Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 4

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. ansh666 19:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Charles (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:NTRACK and there's no other indication the subject meets WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Junior Charles is an ACTIVE National Athlete. There are many articles on less active athletes on Wikipedia, please reconsider deleting the page

*Delete - No meeting and not major achievement to meet WP:NTRACK. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 18 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine Soares (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)

Nothing significant to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romana Bashir (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)

Spokeswoman with nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another article on a minor Christian from Pakistan. If I did not know better I would think the majority of people in Pakistan are Christians, just because the majority of people we have articles on from there that make any mention to the subjects religion in a meaningful way are on Christians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I would like to see someone who knows Urdu weigh in here. There is enough indication from what we have in English to show that's she likely notable. She's a women's rights and peace activist. The fact that she's Christian in a majority Muslim country is significant because it makes her a minority voice. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Based on sources available in English. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources include in-depth here, a mention here, a paragraph here, half the article here, quote here, a quote here, and there are more, which suggests, overall, that she's an important player for women's rights in a troubled nation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no evidence the sources within the article were checked before the nom. Also keep per links provided by Tomwsulcer. Mar4d (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Because she is a representative then such kind of press releases will exist. We need coverage which discusses the individual so we can have an encyclopedic entry. Störm (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2018 (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) Jdcomix (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubina Gillani (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)

Nothing significant in coverage to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing shows why she would be considered a notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources, taken together suggest notability, and they include in-depth here and a paragraph here and interview here and coverage here and a mention here and a brief mention here and a mention here and some coverage here (mentioning one of her speeches). Here is her article in a medical journal. Overall I think the sources add to a keeper (maybe weak keep but I'm leaning toward regular keep) even though the current state of the article is rather bloated and patchwork; she's a significant player in the eye-health medical world of Pakistan. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tomwsulcer. Mar4d (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Because she is a representative then such kind of coverage will exist. We need coverage which discusses the individual so we can have an encyclopedic entry. Störm (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh--Trivial name-mentions do not make a subject pass GNG.But, still not convinced enough to cast a !vote either side.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. promotional biography "In February 2012, Gillani visited the Ophthalmology Department of the Khyber Teaching Hospital " no actual accomplishments. promotionalism is a a even more important reason for deletion than dubious notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tomwsulcer. The article is well-sourced and there is substantial coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage to easily satisfy GNG. In addition to the citations in her article, I saw her work was extensively discussed in a book.^[1] Lonehexagon (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Lardenoye (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)

Nothing significant to get an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs. This article outright admits that Lardenoye is not treated in the major source on Churches in Pakistan. Being ignored is a sign that someone is not notable, so on the whole this article shouts "this person is not notable."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Désirée of Hohenzollern (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)

Citing guidelines WP:INVALIDBIO & WP:BIOFAMILY & WP:NOTGENEALOGY; no indication of importance = I tried WP:A7 Db-person, but that was speedily removed with summary "being a princess an indication of notability", however the use of courtesy titles with no genuine validity, i.e. from old monarchies abolished in 1918 1919, and having had such anacronistic titles added to one's name, not as titles but as names as per German law, does not make one an actual princess; the article's only sources are genealogy blogs. The status of these names (as names, not as titles) is clarified under German nobility: "All legal privileges and immunities of the royalty and nobility (appertaining to an individual, a family or any heirs) were officially abolished in 1919 by the Weimar Republic (1919–1933), and nobility is no longer conferred or recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany. Former hereditary titles are permitted as part of the surname." --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS Even a failed proposal such as Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), which was intended to automatically include many formerly royal people as notable, did not infer that articles like this be OK ("Other close relations of formerly reigning royal families must qualify under WP:BIO."). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of independent notability. —Kusma (t·c) 10:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, suggest to the nominator that before nominating articles for A7 in the future, they actually read the rules for that criteria. The article does not need to meet our notability guidelines to be ineligible for speedy deletion, only some form of importance needs to be asserted, which it is here. Hopefully this helps to avoid confusion in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I still believe, as motivated above, that there is "no indication of importance" and thus that WP:A7 would have been applicable here. I also believe that we should comment on content, not on contributors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Free (disambiguation) (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 topics on the dab page can easily be replaced by a hat note on "For Free". JE98 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:As per JE98. Not substantial enough to be a DAB page on its own. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not breaking any rules and it's a marginal case within WP:MULTIDABS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AMC (1910 British automobile) (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 can find so little mention of this car or its manufacturer that I'm not quite convinced either existed at all. Even if they did exist, there are not enough sources for the article to ever be much longer than the three sentences it currently is.  — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous small producers from that era that have been lost in the "dustbin" of history. However, I found this reference to a catalog listing a British "A.M.C." steam car that includes an illustration of the 10 h.p. powered vehicle "that can be fitted with any design of body for two, three, or four persons"), but this description is from ten years earlier than given in WP article's title: "An Automobile Handbook". The Motor Car Journal. 2 (94). London: 708. 22 December 1900. Is this significant enough to give mention in WP? CZmarlin (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2018 (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. Nomiator withdrawn. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electric City Shock SC (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 indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. No indication the team has played for the national cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - teams playing in 4th tier of US soccer have long been considered notable. GiantSnowman 10:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may be a young football club, but as GSnowman pointed out they play in the 4th tier. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic, play in a notable league, plausible term. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - teams at this level are gneerally considered notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn but once again, fourth division in North America is not as notable as it is in the UK. This team has no coverage and so we're deleting other articles because it does not meet GNG but we keep association football articles because of a faulty criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2018 (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. This was very recently at AfD, both WP:SKCRIT#1 and WP:SKCRIT#3 might apply here, and I'm invoking WP:SNOW for an early close. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption of Tide Pods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Tide PODS) Stats)

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

Article seems to be promoting consumption of tide pods, which is a very bad idea. At a minimum the article needs to be rewritten. Brian Everlasting (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2018 (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/2018 February 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a valid reason for deletion. Does Suicide methods#Poison promote methods of poisoning? Should it be deleted? By your logic, this article cannot possibly exist. Ꞷumbolo 14:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are specific reasons why the wiki review process deletes articles. The rationales above are a moral judgement and a need for copyediting. Wiki does not delete for either of these reasons. See WP:N for inclusion / exclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia covers all notable events and trends. Casting moral judgement on the consumption of Tide Pods is outside the scope of Wikipedia. We're supposed to cover the facts and what reliable sources say about Tide Pods. In this case, we can say that:

1. Eating Tide Pods is not good for one's health.
2. The makers of Tide Pods are strongly against eating Tide Pods, and encouragements to eat them.
3. The unanimous opinion of reliable sources is that actually eating Tide Pods is a bad idea, because it would harm the person eating them.

The article already states these three things, and I would claim this does not encourage the actual consumption of Tide Pods. While the article does not actively discourage the eating of Tide Pods, I don't think Wikipedia should take an editorial stance condemning the literal consumption of Tide Pods, as that is out of our scope as an encyclopedia. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per criteria 3. This article does not promote the consumption of Tide Pods as the nominator suggests. To the contrary, much of the article is about the lethal consequences of eating tide pods; there is even a little skull symbol and notice in the lede summary to highlight the dangers involved. Further, this article's last AfD was closed less than three weeks ago with the decision to keep, and nothing affecting the article's notability has changed since then. Spirit of Eagle (talk)
• Keep; it's notable and has appeared in a huge number of sources. My main concern is the title and tone of the article; it isn't only tide pods, but also other detergent pods which are being consumed, and the article overall needs some Wikilove. I'll see about making it sound more encyclopedic this evening. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CKOO-FM Old (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)

