Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 December	20 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to The Shackled City Adventure Path. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cauldron (Shackled City)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. The only source has to do with the main work in which this appears, which has its own article already at The Shackled City Adventure Path. TTN (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Shackled City Adventure Path. A fictional city, that, as far as I can find, has no notability independent from the adventure it was featured in, making this article a rather unnecessary Fork of the article on the adventure. Nearly all of the information in this article is already present in the one on the Adventure, word for word, in some cases, which makes Merging it rather unnecessary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To The Shackled City Adventure Path, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Certainly not worthy of a fork. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aspis (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, and merge any content needed there. A very minor D&D monster, with no non-primary sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters... as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California Review[edit]

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

Nonnotable college newspaper, almost entirely unverifiable original research TritonsRising (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY FAVOR KEEPING THIS ARTICLE. Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.^[1] The California Review has received significant media coverage in reliable sources, including the San Diego Union Tribune ^[2], the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) ^[3], California Watch, a service of the Center for Investigative Reporting^[4], Young America's Foundation ^[5], etc. It's a newspaper with a 35-year history of publication at UC San Diego, one of the oldest conservative student newspapers in the country. If it's not "notable", then we need to delete every article about *every* college newspaper.Bluerondo (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".
^ "New UCSD racial incident sparks rage, confrontation". 2010-02-20.
^ "UC San Diego Freezes Funds to 33 Media Groups, Dissolves Student TV, Threatens to Punish Students for Protected Speech". 2010-02-23.
^ http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/ucsd-muzzles-student-media-while-free-speech-groups-cry-foul-1167. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.yaf.org/news/report-from-the-trenches-at-uc-san-diego/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Seems to me that most of the sources you cited are either unreliable or do not cover the California Review itself, but mention it in passing or cite it. For an example of notability, look to the details provided regarding the Koala within your sources. The Koala appears to meet the Wikipedia threshold for notability; the California Review does not. That's my read of the situation. TritonsRising (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak argument for keeping the article. There's no third-party "significant media coverage" of this publication online. The article has been tagged for bias for nearly two years and no effort has been made to improve it. It reads like a promotional piece and is almost entirely original research, with most of the citations being the paper itself (not viable) among a few three-decade-old archived stories. Links inserted by commenter above are one SDUT citation and the rest are opinionated niche sites that do not constitute significant coverage in the slightest. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Favor of keeping a piece of UCSD's History on Wikipedia "I second the nomination to keep the article; present citations have been updated, and seeing there was nothing in context that properly follows the proposal for the article to be deleted, following a lack of second nominations, a lack of reason which constitutes such a proposal, and in passing the 7 day threshold, i will push forward for the article's proposal of deletion to be removed.Ptariche (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SKCRIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptariche (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. by JzG per G5 as Earflaps was blocked as a sock SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lovegrove[edit]

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

The sources that provide the best secondary coverage of the subject are two recently published book reviews in Kirkus and Publishers Weekly: [1] [2]. Those aren't enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Next best is this article in the Independent and this in PR week, but they are still some way short of the substantial, in-depth coverage required to meet WP:BIO. The other sources are either extremely brief mentions or primary sources, so it appears that the subject is not notable. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here: I encourage Smartse to edit what he sees fit and nominate what he sees fit, but I would like to point out that he and I were recently engaged in dispute on Daniel Amen today, and within the last several hours he has made significant edits to many of my recent edits, in an obvious case of wikihounding. I have no problem with this discussion taking place, but I will have a problem with SmartSE's behavior continuing unabated. Earflaps (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't classify our discussions at Amen as a dispute. Checking other users contributions is not harassment either. To clarify for others, I'm 90% certain that this article was the result of paid editing and I have asked Earflaps, but they deny it. SmartSE (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:Casting aspersions. Earflaps (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking through sources -- of course we can't seriously consider the subject's own website, Facebook page or blog-hosted resumé, collectively cited over two dozen times -- I see an awful lot of passing mentions or opinions provided by this guy on one event or anoher. But I don't see a heckuva lot about him and his life. Fortune 1990 is a perfect case in point: "...BSB agreed to pay as much as $800 million...for exclusive film rights, estimates Nick Lovegrove, a principal in McKinsey & Co.'s London office...." Really? This, and using two book reviews of a single book for 16 footnotes, is symptomatic of mining for dribs and drabs to puff up the reference count we have seen in other places, invariably conflicted, and it's not sound article building. The creator's cries of wikihounding are a distraction and irrelevant to the article's merits. WP:TNT and let somebody else build it instead. Brianhe (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, more people joining in from the Daniel Amen discussion. I started this Lovegrove page because I found his name on Collaborative_leadership - and I've included so much detail because when I post a "fringe notability" page and don't want it speedy deleted for not asserting notability, I include everything I've collected that is relevant (infinitely easier to cut after the fact than build). But I wouldn't have posted this bio if I didn't think it met the minimum requirement for 3 significant reliable sources - I would have mothballed it for being a WP:TOOSOON. Earflaps (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the notability. Maybe he's amazing and merits not only a Wikipedia page but a large statue in a public place and his very own bank holiday. But that's not what the sources say. The Guardian: a passing mention. Fortune: a two-sentence quote and his views on a topic; nothing about him. The Independent: better. If the other sources expanded on this, then maybe. The New Zealand Herald: One sentence, not enough. The New Statesman: I question the reliability of the website, which is not that of the Statesman. It may be a perfect reproduction. Or not. Either way it's another brief mention. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Cabello[edit]

