appearance in the Slate and New York Times op-eds. It is meant to describe the moment that LGBT gender/sexuality becomes absorbed into nationalist discourse, usually to signal a distinction from non-Western "ways of life." It is really important in LGBT studies because for so long, the inclusion of LGBT people within nationalist discourse was almost unthinkable. This has changed dramatically in the past twenty years. Hope this helps. Judyholliday (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Judyholliday, given how neologism is defined, how is it that "homonationalism" is not a neologism? If "a relatively new or isolated term" applies, newness is not the only aspect. Furthermore, when one is talking about what is new in the literature, "new" can refer to things that that only came to be 20 or 30 years ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Some of the references aren't really references – for example one seems to be an announcement of a conference on the topic, not research related to it. Some of the styling grates – string of seven footnotes on one sentence shouts "shotgun approach" to me. But at least three of the five references I read are legit. It is a neologism, but then so are Ashoroa, Sphingobium japonicum, and Anthe (moon). Academics like naming new social theories just as much as new natural discoveries. Cnilep (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a useful term in use across a range of scholarship and within communities trying to understand, for example, how to navigate national response to the Orlando shooting — in which the vulnerability of LGBT people becomes a site for nationalist identification. There is a reason we are talking about the term right now. In any case words, at some point, were new. Words grow in meaning and importance in different ways — sometimes by common, wide use and sometimes by intense use within specific communities (academics, fans, technical workers etc.). Political pressures will mark some words, however, as less important than others: "homonationalism" grows from its use by people committed to thinking from queer-of-color-perspectives, thinking and working at the intersection of power dynamics re race, sex, and nation. Anyway, yes, at one point it was a neologism. At one point the word neologism was a neologism! Homonationalism is used by a large enough community which understands what it means that it is now a technical term of some importance, useful, in particular, for talking about pressing political issues in contemporary politics. Judyholliday (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a real subject of serious academic study. See for example these sources I found with Google Scholar:
    1. Puar, Jasbir K. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Duke University Press, 2007.
    2. Puar, Jasbir. "Rethinking homonationalism." International Journal of Middle East Studies 45.02 (2013): 336-339.
    3. Morgensen, Scott Lauria. "SETTLER HOMONATIONALISM Theorizing Settler Colonialism within Queer Modernities." GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16.1-2 (2010): 105-131.
    4. Zanghellini, Aleardo. "Are gay rights Islamophobic? A critique of some uses of the concept of homonationalism in activism and academia." Social & Legal Studies (2012): 0964663911435282.
    5. Bacchetta, Paola, and Jin Haritaworn. "There are many transatlantics: Homonationalism, homotransnationalism and feminist-queer-trans of color theories and practices." Transatlantic Conversations: Feminism as Travelling Theory (2011): 127-44.
SJK (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2016 (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 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. There is a clear consensus here that we should not have a standalone article on this person. However a number of people advocating deletion have raised the possibility of content being merged from this article into the article about the shootings, and nobody has raised any real objection to this. Merging isn't possible if the article is deleted and the title is a plausible search term, so I am closing as Redirect to allow any merges at editorial discretion. Hut 8.5 22:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akyra Monet Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure what the long-term notability is for this person. It is tragic that she was the youngest victim of the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, but her long-term notability seems to be in doubt, as many other victims of the Orlando nightclub shooting have been similarly chronicled by newspapers. Even giving this a wide benefit of doubt, there only seem to be 138,000 results for Murray's name – which doesn't seem to be particularly indicative of notability. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I understand your doubts at to the "long term notability" of this person; however, I fail to see the long-term notability of biographies for people like Rachel Scott, the first victim of the Columbine shooting. Of course, she has a myriad of books written about her, but these books were all written by relatives and the books themselves are not particularly notable books. This is not to say your point is moot but I assumed that since articles like that exist based solely on the fact that one held a superlative title in the shooting (first, youngest) then this would be a reasonable article.