Yet another instance of a radio station whose Wikipedia article got prematurely rush-jobbed into place the moment its license to start broadcasting was issued, but then the station apparently failed to launch and had its license expire. I can find no record, on either Spectrum Direct or REC Networks, of any station operating on this frequency in this town under any call sign, and I can find no other reliably sourced indication anywhere else either (not even the Canadian Communications Foundation, which keeps a page on every radio station that has ever existed in Canada) that it ever actually made it to air at all. But WP:NMEDIA requires us to wait until a radio station is verifiably on the air before we start the article, precisely because this exact sort of situation happens far more often than many people would think. And furthermore, this station's claimed call sign was assigned to another (already established) station a couple of weeks ago — which, at the very least, means that even if this station did make it to air at some point it didn't stay there very long.
Simply put, there's literally no evidence whatsoever that this station ever actually made it to air at all — and if we can't verify that it ever actually launched, we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Stations that are only on paper, but never reach the air, are not notable under WP:NMEDIA. This is the case here. The CKOO-FM callsign is now being used by another, unassociated station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38 on February 4, 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: Bearcat not being able to find anything would be enough on its own for me, but I did my own independent research too. There are online sources that provide information about businesses belonging to the Kahkewistahaw Reserve. There's no radio station listed among those businesses, nor can I find any reference to there ever having been. Mlaffs (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The station never went to air; its authorization expired unbuilt. (They had until May 7, 2014 to launch, yet according to this revision from March 18, 2015, as of 2015, the station has yet to be launched and Kahkewistahaw Radio Station had not filed any renewals or applications to the CRTC. Does it mean anything that this statement was removed on March 24, 2017 by the since-indeffed Nathan Jay Williams (talk · contribs)? That same edit also reworded the article in such a way to indicate the station had launched, but without a single source for this. The same user also moved the article from the placeholder "105.7 FM Broadview, Saskatchewan" title to CKOO-FM.) Any theoretical presumed notability for broadcast stations applies exclusively to stations that actually make it on the air — and it appears that never happened for this station. (Having your call sign reassigned to another, already-existing station is not a good sign…) Such notability, of course, also requires sufficient coverage in reliable sources — and on that note, there of course isn't anywhere near the sourcing necessary to meet the general notability guideline, either. (The only non-CRTC source in the article, relating to the assignment of the call sign, is a message board, which does not constitute a reliable source.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gawd, I didn't even notice that Nathan Jay Williams was involved here. That's really just the ultimate kick in the ass: what got him editblocked was a combination of (1) repeated attempts to arbitrarily shut down pending AFD discussions on the glut of unlicensed tourist information radio stations that we killed off last year, and (2) repeated attempts to recreate the same articles again after they got deleted, without actually showing any improved evidence of notability or any better referencing, and after they got speedied and he got a warning not to recreate deleted articles, simply ignoring all of that and recreating them again. And when I went to SPI for a sockcheck on the creator of last year's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New 94.3 FM Kentville, Nova Scotia stunt, even though the SPI came back as "unrelated" McClellandRA actually confirmed that my initial suspicion that he was a Nathan Jay Williams sock was correct by admitting it on his own userpage, before finally getting blocked on a separate SPI initiated by somebody else. Good grief. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The page move connected to this AfD has been executed after this AfD was complete. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:51 on February 12, 2018 (UTC)

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. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Alley (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)

Does not appear to be a notable film; a search revealed mostly false positives, or at best the film's IMDb and Kickstarter pages (the latter of which dates back to around 2014 or so). Although the article claims to be a TV movie, I'm unable to find any pages that discuss this. Note that, unlike The American Shame (another article by the same creator that's also been nominated for deletion and also claims to star Lucky Yates), this film apparently does exist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 4 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Sikandar Sultan (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 in depth coverage in RS. the user who created this BLP has been blocked for socking. Saqib (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Every Morning (there's a halo...) 05:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entry fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is in depth coverage including the articles cited. I don't understand the basis for this non. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all The page was recreated after a WP:REFUND application, approximately 8 hours after being previously deleted, on the grounds of (what I can see) being inherently notable. Nightfury 14:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL & significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Rashid_Ghafoor currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The page looks like a tribute page / possibly UPE. WP:DENY applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India-West (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 secondary sources. I can't independently verify any of the claims in the article or establish notability. I can't find any external sources with any information about the newspaper at all, to be honest. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: One claim in the article is that they're the highest ranked Indian-American newspaper on Alexa. I don't know what papers they're comparing to, but their rank isn't terribly high (168,774 global, 51,268 US, 25,834 India). I imagine a lot more Indian-Americans simply read the Times of India, which has a full-fledged US section, and is ranked 241 on Alexa (12 in India, 815 in US). -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NWEB / WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. The article is entirely self-cited including to the "India West online Media Kit" (!). Wikipedia is not a replacement for a company web site or a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Theo (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 singer-songwriter. No indication either in the article or on Google search of musical notability. Google search finds nothing by independent third parties such as reviews or critics, only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC at all (the only one it even approaches is #10, but that requires the main theme song for a TV show, not a mere scene placement, and still has to be better sourced than this before it counts); the writing tone here tilts noticeably in an advertorialized, rather than neutral and encyclopedic, direction (i.e. "Theo’s voice is similar to powerful singers like, Ella and Aretha, Amy Winehouse and Adele", sourced only to her own PR claims); and none of the sources that have been added are reliable ones for the purposes of establishing notability: it's referenced entirely to iTunes and her self-published profile on the commercial website of a music licensing agency, with no evidence of media coverage about her being shown. A musician does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because her own web presence nominally verifies that she exists — she needs to be the subject of media coverage, which verifies an accomplishment that passes an NMUSIC criterion, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. We're an encyclopedia, on which making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not a free advertising platform for emerging artists to promote themselves as part of trying to make it. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the music licensing agency is called SynchAudio, the creator's username is "SA2014", and their only other Wikipedia contribution to date is another artist of improperly established notability whose sourcing is also to SynchAudio. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Synch Audio" was founded in 2014. Or, in short form: SA2014. There's an entry on the COIN page.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NMUSIC মাখামাখি (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrible article. No redeeming features. scope_creep (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search turns up no RS. The common link between this article and the similarly nominated Tony Crown article is both the article creator and the reference used called "synch audio blog".104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all sourcing, as it was either 1. itunes or 2. published by their promotion agent "Synch audio".104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reliable source, not notable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 8 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Crown (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 is a puff piece about a non-notable singer-songwriter that reads like an advertisement. Google search finds nothing written about him by third parties such as reviews or critics, only the usual vanity hits. No indication that the subject satisfies musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC at all (the only one it even approaches is #10, but that requires the main theme song for a TV show, not a mere scene placement, and still has to be better sourced than this before it counts); the writing tone here tilts noticeably in an advertorialized, rather than neutral and encyclopedic, direction; and none of the sources that have been added are reliable ones for the purposes of establishing notability: it's referenced entirely to iTunes and his self-published profile on the commercial website of a music licensing agency, with no evidence of media coverage about him being shown. A musician does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because his own web presence nominally verifies that he exists — he needs to be the subject of media coverage, which verifies an accomplishment that passes an NMUSIC criterion, for a Wikipedia article to become earned. We're an encyclopedia, on which making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not a free advertising platform for emerging artists to promote themselves as part of trying to make it. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the music licensing agency is called SynchAudio, the creator's username is "SA2014", and their only other Wikipedia contribution to date is another artist of improperly established notability whose sourcing is also to SynchAudio. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No valid refs. No coverage. Heavily promoted article. scope_creep (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search turns up no RS.104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all sourcing, as it was either 1. itunes or 2. published by their promotion agent "Synch audio".104.163.148.25 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources, no notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 8 February 2018 (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. Sandstein 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alhaje (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)