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

Non-notable, can be merged with Fifth Harmony. Eklxtreme (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would ordinarily suggest merging, but there's enough material for a standalone article, I'm sure there's more content that could be added, and she has two hit singles apart from Fifth Harmony. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She just scored a top 10 single in the country with her name, previously she had a top 20. I also think there's enough content. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Everything can be merged into the Fifth Harmony article, except probably the discography section, TheKaphox T
Keep Two charted singles in her own name apart from the band and also the fact she just quit the band, passes WP:MUSICBIO NR 2 for solo performers. GuzzyG (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar to how Zayn Malik left One Direction, this article should be created in a similar manner and should be kept. Plus the fact that she has a top 10 single in the charts right now, there is definitely a reason to keep this page. Paul Badillo (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point she's explicitly said she's pursuing a solo career. And her current discography with 2 gold top 20 singles is more than enough for notability per Wikipedia's musician notability guidelines. That doesn't mention her being featured in 4 American talk shows and seemingly pursuing an acting career in the future. Mathdino (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also working on a Bea Miller style X Factor table on my sandbox, along with mostly copying the One Direction bandmember's Career sections as a template for Cabello's career section. Mathdino (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has nothing to do with Fifth Harmony now. Merging her into that article is inaccurate from this point forward in her career. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's certainly the most visible and notable member of the group. Not to mention the 2 hits she's had so far and her going solo now. Enter Movie (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have stated, she has experienced some notable success as a solo artist in addition to coverage of her work as a member of Fifth Harmony. This article already has more sources than many on Wikipedia. I would think some other members of Fifth Harmony might also have received enough coverage as individuals to warrant their own articles, although that is perhaps a discussion for another time. Knope7 (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Calling this a bad faith and WP:SNOWBALL nom; subject is far notable even without being a former part of a top girl group. I had my issues with the Fifth Harmony article before they clinched their WP:N, but Ms. Cabello has far and away clinched it on her own and the article should have been allowed to break out from FH months ago. Also, no real reason for nomination presented. Nate • (chatter) 05:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to have her own article now, unlike the other members of Fifth Harmony and/or even Little Mix. MasterMind5991 (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with the point that it's like when Zayn left 1D. I think she will embark on a full solo career. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Whoever proposed merging this is ridiculous. She literally just broke off from the group (which she was the most popular member of) and has a top 10 single...BlaccCrab (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Mehta[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST Ueutyi (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a journalist that has published articles on non-notable websites; also see WP:PROMO as the article appears to be promotional in its nature Spiderone 09:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks sources about and indepent of Mehta to establish his notability, only has sources that show he exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 14:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Huerta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Has no WP:RS references. Was WP:PRODed but the prod was deleted by the original creator with zero explanation. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally proded it with the foloowing rationale: No indication of meeting notability guidelines. IMDb shows as appearing in 3 shorts - 2 of which have not been released. The "nomination" for best actress is from a non notable festival that issues monthly lists of winners and is for something that does not even make IMDb. noq (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.-Jersey92 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree regarding my inability to establish notability, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Condiment King[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't establish notability. The previous AfD was delete, but this was recreated. As far as current available sources go, the best the search has to offer are a couple "Top X" articles. While they can certainly be included in articles, that should not be enough to dedicate an entire article to a minor character. TTN (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete: While the character appears in 5 mediums (multiple comic book series, two animated series, animated film, video game, collectible miniatures game) and has been a subject in recent interviews and film trailers, I'm no longer convinced of sufficient notability. All mentions I have found are either tertiary or in passing. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appearing in a variety of media indicates, but does not establish, notability. Jtrevor99: Could you please provide the sources you're referring to so that they can be assessed? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I've changed my opinion after reviewing the first five sources I came across. All proved either to be tertiary (when they appeared at first glance to be secondary), or were no more than in-passing mentions. This character should be relegated to List of minor DC Comics characters. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect as above, unless some better sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. While I really wish this guy was notable, he's really not. The hits that come up with the various searches that are from reliable sources are just very trivial mentions, such as listing him as appearing in the Lego Batman games. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as above) lol - minor character at best. Looks like one of those silly Jack Kirby characters from his era. Not every minor character in the marvel universe can have it's own page.... - merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Coast Cricket Association[edit]