@Benmite: It turns out that Scott may or may not be notable. A case can be argued either way. However, I prefer to merge this article to the Orlando shootings article for now, unless more detailed sources about Murray come out. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: I am perfectly alright with the deletion of the article, as long as parts of it can be merged into the article concerning the shooting itself. I now understand that details involving her personal life are not of the utmost importance due to her lack of any particular notability; however, I do think that parts of what I included in this article could be important regarding the article about the shooting. ~benmite (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry to be Mr Nasty, but this seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E 'Subjects notable only for one event'. Unless her role is significant (beyond the obvious of having been killed tragically), this has to be a delete. Pincrete (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad & tragic news but WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME, & WP:NOTMEMORIAL apply. If we are to look at a similar issue, editors judged that Vicki Soto, one of the Sandy Hook teachers should have an article about her, written because of continuing notability re: Presidential Citizens Medal, schools/scholarships being named for her, social movements, in other words her continuing legacy. The other victims - the teachers and children - do not have articles. I don't know if it is possible to merge this with 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or not - at a quick glance, doesn't seem like there is any place for it to fit within that article. I do regret that someone obviously put a lot of work into creating this content and that it might possibly be deleted. If the consensus is for deletion I would ask the closing administrator to consider possibly moving the content to draft space pending possible inclusion, if notability is established in the future. I don't even know if that is possible. So sad. Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, sorry. The fact that she's the youngest and her age can easy be added to the entry for the shooting. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:04, 22 June 2016 (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. KaisaL (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Spears, American TV Producer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sounds like a great guy, but not a notable one. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDB is not a reliable source which can be used to show the notability of someone, and all of the other references are short mentions which don't really help to show that the subject passes WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2016 (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. KaisaL (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Christian Crusade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • I agree that the sources are not that strong, but it is hard to find local news coverage from decades ago. These gatherings would have had a few small articles written about them in obscure papers and church magazines. The sources I found show consensus in what is stated in the article - that it was a Christian charity, active for decades, that organised many events throughout the UK. JianKwai (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence isn't in dispute, the notability is what is being disputed. The standard is significant coverage by reliable third party sources. And that coverage needs to be verifiable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2016 (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. (non-admin closure). Yet another arm in the acrimony between MSJapan and Kvng. Kvng obviously wants this kept but nominated it for deletion on the premise that MSJapan wanted it deleted. MSJapan doesn't want it deleted. Nobody wants it deleted. There's no real case for deletion and a merger can be hashed out elsewhere. pbp 18:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bengay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

MSJapan has boldly redirected this to Johnson & Johnson#Products claiming WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTGUIDE. The article was prodded by CoatThese and I deprodded it and added evidence of notability on the article's talk page. WP:BRD has not so far worked to resolve this so I am bringing this here because I beleive it is MSJapan's desire that my deprod be reversed and the article be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2016 (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. KaisaL (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Elisha McPherson Jr. (edit | 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. The description of him as "Canada's foremost economist" is an advertorial from a political party, the GCCP, reprinted in a newspaper. The pseudo-article , titled "GCPP 2012 Manifesto" which has as its by-line "By Great Consolidated Popular Party" reads "Timothy McPherson described the manifesto as being the most comprehensive coming out of Ghana to date. " and , two sentences later "Mr. McPherson is Canada's foremost economist on pan-African development," DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 16:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2016 (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 and redirect to Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations. Have decided to redirect along with the deletion consensus as this is a reasonable term that somebody may search (reasonable enough for the duplicate in the first place). KaisaL (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of social liberal parties (edit | 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 list of social liberal parties is already included in the main article on social liberalism, see Social liberalism#Active social liberal parties and organizations. This list is therefore redundant, or in the worst case, may include inconsistencies or contradictions to the other list. It creates unnecessary extra work to maintain both lists, keep them up to date and clean them from original research (always a problem with lists of this type). This list, unlike the one in the main article, does not cite a single reference, therefore fails WP:Verifiability and has to be suspected of original research. The article social liberalism is not too long, so there is no need to outsource the list of social liberal parties to an extra article. RJFF (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 22. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 13:02, 22 June 2016 (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. KaisaL (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Loughnane (edit | 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 MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA with one top tier fight as a loss. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This seemed suspicious to me. He's a champion, yet there are no independent references? (The references are from his gym, his management company and his facebook page). I do not believe he meets WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what British Champion means - just like there is no US champion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what it means either. He's not listed at List of current mixed martial arts champions. ubiquity (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep and Improve. I have not been able to find what organization he is a champion of, but he has fought in the UFC (1), and has a significant professional record noted in a top MMA site (2). He appears to have also signed a multi-fight deal with Bellator (3) and (4), so based on this quick search, I think the article is worth keeping. Aust331 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply fighting in the UFC does not show notability (nor is winning a minor championship). See WP:NMMA for the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Papaursa (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noted more reasons than just fighting in the UFC. The subject has had significant coverage ESPN, Mirror, etc., has an established professional record (Sherdog), and has signed a multiple fight deal with one of the biggest MMA organizations in the world, Bellator MMA ([4]), all of which provide sufficient evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the MMA notability criteria (WP:NMMA). Just being a pro fighter doesn't make him notable, nor does fighting for second tier organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMMA: “Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization.” Brendan Loughnane has fought for the UFC (1), BAMMA (https://www.bamma.com/fighters/brendan-loughnane), and has a signed a multi-fight deal with Bellator (3). All three are WP:MMATIER organizations.Aust331 (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria says "top tier" not "any tier".Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct; I was surprised to find BAMMA under the 2nd-Tier category as it's an organization that comes up often in the MMA community (at least in the UK). Aust331 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No bar to any redirects by this title. postdlf (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in June (edit | 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:LISTCRUFT; no need for a stand-alone list Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Malaysia#Miss Malaysia World. Deor (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Malaysia (edit | 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 contentfork of Miss Malaysia#Miss Malaysia World. The Banner talk 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 22 June 2016 (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. KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Speed (TV Show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously at PROD. Removed by article creator. Reasoning was: WP:TOOSOON for an article on this TV show. Googling the name brings no reliable sources. It's also possible the page was created by someone affiliated by the show because the user has the same name as the host. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:13, 22 June 2016 (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. KaisaL (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armor Defense Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current PROD removed by Toddst1 but I still confirm the PROD here considering there's nothing at all minimally better suggesting this can be improved with both notability and substantial improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 22 June 2016 (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. KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Drake (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches have by far found nothing actually solidly convincing to suggest solid independent notability, current amount of news is still not actually solid for his own article thus questionability still beams here, and I have also nominated the company's article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armor Defense Inc. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:CSD#G3 hoax. Appreciate the good faith in taking it to a discussion first, but I'd say this is blatant. Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Sport Time Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Leaning WP:HOAX. Unsourced for a year. It doesn't appear in Nine Network (the network it's on), it doesn't get a hit on the network webpage, it doesn't appear in Template:Australian sports TV series (and someone should have noticed it by now), and doesn't appear in any of the named hosts' articles. I can't get a GHit on it in anything that isn't a wiki, there's no GNews, and honestly, a 2.5 hour weekly program shown in five out of six Australian states right after the news and hosted entirely by known newspeople should have a footprint. Article creator is a persistent hoaxer, but I can't outright prove it's a hoax with enough certainty. If someone wants to make that determination during the AfD because of WP:DUCK, be my guest. Should that be the case, I'd additionally request a SALT to prevent recreation. MSJapan (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mattson (edit | 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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Another NN article among hundreds of AfDed stubs from Dolovis, who routinely created articles claiming (against unanimous consensus) that participation in youth amateur tournaments somehow passed NHOCKEY's requirements. This has never been true, and no evidence the subject passes the GNG -- beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE -- was ever proffered. Ravenswing 07:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the awards he has won (see WP:NHOCKEY #4).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure the USHL a high enough league to qualify for NHOCKEY #4. That said, being named the top defenseman in the league may well have earned him sufficient coverage to meet GNG (I haven't checked yet). Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The USHL is not a major junior league, and doesn't qualify for #4. As far as passing the GNG, I only found one bit amidst the usual horde of WP:ROUTINE mentions -- a short piece on the Comcast Sports Net Chicago site. It'd be tough to argue from that that a USHL award confers presumptive notability. Ravenswing 19:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage is too low to meet GNG, and the award is not enough to gain notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He might meet #4. I am not sure that it is any lower a league than the Central Hockey League to be honest. I know I always considered its awards on par with Major Junior even if the league itself is not. That being said, there is no proof he meets GNG that I can find which in the end rules the day. -DJSasso (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Nicholls (edit | 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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2016 (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. Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teigan Zahn (edit | 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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus appears to be at play here. KaisaL (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Elsner (edit | 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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject is a career minor leaguer without especial distinction, and even by Dolovis' standards this is baffling: at the time he created the article, the subject had played a single season of German minor league hockey -- complete and utter failure of NHOCKEY. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another article on a non-notable hockey player. We have far too many of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this should be a clear keep, regardless of who created the article. He has made 40 DEL appearance, 33 of those last season, the highest level of ice hockey in Germany and a fully professional league, therefore meets criteria 1 of WP:NHOCKEY. He also received coverage in German media, like in this article about him in the Augsburger Allgemeine (in German). Calistemon (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Criteria #1 does not, in fact, enshrine every top national league, a somewhat illogical premise that would bizarrely accord presumptive notability to any player in a beer league in Puerto Rico or Egypt. If you'd like a list of the leagues that count towards #1, please see WP:NHOCKEY/LA. As to your source, that looks good. Have you others? The GNG requires significant coverage from multiple sources. Ravenswing 11:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing a search for David Elsner on just the Augsburger Allgemeine website, the local newspaper for the region, brings up 19 results, among them David Elsner in an unusual position. Further google searches for David Elsner and ERC Ingolstadt combined bring up more German-language results from ice hockey-specific publications and newspapers. As to your list of notable ice hockey leagues it categorieses the Deutsche Eishockey Liga as a minor league but it is the top level professional ice hockey league in Germany as stated in criteria 1 Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league. Some contradiction there but the list provided is an essay, not a binding guideline unlike WP:NHOCKEY. Calistemon (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically it is just as binding as NHOCKEY because NHOCKEY references it. That being said NHOCKEY itself isn't binding, only GNG is. Top level in the Wikipedia sense is not referring to the top of a countries hockey ladder. If it did we would be including players from Egypt and countries like that which clearly don't write articles about every ice hockey player. Top level means the highest leagues in the world that players can play in where every player in them would be 100% covered by multiple sources. The DEL is not that, we have found many many players who have played years in that league and never been covered at all. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Calistemon (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2016 (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. Rlendog (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Aneloski (edit | 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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. To a superficial reader, there are a number of honors listed for this career mid-minor leaguer. None, however, meet NHOCKEY's standards; honors in lower-tier junior leagues or "All-academic team" citations have long been regarded by all-but-unanimous consensus (the sole dissenter being Dolovis himself) as not meeting them. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another article on a non-notable hockey player. I sometimes think it would be better if we deleted these articles in larger groups instead of on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Glickman (edit | 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 prolific movie music composer is borderline IMO. He gets a couple of pages in The Encyclopedia of Film Composers, but a lot of his work is uncredited,[5] even at the end of his career, and all or nearly all for low-budget B movies. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case the point I am making is unclear, I mean that the nominator stated a clear reason for keeping, i.e. that the subject has an entry in a print encyclopedia from a major academic publisher. The point of our notability guidelines is that we follow such reliable sources rather than our personal opinions about importance. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are four keeps, much of the justification is very weak. Additional input is needed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2016 (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 Foreign relations of Iceland § Bilateral Relations. MBisanz talk 23:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Venezuela (edit | 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. Iceland has never had an ambassador to Venezuela and no evidence that the non resident ambassador has actually done anything for Iceland in Venezuela LibStar (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the Icelandic foreign ministry website neither country have an embassy in the country in question. Iceland does have an consulate in Venezuela, but for me that does not really account for anything.--Snaevar (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Aviation Group (edit | 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 PROD was challenged and re-prodded 3 times. I don't support the PROD, but it looks like the only way to resolve this will involve AfD.