Minor actor, playing minor parts in obscure TV series. The subject's agent has reportedly been aggressively trying to get this in here (see our Requests for Undeletion page), and the language reeks of promotion and press-agentry. Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my original prod: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Isn't covered significantly at all. Only one major TV role, and only mentioned incidentally in news coverage relating to that TV series." The article is merely a promo piece about an actor of currently limited notability that was REFUNDed by an SPA. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hey orange mike, thank you for all your contributions and work that you do on Wikipedia. In the issue regarding the deletion of the page Sam Alhaje, I will like to talk and address due to that fact that Sam Alhaje is a established actor and celebrity and is not part of small obscure television shows or roles. He is the main actor on 3 prime time television shows in Australia. Has been nominated for one of the countries biggest awards in the industry (Logie). And out of respect your comment about its “push from his agent” is non evident and an assumption. And in regards to “obscure” tv show, this is also not respectfully correct. The shows he’s been apart of and is the LEAD, have grabbed a national audience of over 1.4 million viewers in just one night. And in the concern regarding to the what "criterion" this person meets of the Australian Actor's page Sam Alhaje and with research and gathering, I honestly think he meets all the criterion. He was a Logie candidate for one of the awards in the TV industry in Australia Logie nomination (along with evidence below from his agent and all his radio interviews, red carpet speech and news paper articles which i believe is sufficient and strong information) and that is due to the fact that he has acquired and has been cast in 3 new television shows and tv series airing in 2018 in which he is the main character "KARIM" in one (concern for welfare which is airing on SBS in Australia, one of Australia's biggest tv networks.) A role on the ABC TV tv series "RAKE" as a supporting actor "DELL" to prestigious actor Richard Roxburgh and Damien Harvey. Another ABC TV brand new comedy as another supporting actor "JAL" in the upcoming show SANDO.( source is his very own agent catherine poulton and the production company Jungle entertainment".. link is http://www.cpmgt.com.au/talent/sam-alhaje/. And has also been on hold for a third session of the successful show that branched him out "here come the habibs". He has also received recognition with the sci fi feature film "hidden peaks" which has just been sold and began distribution in USA,ASIA & Australia with a release date in the first quarter of 2018. he also has just been cast in the new theatre play as the main character for the Parramatta riverside theatre play called "Lakemba". He has also just finalised a commercial where he worked with the fabulous Australian legend Roy Billing for the prestigious bank "Macquarie Bank Group". He has attained a following of over 11.9 thousand followers on instagram. He is a well established actor, public figure, and has attended almost every red carpet with a strong reputation for bringing the "fun" to the carpet. He has been nominated for Logies, and has been shortlisted for AACTA awards. He attends red carpets regularly (https://www.instagram.com/samalhaje/) He has a strong reputation throughout the community as he has worked with Cody Walker, Paul Walkers brother from fast and furious for is charity Reach Out World Wide Charity which was founded by Paul Walker. He is an ambassador for "White ribbon" which aims to stop violence against women. He has also been acknowledged by the Parliament for his support of the Australian Gynaecological Cancer Foundation, the Leukaemia Foundation's World's greatest Shave, the Mark Hughes Foundation for Brain Cancer Research in where he was on the highly rated "today show" on TV going around to the schools and doing live crosses. and the Reach Out World Wide Charity founded by Paul Walker. This is guy is a well established actor in Australia and is relevant in the tv/film and theatre industry. I believe with all this he meets:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

He’s a established actor and celebrity. He has 3 tv shows premiering in 2018. Halobot224 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While Alhaje has a significant role in "Here Come the Habibs", his other roles don't appear to get over the line of "significance" per NACTOR's criteria (I agree with Kb.au's assessment that GNG isn't met either). "Rake" is indeed a notable series, but the role he's played seems not to be listed on the ABC's own website for the show or even on IMDB (which customarily lists everyone whose name can be verified, regardless of role). His other recurring roles may eventually lead to fame, but they haven't yet. Instagram followers in and of themselves don't amount to a claim to notability, and neither does "attending red carpets" in an industry where most people would happily attend the opening of the proverbial envelope (a "reputation for bringing the fun to the carpet" may count for something if there's the relevant level of coverage for that, but I'm not seeing it). Even his appearance on the Today Show here in Australia means less than you might think, given that the commercial networks use those breakfast programs as an opportunity for cross-promotion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep duplicate struck Hey big haz,

I feel that you have not addressed the whole information provided above. The guy has been nominated for a Logie. One of the biggest recognitions in the tv industry. And has not only appeared on the today show. He has appeared on 20 to one on channel 9 as well with the information mentioned above. He is one of the main characters on the sbs show “concern for welfare”. The guy does major TV networks gigs. And with regards to rake, he is apart of the cast for this years session to appear onto the 2018 show so he wouldn’t been listed as yet because it hasn’t passed. He has more credibility with credits then some of his co stars on the show and others in the industry and they still have no request to delete for their Wikipedia pages. And he has worked with massive Aussie legends and stars that I mentioned above. He has also appeared as the main celebrity to go around Sydney for the biggest newspaper article publishers in Australia “the daily telegraph” and go on a “food safari” and choose Sydney’s best. They don’t hire a no body for that. Sam Alhaje was in one of the highest rating shows of Aussie tv as the MAIN on a commercial network. I honestly do not see how he does not fit the criterion. And I would ask that doesn’t a social following prove the criterion of number 2. Which is Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He fits all criteria. Halobot224 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I hadn't addressed every single point you raised (some of that may have been because of the size of the paragraph), but I'm happy to do so. A Logie nomination doesn't necessarily translate to notability, funnily enough. As far as NACTOR is concerned, it can point to the significance of the role the subject was nominated for - as indicated, I'm entirely willing to say that a main-cast role in "Habibs" qualifies - but that first criterion requires "multiple notable films, television shows...". Last I followed the matter, too, the Logies were voted by the audience, rather than any body of experts such as the Oscars are, which may count against their notability qua awards, but that's another story. As far as the various light-entertainment things he's been on for Ch9, my point above still stands. Turning up to do cross-promotion as a talking head on "20 to 1" (or "Today", or any other such appearance) doesn't count for much. It certainly doesn't amount to a "significant role", I'm sure you'd agree.

Regarding his "Rake" appearances for this year, I'm afraid that comes under the "too soon" heading I referred to earlier. Unless and until those appearances are made, there's simply no way of saying "they're significant", so we have to go on what we have at the moment. You've mentioned his "credibility" versus other cast members on that series, which really doesn't enter into it. You're entirely within your rights to nominate any actor you feel isn't as notable as Alhaje for deletion, and consensus will determine that outcome. Just because those articles currently exist doesn't mean that Alhaje gets one automatically.

With regards to the "food safari" you mention, I think we're going to have to disagree here. The Daily Telegraph is connected to Ch9 as well, for starters, so it's entirely possible that this would simply be more of the "Today"-style cross-promotion. I'll also point out that - at least here in Brisbane, where our newspapers may have different standards to the Tele - my younger brother has been asked to do a range of food-related commentaries for the papers at times, as he has previously worked for a food blog of minor notoriety. A person less notable than my younger brother, however, you'd be hard-pressed to find, particularly if I weren't in the room...

Social media following goes partway towards criterion 2, yes. I can point to plenty of people with large social media followings who aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards, though. Besides which, is there any coverage of this rabid fan base, or is it just the Instagram statistic by itself? Considering the prevalence of bot accounts and so on, those sorts of numbers should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Lastly, let's not kid ourselves that he meets "all criteria". The third one requires "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", which I'm sure we can both agree he's simply not been around long enough to have done. In years to come, sure, he may well do, although I suspect he will have got himself an article for one of the other criteria first. All of this goes back to the point I made earlier - he's clearly got a lot going on career-wise and seems poised for big things, to which I say good on him. To say that that means he gets a Wikipedia article right now, though, is to get it precisely backwards. He makes it big, then he gets the article, rather than the other way around. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on this matter, but i'm going to have to politely disagree with some points that you raised as they're are incorrect or don't have any evidence connected to it. The first and foremost that "channel 9" is connected to daily telegraph is not true. They're two separate entity's and have no connection and are independent from each other. Foxtel on the other hand may be connected to daily telegraph as its listed on "Subsidiaries" see the link for this all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph_(Sydney). And as for the Logie, it's not purely based on a role that he had did, it's based on his overall stance in the industry as he got nominated for "best new talent", which is not only the audiences decision, its the industry professionals themselves who gets it and who even is allowed to be accepted to be nominated for it. And i will ask, in regards to the fan base issue, isn't this the problem with the internet all round? every social media or every online presence can have bots etc, then how does one prove this then? if an audience on a prime time network show that achieves a national audience of 1 million and around that number week after week for over 2 years, doesn't that show solid evidence? That is solidly and legally tracked week after week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Come_the_Habibs#RatingsAnd if you add in his roles which is another international film and TV show he is notable on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2924488/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1and TV show which was aired on the discovery channel http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1971762/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_6. However i will say and definitely agree with you regarding the "too soon" with his upcoming tv shows, but then i'd say is it worth throwing away this page article on alhaje because of impatience? These should be aired not long from now. And i know it sounds like i'm "defending", but this guy is active on TV with not only one role, but a credit list that goes over 10. I just dont think we should throw it away right now. P.s. you're brother sounds like he's got the best job in the world! haha Halobot224 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you're correct that Ch9 and the Tele aren't connected to each other, I still fail to see why being asked to talk about his favourite places to eat makes him notable. Before you raise the obvious response that "it shows that he's famous", we need to remember that "famous" and "notable" don't always mean the same thing.