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

PROD contested on the grounds that I used the word "team" rather than association. Either way, this local cricket association is not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator implies that the contestation of the PROD was some sort of pedantic nit-picking, but it was not. The argument given was that amateur teams are not notable, but that certainly doesn't necessarily carry over to governing bodies that oversee many teams. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see related discussion about this AfD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local sports team with no significant coverage from third-party sources. Ajf773 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. gnews search is very bare. No inherent notability of sporting associations unless national or international. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIN, which sets the notability threshold for Australian clubs at grade cricket level. Granted, this is an association, but it is operating below grade cricket - i.e. the best players in the whole association will still be below grade cricket level. Professional cricket in the region is represented by the Sunshine Coast Scorchers playing in the Brisbane Grade Cricket competition. St Anselm (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sunshine Coast Scorchers per what StAnselm said. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he did not say merge. Secondly this association represents a competition. The scorchers is an actual team. LibStar (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: your source checking is sub par. The article has a link to the Association's website. The sites hompage says, in part, this "In 2015-2016 the competition comprised 62 Senior Teams and 97 Junior Teams as well as its flagship structure in the Brisbane Grade Competition, The Sunshine Coast Scorchers" [3]. There for parts of StAnselm's arguments seem to support merging the two.

I wouldn't expect you to look at the Association's competition rules but it does seem to treat the Scorchers as some form of representative club of the Association. Rule 18.3 in particular. While I'm at it Rule 9.2 of the SCCA competition rules says "Any 1st Grade Scorcher Player may return to play SCCA sanctioned matches for their nominated Club in 1st Div. and any 2nd Grade Scorcher Player may return to 2nd Div." --RockerballAustralia (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

this article i recommend getting rid of Sunshine Coast Cricket Association wikipedia article as this organization does not get much coverage Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, local sports team with no significant coverage from third-party sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, all opinions which incorrectly label the subject of this article as a "team" ought to be discounted by the closing admin as clearly they have not looked closely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is on keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McQuillin[edit]

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

No signs of this person being notable, per WP:SCHOLAR. Nothing about his research making any significant impact on further research related to his study area. Members of many geological societies, like any geologist in the UK. Almost the entire article is unsourced, including the whole section of Academic Appointments. Mymis (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few good cites on GS and prominent contribution to geophysics industry. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC),[reply]

Some contribution to societies is not enough and everything related to geophysics industry is unsourced. Mymis (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Holding a senior position in British Geological Survey should be sufficient to make him notable. I suspect sources will be readily available in Who's who. This is not an academic appointment, so that lists of scholarly publications are not to be expected. The article is probably still only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in the article proving that he had any senior positions. Mymis (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think deputy director of the BGS is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that proves it. Mymis (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like the absence of in depth coverage in reliable sources, but he seems to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC C3, as he is an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (and that is sourced) and a fellow of the Geological Society of London, both of which seem to be selective enough. Thus, notability is implied. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These societies give away "fellow" titles to hundreds of people every year, and they have like 15,000 fellows in total just for the one based in London. And let's say the article is kept, then it means that 90% of information must be removed as it is simply unsourced. I tried to look for any sources, but there are simply none to prove most of the statements. For instance, the article includes the birth date, wife's name and number of kids etc that cannot be found anywhere, suggesting that the article was written by a relative or the person himself. Mymis (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was more reliant on the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which awards ~50 fellows, with 1500 fellows in total, which is consistent with other societies considered as selective. And I am merely addressing notability (the lack of which is a reason for deletion), I am not defending unsourced information. If it has no sources, it should be removed, even if it's a stub left afterwards. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has held a number of important positions, academic appointments, written articles and books. Certainly seems notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is there are not enough notable entries existing or identified to merit a standalone list at this time. postdlf (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of nightclubs in Rome[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:LINKNO. Entire list consists of external links to night-clubs. Earlier prod contested by a plonker IP who didn't cite any reason Ajf773 (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. There are notable nightclubs in Rome, a major city. Don't let us be played into contending on the wrong material.