The PROD rationale was this: "this page is no longer valid. Bond Aviation Group no longer exists and all the detail on this page is either incorrect or can be accessed from a better route. It's not correct to say it has become Babcock Mission Critical Services - this is a much larger international group of companies. Bond Aviation Group has been replaced by Babcock Mission Critical Services offshore and Babcock Mission Critical Services Offshore, both of which have their own Wikipedia pages, linked from their old names of bond Air Services and Bond Offshore Helicopters." Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flerg: - please comment

  • keep - If Bond Aviation Group has ceased or changed, then the article will need updating. That is not reason to delete it though. We still keep articles on historically notable buggy-whip manufacturers. I would also remind Flerg that once a PROD has been challenged, that aticle cannot be re-prodded. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we don't delete articles just because companies change name or evolve as this is an encyclopedia not a listing of current companies. If it factually wrong then it can be corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy Dingley apologies if I am doing this wrong. I am not very au fait with the editing process. If it is appropriate that the page remains I will make edits to ensure the evolution of the business is clear and that it doesn't mislead any visitors.FlergFlerg (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete instead perhaps as I'm not seeing anything particularly convincing of the needed substance and my searches have found only a few links, nothing else to suggest the needed improvements. This can be mentioned however amount needed at the Babcock article. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2016 (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. The delete comments all came before the new coverage added after relisting. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashed (Skillet album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I absolutely have come to hate it when editors add albums that in no way meet WP:NALBUM just because there's a short press release due to a per-release video and a partial track listing. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep IMO, Walter is being misleading. We don't have a "partial" track listing, we have a full one. It's available for anyone to see in the press release, and on the pre-order screen on iTunes. We also album cover, news coverage (including, but not limited to, Jesus Freak Hideout), promotion in the way of two official lyric video releases (one has almost 2 million views, the other just under 600,000). The album is even available for pre-ordering in online stores like the aforementioned iTunes, and the two released songs are available to listen to on Spotify. I contend this is not too soon, as Walter proposes. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 01:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not being misleading in any way. You have a listing of track names, but what are the lengths of those tracks? Who wrote those tracks? Also, what about the genres. Where did you pull them from? The one RS you have doesn't discuss the genre. The one at the iTunes Store is not a RS, but at least they know that "Christian" should be capitalized. I know the JFH press release (not a RS). I have seen all of the releases through the band's Facebook and Twitter feeds. None meet RS. Now, show us the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. breaking that down: significant coverage means that there is a great deal written about the subject, not a mention of the songs; reliable sources means that the multiple sources are all known for good reporting on the subject; independent of the subject means they're not getting payola for promoting the band and they're not just republishing press releases to fill space. I'm sorry, but when I looked I found that there are none. That's why I initially redirected and then nominated. It will be notable. Possibly as soon as eight weeks from now, but we don't peer into WP:CRYSTAL balls, we only create content for currently notable subjects, and this album, as of the first week of June 2016, is not currently notable which is why I have nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz you have a point i can read the reference article on billboard magazine [1] did not mention this very album ,,, so this source is not valid Samat lib (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Comment. I agree that it is too soon to have an article on the album (and it would be great if people waited before creating such articles), but that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. If we have verifiable facts that are not already in the article on the band, the first option should be to merge to the article on the artist. If there's nothing appropriate to merge, then a redirect should be the next option to be considered. I see that this was redirected and reverted. With what we have now, I think a redirect would be appropriate, but with only 7 weeks to its release, it would probably be a waste of effort doing anything but leaving this and seeing what coverage emerges in the coming weeks. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found a Blabbermouth source that talks about the songs and mentions the name of the album. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move One Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient referencing for notability: Refs 1 & 2 are absurdly irrelevant, tho there may have been something there previously; 3 I cannot find but seems from the titlet o be general, not about the company. 4 is their own publication, 5 is a clear press release, 6 is a self-promotinginterview, 7 8 & 9 are just listings. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:29, 22 June 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John H. N. Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tediously this article has been revived after a previous AfD and a speedy deletion template has been removed by an experienced editor who should know better (though I'll admit the previous AfD did not attract a great deal of participation). The sources are entirely press releases, potted biographies on business/company websites and name checks online. There's no evidence of significant reliable news coverage about Fisher. I'd recommend it is re-redirected to Draper Fisher Jurvetson and prevented from being re-recreated. Sionk (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: if not Speedily, per nomination. This smacks of a publicist trying to gain fame for a rich client. Wikipedia is not a directory of venture capitalists. Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I put the speedy on, DGG was correct in removing it as the author changed the article with added references that need to be considered at AFD. I don't have a view on deleting or keeping it. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:27, 22 June 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football stadium video boards (edit | 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 used to be a list of the largest such boards; now it's just a list of all these boards--yes, TV screens in football stadiums. The topic itself strikes me as fairly trivial given that just about every stadium has one (we could also list bathrooms or elevators), and a list of them is even trivialer. The sourcing doesn't add to the notability of the subject of the article: it's mostly primary sourcing, linking the stadium's website or some such thing. This is nothing more than cruft, I'm afraid--though I am happy to see that Auburn is number one in something. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We don't have this for NFL, MLB or NHL/NBA venues outside of sourced mentions in individual venue articles; well-sourced on first glance, but pretty much all leads back to each glory page on the scoreboard manufacturer's website (Daktronics being most prominent here). Reduce it to the top 20 largest and this might make more sense, but listing every NCAA venue with a tri-color LED screen is a bit way too much. Nate (chatter) 09:33, 22 June 2016 (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. MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced. Promotional. Doesn't seem to exist any more. Rathfelder (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I actually ending up at this article as I was looking for Heartland Alliance, which turns out to be a completely unrelated organisation (but with Chicago links). This article is completely promotional in tone and seems to be written by people with close connections. I've just tried to follow some of the references to see what Heartland International is all about, but it's a bit of dead end really. They look like a legitimate organisation, but don't appear to be notable to me, so I vote Delete. Seaweed (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now actually and Draft instead as I examined the article and also searched for sources but to no avail it seems, delete until better can actually be made. When we can hope for improvements but often this will not happen that soon. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 01:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is not relevant that the organisation is no longer operating under this title, nor that its "Citizen Bridges International" successor appears to have minimal presence. However, in terms of the notability of the organisation, many of the given references are but passing mentions in local coverage. The most substantial seems to be the paragraph summary for Heartland International, among other organisations, in the "Planting International Seeds" bulletin article. That serves to verify, but I don't see it as the extent of substantial coverage needed for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2016 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced.Guthix no more (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. - Withdrawn - Looking through my laptop history I somehow searched for "Evelyn Künnek" hence why I found bugger all, Under her actual name there's tons of sources as well as the sources here, Had I copied & pasted her whole name we wouldn't of been here now so my apologies for this afd/wasting everyones time (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Künneke (edit | 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 has twice been speedied per A7 in 2013 and I'm seeing nothing different now, (I fugured an AFD would be more productive than simply slapping an A7 on it), No evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010Talk 01:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An obituary in The Telegraph says she was also known as Evelyn King. An article on dewiki (and es and fr) has sources that look good at first glance. Lelijg (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2016 (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.