To your point about the Logie, while I appreciate that it's not specifically an award for "Habibs" so much as an overall "best newcomer" kind of thing, the fact remains that he was nominated (didn't win), based almost entirely on his role in one particular show (yes, a major role in what I'm reliably informed is a relatively major show). That doesn't translate to a pass on the first criterion of NACTOR, which requires significant "roles" (plural) in "multiple notable...television shows" (plural). I don't dispute that he's been in multiple notable shows, but it's a question of the significance of his other appearances, which is not very high at best. I do also share Dorsetonian's concern about the veracity of this Logie nomination, although the wording of that link is sufficiently vague as to admit of both interpretations.

You raise a valid point about how one measures a fan base, and I'll admit I don't have a specific answer for you (I don't tend to contribute to AfDs on actors and the like, so someone else may have more of an answer. That said, I don't at all subscribe to the view that an audience of X viewers for show Y means that they're all fans of every single actor on the show. I may be more selective in my TV viewing than the average, but there are definitely series I've watched despite not being able to stand one of the cast or guests or whoever. If the question were about the notability of "Habibs", I'd agree that that's a sensible way to measure the fan support, but remember that I don't normally deal in this area.

Lastly, to your comment about not "throwing the article away" right now because he might be about to become notable. The entire point, though, is that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, as mentioned earlier. Until someone or something is notable, they aren't. Just as Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on (to take an invented example) the band who rehearses in the garage across the street from me, even if they're so close to getting a record deal as makes no difference, neither should Wikipedia have an article on an actor who's about to hit the big time until he does actually hit it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite the bumptious defence of the article above, notability is measured in terms of coverage in reliable sources and not only is it virtually non-existent, what little there is is also only for one thing. I can find no evidence to support the the claims of notability - the forthcoming roles don't appear to have coverage and I can find no evidence he has ever been nominated for a Logie (indeed, the link given to support that claim appears to be to a page lobbying for his nomination). At the very best this is WP:TOOSOON. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry if you think i'm "bumptious defending" the article. I'm not. There are a ton of reliable sources that are both online and print for this actor Sam Alhaje to show notability. I just don't want to throw away a page of a notable celebrity. The evidence that he has been nominated is linked here that comes from the official page channel 9 page and habibs page. https://www.facebook.com/HereComeTheHabibs/posts/1173545099395378:0 Halobot224 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a "Here Come The Habibs" facebook post from December 2016 that says "Toufic's got big ambitions and a Logie for Best New Talent is next on his list! VOTE for Sam Alhaje in the #TVWeekLogies" but the Best New Talent nominees announced in March 2017 [1] did not include him - which is why it appears to be simply lobbying for his nomination. It certainly does not appear to be evidence of a nomination. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alhaje did NOT get nominated for a Logie. He may have been in the running but was not one five who got nominated. Nothing satisfying NACTOR or GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. The coverage found consists of only trivial mentions rather than significant coverage. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2018 (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) Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M. J. Kang (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)

Minor performer and playwright. Most Dora Award winners do not have their own articles. Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP i have cited few reliable references and now the article fulfill criteria as per Wikipedia guidelines Truembp (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing indicated the subject meets the notability guidelines for actors.02:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I grant that nothing here is a particularly strong WP:NACTOR pass as JPL points out just above me, but that completely misses the point: what she does have is a credible WP:NAUTHOR pass as a playwright. Dora nominations (the exact literal equivalent of a Tony Award, once you realize that "they're less notable just because I've never heard of them" is not a thing) do count as a potentially valid notability claim — the thing being, just as with many film awards, that the public-face categories (actors, directors and writers) are generally much more likely to have quality reliable source coverage about them than the behind-the-scenes ones (lighting, costume design, etc.) do. So it's not exactly true that "most Dora winners don't have articles" — the truth is that it depends on the category, just the same way as the actors and directors and screenwriters in a Genie Award or Canadian Screen Award article are much more likely to actually be blue links than the costume designers and cinematographers are. The actors and playwrights from a Dora nominations list are more likely to have Wikipedia articles as a rule, and for any class of topic there's always a distinction between whether similar people do have articles or not and whether they can have articles or not — we're missing articles about many members of the Parliament of Ghana and the Maine House of Representatives, too — but that doesn't mean they're not notable, it just means people haven't gotten around to getting them finished yet. Kang gets more than enough hits on a ProQuest search to repair this, as well: the sourcing problems here have less to do with coverage not existing, because it does, and more to do with the fact that she appears to have taken a hiatus during the very time when we were starting to get stricter about sourcing articles properly. So she's not non-notable, she was just "out of sight, out of mind" for a while. This is entirely repairable, I'll take a stab at it right now. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has been substantially improved since nomination and has references to reliable sources including The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and National Post and so passes WP:GNG. Notable awards and reviews also pass WP:CREATIVE " has received significant critical attention". Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per these edits. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added links from some of the Toronto Star citations to their newspaper archives so you can see some of the source text. Appears to have significant coverage satisfying GNG. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, that's not actually a useful thing to do. If we can't provide a link to the entire text of an article, then there's no value in providing a link to a mere abstract of it. Wikipedia has no requirement whatsoever that our sources actually have to be web-accessible at all — we are allowed to cite print-only content, such as paper or microfilm copies of newspapers or magazines or books, so we should only provide a convenience URL if one exists for the complete text of the source. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmick weapon (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 verifiable content. The term is generic and there are no references to it being used to refer to Westerns in particular. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While the term "gimmick weapon" is one that is used, I'm finding no evidence that this has ever been used as a specific, notable term in regards to Westerns. As such, it not only fails in terms on notability, but also appears to be entirely WP:OR. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't seem like this is a notable term._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:42, 11 February 2018 (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. All of the arguments for keeping are variations on, "But, it's on de", which isn't a valid argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, also see the related WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Josef Schmalz -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Schmalz (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 IP user that created this article has copied and pasted the draft of the same name into mainspace despite it having been repeatedly declined due to insufficient evidence of notability, thereby purposefully bypassing the AfC process. They assert that Schmalz is notable because there's an article about him in the German wikipedia, and because that German article was speedily kept when it was nominated for deletion. However based on EN criteria, Schmalz fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER and could only meet the "released two albums on a mainstream label" criteria of WP:MUSICBIO (Metronome Records) though I think that is aimed at singers/musicians rather than conductors/composers.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. note: this may seem strange, since I appear to have created the article, but all I did was copy it from the Talk to Article space (with some misgivings on notability) on the grounds that it looked like a newbie mistake. I should have tagged it, though.Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: no worries. You weren't to know there was a copy of it in draft space. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked. Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the {{There is a draft for this article}} template should have been visible at the top of edit window; for an example of how it looks try open Lex Eisenhardt. Strictly speaking, we should not cut-and-paste from one page to another without attribution, see WP:CUTPASTE. If it is of any consolation, geachte Kleuske, yours truly failed to tag the talk page correctly with {{Db-talk}} the second time it was created. Best, Sam Sailor 12:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion on the subject's notability, but the integrity of the AfD process requires deletion of its circumvention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DEL8, Curb Safe Charmer's analysis is correct, subject does not yet meet the inclusion criteria, including failing for now at least the basic notability guideline for people. A few words as a follow up to nom's remarks: several IPs, probably the same user on a dynamic connection, have pushed for Draft:Josef Schmalz to be accepted, including filing a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. At the same time they have now copied the draft three times onto Talk:Josef Schmalz. Unregistered users can not create pages in namespace 0 (main space), they can however start pages in namespace 1 (talk space). Several of us failed to take the right action in this case: tag the talk page with {{Db-talk}}. Showing good faith is fine, but we should be alert to this method being a potential backdoor to main space. Sam Sailor 12:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fully translation of german accepted version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Schmalz_(Musiker) with notability and passed deletion discussion: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/8._Mai_2017#Josef_Schmalz_(Musiker)_(LAE) (LAE = decision: No deletion) --188.194.156.154 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC) — 188.194.156.154 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]
  • Has little to no influence of the outcome of the AFD discussion here on English Wikipedia. I have asked IP not to resubmit Draft:Josef Schmalz unless better sources are presented. Sam Sailor 16:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with a tentative Keep based on my limited understanding of the en notability criteria. First some general comments on the notability criteria. Its normally assumed the De notability criteria are stricter as the criteria here. But in this case this might not be the case. One part that the German notability tries to focus on is time surviving notability compared to short term news tickers. I don't see anything like this on the notability page here. Nevertheless you are talking here about somebody who did the notable initial publication in the late 70s and the 80s and it is still played and reproduced as of today (with the last CD in the article the dedicated CD of his work in 2012). Together with the implicit assumption that his songs have been played live in all this 30, now nearly 40 years. This kind of music and the brass bands are still highly present in Germany. Maybe not as present as in the past, but still present. On top of this there has been a lot of misconception and misunderstanding in the draft discussion. In particular on the references. As already said his main work is from before the internet and from before the almighty, complete databanks. But there is still on the mentioned work in all cases plausible reverence, and in most of them even an independent reverence. The CD from 2012 was published in his honor and clearly states that it is about his compositions. The description and the links might be from a private Homage, but it is independent in the dnb http://d-nb.info/1031951865 and other places. The name of (some) of his songs are therefore known, so in the old LP's from the 80's his work can therefore be identified even if discogs only knows the name of the songs without mentioning the name Schmalz. On top in some cases the name might not be in the data, but can be seen on the pictures of the LP in discogs. Something that hasn't been mentioned before (and I don't know if it matters) is the fact that the sheet music of his works have been published by notable publishers. (And I’m not putting it in the article. That’s wikipadia nonsense to put stuff into an article just to prove notability because its there, because in context of the article and the reader (so real life) it doesn’t matter.) --Fano (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep -- Wikipedia is world wide and if this person is worth mentioning in another Wikipedia Language then: keep it as mentioned through Template:Translated page -- MeBaLa (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — MeBaLa (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

@MeBaLa: as a new editor who has only contributed to this article you may not be familiar with the WP:OTHERLANGS section of 'Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Why do you not read what Fano writes, and read it again, and read again again and again until you understand the relevance of this person also in en:WP? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josef_Schmalz&diff=823301388&oldid=823162835

Are you alive since 1960 or not and still in the media present?

MeBaLa (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MeBaLa: It is clear that you feel strongly about the subject. In deletion discussions, we don't each get a vote - whether the article is kept or deleted is based on the strengths of the arguments put forward, based on the guidelines and policies that Wikipedia is based on. Try to put forward your own answer to how Schmalz meets the WP:COMPOSER criteria. Please see also Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! for useful advice on how to participate here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This dead person meets the following criterias:

1.Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

3.Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.

5.Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.

6.Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Find you the sources and clear it. Because to find something after WW2 after deportation of Romania is hard. And for everything after 1970 you have evidence in several LPs, CDs, compilations, TV shows, and the booklets!!! --MeBaLa (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2: I'm still puzzled that a composer, who has composed multiple works that have been puplished by multiple notable artists under notable lables should not be notable himselve. (Independent from the aditional live plays.)--Fano (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Josef_Schmalz&diff=823670077&oldid=823181458 out of http://www.zentrum.hu/wp-content/uploads/Forum-03-M%C3%84RZ-2014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.158.8 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject does not appear to meet our guidelines for establishing WP:N. I am also singularly unimpressed with the various pro-Keep comments which seem to either ignore our guidelines or suggest that being accepted on the German Wikipedia should be sufficient. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Nice job, I've never seen anyone put together a table to analyze the sources in an article before. The nomination is spot on, there is not enough to establish notability. And whatever happens on German Wikipedia is irrelevant here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rusf10: Check out {{Source assess}}. Sam Sailor 11:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, although more for the notability reasons than those of the article's chequered creation history. I'm certainly happy to review this opinion if arguments are made in line with the guidelines (and with proof) in favour of keeping the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• „Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.“

Though we create the article about the notable brass band Original Donauschwaben! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.158.8 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see Draft:Original Donauschwaben --188.194.158.8 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC) — 188.194.158.8 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. [reply]

Are you kidding:

Submission declined on 4 February 2018 by Heliosxeros (talk).

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

For Draft:Original Donauschwaben???????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.158.8 (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The IP editor has now created Draft:Original Donauschwaben. It was declined by Heliosxeros. The IP editor has reacted by leaving a message on the reviewer's talk page telling them to 'F off'. Charming. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up Draft:Original Donauschwaben, it contained an unattributed copy-paste of Josef Schmalz, and I have declined the draft. Sam Sailor 11:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

??? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Original_Donauschwaben&diff=823943965&oldid=823939446

???

Why is Josef Schmalz removed from the article?!

You want delete Josef Schmalz and do not accept Draft:Josef Schmalz and then with repect of the sentences in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists do not want him in this article?

Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably DETAILED article should be MERGED into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible.«

--188.194.158.8 (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP user (by the way, why don't you create a username so we know what to call you?) That applies where there's insufficient information available about the person who composed the music and instead the content about the composer is added to an article about their compositions. Per the guideline that you quoted, if a composer like Schmalz is known for multiple works, that isn't going to work. What you are proposing is to include information about a conductor into an article about the band that he conducted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the IP?

• Good work with the table analysing the references. The fact that an article exists in the German Wiki doesnt mean that the article has met the inclusion criteria in the English encyclopedia. I am not familair with the German wiki, but from my limited experience with the english wiki, notability has not been established. No apparent reason or significance to the article. Moreover, bypassing AfC is a sly trick and wouldn't this be gaming the system, Abuse of process? EROS ^message 14:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad analysed table: no mention when he is on several photos is a lie! --89.204.135.54 (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a photo doesn't constitute in depth, independent coverage. It is a primary source so doesn't contribute towards notability. See WP:BASIC. Nobody is disputing his role in the band. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Laursen (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 fails WP:NHOCKEY, and while I can't speak for the notability of veterans, the page is largely made by one user (who I suspect is the subject of the article; the numbers of the username match his birthdate, and they have mainly only worked on this page), and sounds more like a promotional article for the individual. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite or Delete: The article shows some potential, however it suffers from WP:COISELF. Besides being a war veteran, nothing else is significant. (WP:CONTN, WP:NTEMP, WP:SUSTAINED) Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 08:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:SOLDIER big time: Rank and highest award. I can't speak to Athlete. The bit about social media presence makes me think WP:NOTWEBHOST may need to be invoked as well. The match between the DOB and the numbers in the username is suspicious.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can speak to NHOCKEY, and he doesn't come remotely close; this "USA Warriors" team seems to be an amateur charity outfit. Fair enough, but notability isn't inherited no matter which amateur senior team he plays for or how many selfies he's taken with NHLers. Ravenswing 03:13, 5 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt national ice hockey team (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)

There is no Egyptian ice hockey association, or national body. This article is about club teams that are not notable, from Egypt. 18abruce (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice hockey in Egypt and User talk:AaronWikia#Speedy deletion nomination of Ice hockey in Egypt. The creation of the Egypt national ice hockey team article appears to be an attempt to get around those deletions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article does appear to be about a national team, not club teams. It mentions the players' clubs, but that's pretty standard for this kind of article. If this really isn't an official sanctioned team, I guess the article should be deleted, but I'd like to do more research before !voting. Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only links available send you to the two club teams from Egypt, there is no national sporting body. And the National Teams of Ice Hockey website (which has details on just about every obscure national team) states: "Ice Hockey in Egypt is not a member of the International Ice Hockey Federation nor does it have a federation or an association, but a group of players form a national team and in 2017 Egypt played 2 exhibition games in Saint-Laurent, Quebec against Lebanon & Morocco. Egyptian players are trying to grow the game in their country." By that logic nearly every caribbean nation would have a national team by virtue of participating in the "Canadian National Pond Hockey tournament" in New Brunswick, because they played a hockey game with other guys from their country. You don't have to be recognized by the IIHF, but they should be recognized by their own country.18abruce (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also unclear to me whether National Teams of Ice Hockey should be considered a reliable source. It looks rather like a personal website. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And I should point out that the website for egyptian hockey has this helpful statement at the top, "Please note Egypt does not currently have an Official Ice Hockey Federation or National Ice Hockey Team." And this is used as a source for a page for the Egyptian National Ice Hockey Team.18abruce (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing the notability requirements. Egypt is not listed as an IIHF member, and the team doesn't meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable references, and the referencing that does exist suggests that this isn't part of any international organizations, it's simply a team of people from Egypt. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG without reliable sources. Flibirigit (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hypocrites' Club#Members. Doesn't look like there's going to be any more discussion after two full relists without, and there's no clear consensus on whether or not the sources are enough to merit standalone notability. With an eye to preserving the content in a place where there is no question of notability (and following the author's actions), I think a merge would be the best course of action here. ansh666 19:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Hilliard (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 even sure what the claim to be notability is here but, regardless, I see no evidence of the subject of this article meeting the guidelines of WP:N. The references on this page, though numerous, are all trivial and do not cover the subject of the article itself (at least not the ones I can access). There is no evidence here of the type of sustained coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would satisfy the requirements at WP:N. Canadian Paul 15:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hobbing around with notable people and being in a non-notable film are not the things that add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ The Scarlet Woman is not a not notable movie: Terence Lucy Greenidge --Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he was a member of an elitary club in Oxford which did not account for many members all of whom have a wikipedia entry. He partecipated to a movie project that is considered an important step in English movie history and he is often named by Evelyn Waugh as one of his dearest friend. Corollary importance due to the suicide of his mother for which he was called to testify and his participation to WWII. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Canadian Paul 15:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

where did I said that his notablity is inherited? he was the one in the club, he was the one in the movie, he was the one testifying in the trial for his mother, he was the one fighting during WWII...

Arden Hilliard is mentioned in: To Keep the Ball Rolling: The Memoirs of Anthony Powell [2] and Journals 1982 By Anthony Powell [3] and Infants of the spring by Anthony Powell [4] A Little Learning: The First Volume of an Autobiography by Evelyn Waugh [5] and Vile Bodies By Evelyn Waugh [6] and The Diaries of Evelyn Waugh [7] The Brideshead Generation: Evelyn Waugh and His Friends by Howard Carpenter [8] Records of Buckinghamshire, Volume 48 [9] Tom Driberg: his life and indiscretions [10] Wine and Food, Issues 9-16 [11] A. J. A. Symons, his life and speculations [12] Francis Fortescue Urquhart: A Memoir [13] The London Gazette, Part 5 [14] Oxford 1919-1939: Un creuset intellectuel ou les métamorphoses d'une génération [15] Party Going by Henry Green [16] Bright Young People: The Lost Generation of London's Jazz Age by D.J. Taylor [17] A House in Gross Disorder: Sex, Law, and the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven By Cynthia B. Herrup [18] Faith Beyond Resentment: Fragments Catholic and Gay [19] Terrible queer creatures: homosexuality in Irish history [20]. It does not seem to me that his notability is "inherited". Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability is not inherited. Nothing indicates that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or other notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never asked him to be classified or mainly considered as "actor"; his experience as actor is related to a movie that has importance for its contest and creators, not for the importance of the acting. Even if the movie, AND Arden Hilliard, is listed by the British Film Institute. Nevertheless, Notability: 1) "Significant coverage" 18 independent sources, books from mainstream publishers. 2) "Reliable" 18 reliable source (books from mainstream publishers) 3) "Sources" Taylor, Carpenter, Queer studies, are secondary sources, NOT linked to Hilliard (Powell, Waugh, are linked to him) 4) "Independent of the subject" Taylor, Carpenter, Queer studies, are independent source. 5) "Presumed" 18 sources presumes he is notable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just peripheral references that mention the person in the context of others. Nothing conveys notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"At some stage that summer I went with Arden Hilliard for two or three weeks to Corsica; an enjoyable trip though without great adventure. We crossed from Marseilles to Ajaccio, toured the island, returned to France by Bastia then to Nice. We were in a cafe a day later when Hugh Lygon came in. Seeing us, he established at a table the girl who was with him, and made for where we were sitting. 'I'm staying at Willie Maugham's villa,' Lygon said. 'I've been stuck for the afternoon with this ..." To Keep the Ball Rolling: The Memoirs of Anthony Powell - Page 114 (Not peripheral reference)

"On Sunday John Sutro came over from Oxford and invited me to lunch next day with him in his digs in Beaumont Street. That evening I recorded in my diary: 'I am more than half inclined to accept.' I did so. Monday Nov 12th I went to Oxford and contrary to my intentions stayed the night. John's party consisted of Harold Acton, Mark Ogilvie-Grant, Hugh Lygon, Robert Byron, Arden Hilliard and Richard Pares." A Little Learning: The First Volume of an Autobiography (Not peripheral reference)

"At about this stage of the evening my recollections become somewhat blurred. I got a sword fromsomewhere and gotinto Balliol somehow and was let out of awindow atsometime having mocked Arden [Hilliard] and Tony Powell and talked very seriously to Peter Quennell" The Brideshead Generation: Evelyn Waugh and His Friends (Not peripheral reference)

"Thursday,. 19. September. John Bowle obit. I always (so far as possible) avoided John Edward (as John Betjeman always called him) when we were undergraduates at Balliol, feeling sure that Matthew Ponsonby, Arden Hilliard, et al, 'taking Bowle up' as a freshman would lead to trouble." Journals 1982 (Not peripheral reference)

"Among Balliol freshmen of my first year (not, like Anthony Russell, and one or two others, already known at school) were Matthew Ponsonby, Arden Hilliard, Peter Quennell, and Pierse (then more usually Tiers') Synnott. Ponsonby (who has now inherited the peerage his father, the Labour politician, Arthur Ponsonby, was given about this time) was brother of Elizabeth Ponsonby, already something of a gossip-column heroine of what came later to be looked on as the Vile Bodies world ..." Infants of the spring - Page 158 (Not peripheral reference)

"As already mentioned, Crawford made plumbing and sanitary fittings his first priority. The School was close to The Bell public house, then owned by Mr. & Mrs. John Herbert Gladding. Waugh spent a great deal of his leisure time at The Bell, frequently eating and drinking there in preference to consuming the school meals, and entertaining his friends from London and Oxford: 4/11/1925. Enormous body arrived from Oxford in three cars Arden Hilliard, Claud Cockburn, ..." Records of Buckinghamshire - Volume 48 - Page 264 (Not peripheral reference)

Arden Hilliard British Film Institute (Not peripheral reference) Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)--[reply]

• I don't see anything but brief mentions, @Elisa.rolle: are there no substantial biographies? Anything with 3 or 4 paragraphs that focus just on him? Being part of an elite club is fine, but I don't believe it makes him notable. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Point 1) "Significant coverage" of Notability explicity says it is not necessary for the subject to be the main topic of the source. In any case "To Keep the Ball Rolling: The Memoirs of Anthony Powell" cover Powell and Hilliard travel to Corsica in more than a passing sentence. The British Film Institute, despite he has actually only one role in a 1925 movie, has a page for him too. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ильина Оля Яковна:: [21] page 86 and 87 are about Hilliard. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have considered this quite carefully, and I do think the person meets the WP:GNG policy. I will point out that 1925 was early in the history of film (first film with sound was in 1927), unlike today not just anyone could be in a film. There is the membership of a relevant elitary club, and by early 20th century standards, a reasonable amount of sources, which while generally short, are sufficient to support the article. Elisa.rolle makes strong arguments for it being kept, and has created 688 pages, I don't see any trickery or ulterior motive. The BFI listing does probably count for something, and the section in The Memoirs of Anthony Powell is quite reasonable, plus the numerous other mentions and reasonable evidence this individual was relevant in his era. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• Keep, as per Ильина Оля Яковна. The To Keep the Ball Rolling reference is certainly non-trivial. I was involved in another recent AfD discussion relating to a an older film for which few online references could be found. The Scarlet Woman is even older, and so it's unlikely we will find more online references. So I feel that calling it a non-notable film is an invalid argument.

This looks like another possibly non-trivial mention, though I don't read French. = paul2520 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the reason why he was dismissed by Balliol College, he dressed as a nun and crossed the gates of Balliol to go to an Hypocrytes' party... but the very interesting fact is that the Dean of Balliol College closed the Hypocrytes' Club after a party where students dressed as nuns and choirboys... so it's very likely that Hilliard was one of the reasons why the Hypocrytes' was shut down. Of course this is an assumption, and we can only report facts: fact 1) Hilliard dressed as a nun and was dismissed by Balliol. fact 2) Dean of Balliol College closed Hypocrytes after a party where students dressed as nuns... Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul2520: regarding the not-notable comment on "The Scarlet Woman", I support your opinion, and would suggest to read Terence Lucy Greenidge, Evelyn Waugh and Elsa Lanchester's profiles, before saying that a movie where one was director and actor, one writer and actor and the other actress is not-notable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge into Hypocrites' Club#Members. He can be listed last followed by: Edward Arden Hilliard (1904–1976) was... with a brief summary of his life. While it adds to the Hypocrites article to give an understanding of its members' backgrounds, Hilliard himself, lacks the notability for a stand-alone article in my view. The only substantive discussion of him is in the paragraph in the memoirs of Anthony Powell. The rest are literally mentions of his name as having attended this or that dinner in a list of names or requotes from Powell's memoirs (e.g. Un creuset intellectuel ou les métamorphoses d'une génération). His life boils down to briefly attended Oxford where he was a member of a notorious club which did indeed have some notable members. Had a small part in the amateur film The Scarlet Woman produced and written by other club members which probably has enough coverage for a brief article. However, I have been unable to find any commentary on his performance in it. Never acted again. Turned to farming after he was expelled from Oxford. Served in the army in World War II. Died in obscurity in Sussex. Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the two keep and two delete and the Redirect and Merge, I accepted the last and redirected the article to the Hypocrites' Club. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Elisa, the outcome of an AfD is based on the consensus of the discussants, not on the personal choice of the article's creator. With an even split between "delete" and "keep" opinions, this could well be closed as "no consensus" and kept by default. The discussion only started a day ago. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette: "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts." Anyhow, Chrissymad has now, quite rightly in my view, reverted the redirect. Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept any decision the majority would like to take. If the article will remain, then I will remove the Arden section on the Hypocrites' page, otherwise I'm fine with the redirect and merge. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayu Nozomi (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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, passing mentions, industry PR materials, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no where near meeting any notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 7 February 2018 (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 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata. Sandstein 19:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inquivesta (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)

Local college event with very little substantially sourced claim for notability, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Muhandes (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the article of Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata Hagennos (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what properly sourced, non-promotional material there is to merge. The two sentences in the article is about what it is worth. --Muhandes (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: I cannot find anything promotional about this article. Everything mentioned in the article is true-to-the-fact and is related to the article. Whatever information provided in the article which can be cited, has been cited. Any further citable information related to the article can be added in the future. You mentioned, "The two sentences in the article is about what it is worth". If you're referring to the article IISER Kolkata, which I believe you are, then you'll find the sentence in that article, "The college organizes a major annual festival, Inquivesta, which is promoted as one of the first and the biggest science fest of the country". An event of a premier science institute in India (institute of national importance), which is "promoted as one of the first and the biggest science fest of the country", should have its independent article. We already have multiple articles about college fests of institutes of national importance in India here on Wikipedia. I believe Inquivesta should be no different. Avinash dash1997 (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash dash1997, please see WP:AFDFORMAT. It is unclear from your comment whether you are recommending a course of action and what that course of action is, or just making an observation. It may appear from your comment that you are supporting the Merge !vote which I don't believe is what you meant to do. If you meant to recommend we keep the article please do so appropriatly and sustain this recomendation with an argument that addresses the deletion rationale, i.e. that there is little substantially sourced claim for notability and the article fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. --Muhandes (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: If I could furnish a documented statement from the official authority of the institute IISER Kolkata, stating that all of the information about Inquivesta is legitimate, could it be regarded as a justifiable substantial source of information? The institute could put up certain information on its official website in this regard, which can be used as a reliable reference source. Avinash dash1997 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines I linked above, WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. The requirement is to show significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time, in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A statement of the institute has absolutely no relevance. --Muhandes (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect It's already mentioned in the article on the colege, and none of the details are worth merging. But a redirect seems reasonable . DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata: It appears to be written as a piece of promotion/advertisment, nothing more. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:24, 9 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rational ClearCase UCM (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 software addon? that does not appear to be independently notable of Rational ClearCase. Mattg82 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 5 February 2018 (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 Moor Allerton. Would be great to see some mention of the estate in Moor Allerton, so that this doesn't end up at RfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cranmer Bank (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)

seems to be some sort of housing development with retail stores underneath. The article is completely unsourced as it has been for 12 years. Nothing indicates any notability. Rusf10 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is just some housing on a single road, I'd guess 100 homes. Housing estates can be notable but this one doesn't have any refs and I doubt there are any. Szzuk (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect. Szzuk (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Moor Allerton, unless sources specifically covering the estate can be found. It's a plausible search term. – Joe (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Moore Allerton. Not independently notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect Not a settlement (per OS) and not an administrative district, there doesn't appear to be sources to show notability (see WP:GEOLAND, populated places without legal recognition). Geograph also shows that there is also one in Shropshire but that to falls below an OS settlement. That is Creamore Bank. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2018 (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. Sandstein 19:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha C. Boschulte Middle School (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 reason is given for topics notability. It is just an ordinary middle school. WP:NN. Student7 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Our established practice of almost always keeping high school articles as if they were notable, in order to avoid thousands of contentious AfDs has a flip side: almost always deleting middle school articles. It was intended as a compromise. If the compromise should break down , then it will be time to try to find sources for articles like this. Based on experience from before we had the compromise, I could probably do it about 1/4 of the time--possibly 1/2 tyhe time in NYC. But I think it better to concentrate efforts elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 11:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to keep an article on a middle school we need to show the institution actually meets notability guidelines, that is not shown here. Otherwise we would need an article on Robert Burns Elementary Middle School in Detroit where I teach. We have actually had news footage from our school shown in Detroit Area news reports this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge I was going to suggest this be redirected to Bovoni, U.S. Virgin Islands. We've been redirecting articles on middle schools to school districts or localities since almost the beginning of the encyclopedia. While some call that circular reasoning, it is done because it works. But when I clicked on find sources, I was surprised to find 83 news stories and a lot of other info. Much of this is routine coverage, but some of it is not, including the fact that the basketball team won an international competition.[22] I actually think this school could pass WP:gng, but still believe we would be best served by merging it with the locality (which at this point is a very bare stub).Jacona (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2018 (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) Jdcomix (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Club (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 that it is yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Granted, I'm the one who just created it, but ROH just officially announced it two days ago. Give it some time to build up, construct it similar to WWE Network's page. Jgera5 (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although I can understand the WP:TOOSOON arguments. This is arguably the second largest promotion in the US and a major platform for them. If this were deleted it would only be recreated in a few weeks. - Galatz^Talk 14:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft-ify - WP:TOOSOON. So the information is not lost. It can be moved back to article space when it passes WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until such time as multiple, reliable, independent mainstream news sources cover this product which does not yet even have a launch date. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article will expand in time but there's enough out there right now to pass GNG.[23][24][25][26]LM2000 (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:TOOSOON only applies to subjects that are promising but are not notable now, but plenty of sources report on it. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very notable.--Runnel tunnel (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sourcing makes a good point towards notability. CBS and otherwise Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 16 February 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statesman Institute (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 organisation. All references I could find were either put out by the Institute itself, or originated from Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Smith. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In fact, not the subject of any real coverage at all. Article also fails to make a claim of notability - a LinkedIn post saying a member once spoke with Tony Abbott, and an indication they were once involved in the sale of a piece of clothing, are insufficient claims to fame to warrant an encyclopedia article. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)t[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per euryalus and lankivell's points JarrahTree 05:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Premier League of America. Absolutely none of the Keep rationales actually address notability. I am fully aware that this will probably end up at DRV but sometimes you have to follow policy on these things. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Premier League of America season (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, Amateur league season with insufficient notable coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable topic that receives significant third party coverage, per the sources listed, and a quick Google search results in 1.26 million results. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are five sources for the article, all of which have to do with new teams entering the league. That doesn't demonstrate the notability of the season. "Significant third party coverage" is not represented in the article and google search results are insufficient reason to keep an article. Jay eyem (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is fine and is a useful source as it is. The fact that the article does not cite outside sources does not mean that those sources do not exist. The nature of an article on a sports season is fact-driven, and the best source for those facts is primary sources Bashum104 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of sources discussing the season in depth. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments for 2015 season and again, this should be grouped with the other two seasons. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's essentially the exact same situation as the recent AfD regarding another amateur leauge season, in that the season itself has not been shown to pass WP:GNG. Also, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this specific article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The season is a regular event with notable sources held by a notable entity, which qualifies it as notable per WP:GNG. I will be in touch with the closing admin on the other AfD as that did not appear to be done correctly. SportingFlyer (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment under WP:INHERIT the fact that the league itself may be notable does not mean that the season itself is notable if it is not supported as such by the sources. All of the sources just talk about the teams joining the league, that's not enough to establish significant coverage. And I did understand your grouping comment, this is really my first time proposing an article for deletion and I'm not very skilled at it, so I'll try to make these proposals properly in the future. Jay eyem (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also - did you understand my "grouped with the other two seasons" part? These three articles should all be consolidated under one AfD, in my opinion. I'll have to make the same arguments again twice. SportingFlyer (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge With 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season and 2016 Premier League of America season, under an article named "Premier League of America Seasons", perhaps? Birdsgeek (Talk) 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I actually think merging would be an excellent alternative, but rather merge the information into Premier League of America, such as keeping the tables and the playoffs. Since there are only three total seasons for a now defunct league, I don't think there would be WP:LENGTH issues to worry about. Jay eyem (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Premier League of America. Absolutely none of the Keep rationales actually address notability. I am fully aware that this will probably end up at DRV but sometimes you have to follow policy on these things. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Premier League of America season (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, Amateur league season with insufficient notable coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable topic that receives significant third party coverage, per the sources listed, and a quick Google search results in 1.26 million results Quidster4040 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment much like the other articles I have nominated, you have failed to demonstrate that reliable sources exist for this season as a whole such that it meets WP:GNG. Referring to google searches is NOT sufficient reason to keep an article, and this article currently has ZERO citations. Jay eyem (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The league started out small but has through one renaming and now a merger become a part of the much larger and reputable United Premier Soccer League, forming its entire new Midwest Conference. These articles therefore form part of the history of that league. ByteofKnowledge (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment that doesn't help demonstrate notability of this season. Plus it remains to be seen whether or not the season for that league will be considered notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my argument for the 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season. Furthermore to the nominator I believe the season articles should have been grouped together in one AfD. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it took me about two minutes to find three reference-able third party sources for the league, so I added them even if this gets deleted. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's essentially the exact same situation as the recent AfD regarding another amateur league season, in that the season itself has not been shown to pass WP:GNG. Also, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this specific article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In terms of sources, we have at least a number of articles: [27] [28] [29] [30] Local newspapers had photojournalists at games [31] and game scores were picked up on local tv stations (albeit a brief article.) [32]. I believe that's significant coverage which talks about the season in detail (though not all games have stories, unfortunately) in reliable sources independent of the subject, creating a presumption of notability that's on the nominator to rebut. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources one and two as listed right now discuss the entrance of a new team and an exit of an old team. The Fifty Five One source is an example of routine coverage, which is insufficient reason to maintain the article. There needs to be a source given that demonstrates that notability is established with significant coverage for the season itself, not just when teams entered or exited the league. This has not been done so to this point in the resources provided. Jay eyem (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's fine. I added those sources with about two minutes' worth of work. A sports league season article is an event. Even assuming you're right the articles are [[[WP:ROUTINE]], multiple routine sources about an event actually show an event's notability. It shouldn't be hard to source this article. SportingFlyer (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That combines both WP:ROUTINE and WP:SYNTH, one argument of which is insufficient, the other of which is an improper way to maintain an article. There needs to be sources with significant coverage about the season itself. If you want to source the article yourself then do so please. Jay eyem (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge With 2015 Great Lakes Premier League season and 2017 Premier League of America season, under an article named "Premier League of America Seasons", perhaps? Birdsgeek (Talk) 16:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I actually think merging would be an excellent alternative, but rather merge the information into Premier League of America, such as keeping the tables and the playoffs. Since there are only three total seasons for a now defunct league, I don't think there would be WP:LENGTH issues to worry about. Jay eyem (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Premier League of America. Absolutely none of the Keep rationales actually address notability. I am fully aware that this will probably end up at DRV but sometimes you have to follow policy on these things. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Great Lakes Premier League season (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, Amateur league season with insufficient notable coverage. Jay eyem (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This league was local to a few states in the Midwest but was certainly covered by local media outlets. I know that this particular season was mentioned several times in the Grand Rapids Press because Grand Rapids FC receives good local media coverage. Wisconsin Soccer Central also followed this league. I don't know how much coverage a league needs but this league was definitely mentioned by local media. Rungladwin (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments A few clubs that couldn't enter a sanctioned league starting up their own league? This sounds like a Sunday league format and these league generally fail notability. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the question is whether Premier League of America is notable, which it presumably is. It would then follow that its seasons are notable. Most of its clubs have articles. Most of the seasons have references. Oculi (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:INHERIT negates that argument. Just because the league itself may have notability does not mean individual seasons do. The articles referenced do not draw from reliable sources that discuss the entirety of the league seasons as a whole. Jay eyem (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable topic that receives significant third party coverage, per the sources listed, and a quick Google search results in 1.26 million results Quidster4040 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are three sources, none of which demonstrate notability for the season itself. Google search numbers are insufficient for arguing whether or not an article should be kept. Jay eyem (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The league started out small but has through one renaming and now a merger become a part of the much larger and reputable United Premier Soccer League, forming its entire new Midwest Conference. These articles therefore form part of the history of that league. ByteofKnowledge (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment that doesn't help demonstrate notability of this season. Plus it remains to be seen whether or not the season for that league will be considered notable. Jay eyem (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article could use improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based only on the deleter's contention the league failing WP:GNG and being insufficient sources, a quick search of the 2015 season shows this got more media coverage than I ever would have thought. Many non-notable amateur football competitions have seasonal articles across languages. League has survived multiple seasons and has added teams. I might vote delete if a more restrictive criteria for league seasons exists somewhere on Wikipedia, however original requester did not note anything other than WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's essentially the exact same situation as the recent AfD regarding another amateur league season, in that the season itself has not been shown to pass WP:GNG. Also, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep this specific article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge With 2016 Premier League of America season and 2017 Premier League of America season, under an article named "Premier League of America Seasons", perhaps? Birdsgeek (Talk 16:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]