The deletion nominator is driven, I suspect, by the wish to address List of nightclubs in Port Harcourt and other lists related to Port Harcourt, Nigeria, that were created in 2014 and are indexed at Template:Port Harcourt lists. I have participated in some other AFDs related to Port Harcourt. Now that I see there are multiple lists of Port Harcourt things, I suggest we deal with those in a straightforward, explicit way, in one AFD about all of them (and at this point I tend to think they should all be deleted). However, let's not get played by the Port Harcourt promoter/provocateur into contesting unrelated legitimate articles started by various unrelated editors. To Ajf773, would you please withdraw this AFD nomination and start one combo AFD about the Port Harcourt items? --do ncr am 17:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire list consists of external links and serves no navigational purposes other than a directory which is what Wikipedia is not. None of these list entries have any evidence of any sort that they are notable. I will not withdrawing the AFDs. Whether they are separate AFDs or in a bundle makes no difference to me. You can add your comments to the concerning AFD consensus just like everyone else has to. Ajf773 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two seconds googling "nightlife in Rome" or "nightclubs in Rome" yields multiple guidebook-type lists, e.g. this Rome Escape one. In fact surely there is a section in every guidebook to Italy about it. The topic of "nightclubs in Rome" has been written about, plenty, so IMO this AFD is dumb. --do ncr am 05:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'source' you listed appears to be self-published. Anyone can come up with a bunch of fluff from a Google search, and bombard an AFD pretending a stand-alone list passes WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. However if you read the original reasons why I nominated the article for deletion, it is more than just verifying notability. It also fails a large number of policies under what Wikipedia is not. I can also add WP:NOTLINKFARM to the list. Ajf773 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As at related AFD about nightclubs in Sweden, the deletion nominator seems to fail to understand that wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --do ncr am 17:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is for DELETION. Not only cleanup. As if I have not made myself clear enough. Ajf773 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the deletion nominator requests deletion for "reasons" that IMO could possibly justify tagging for cleanup, but which are not reasons for deletion. However, consulting the nominator's "reasons" WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NOTYELLOW, I see that they do not actually apply, so I would not tag the article with links to them, either. Most current items in the list are presented as external link to individual nightclub webpages (either current or former or webpages under construction); this is easily dealt with by editing and does not require the attention of dozens of AFD editors whose attention is brought here. --do ncr am 01:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN also. There is NOTHING notable about a list of external links pertaining to be a business directory. External links to primary sources are not the same as articles, hence no evidence notability. Removing every list entry (which is what will be happening if this article is kept) ends up an empty list. There is another AFD currently in process (not nominated by me) that I see you haven't added your strong keep commments to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of night clubs in Lagos

Delete per WP:NOTLINKFARM and several other policies already mentioned in the nom Spiderone 17:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a bit at the article, including a Telegraph source about nightlife in Rome. I don't know about nightlife in Lagos, Nigeria, but hey, Rome's nightlife is famous on a world-wide level. Recall that Audrey Hepburn had such a great time going out there that she named it her favorite city. :) The standard for articles here is that the topic need to be notable, covered in reliable sources, which this is. If you dislike the article, add a negative tag or two (of which there are none currently), but this is not for AFD. --do ncr am 13:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still appears promotional. Converting the external links to references which doesn't offer inherited notability to any of the list entries. And BTW the result of the AFD for Lagos was delete Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duh. I did not say that I obtained reliable sources establishing the article-level notability or even the list-item notability of the nightclubs currently listed. I'll repeat my main assertion, which is what is relevant to the AFD: the general topic of nightclubs in Rome is Wikipedia-notable. This can be established by:

A) Someone providing reliable sources discussing the topic of nightclubs in Rome

B) Existence of multiple articles on individual nightclubs in Rome, which obviously can be listed in a list-article (and categorized, and put into a navigation template if anyone wants to)

C) Reasoning on our own that the topic is notable, because "it is obvious" or more specific assertions: "I know that there are many reliable guidebooks to Rome, and many of them have sections on nightclubs" or "I know that nightclubs in Rome have been depicted in paintings, mentioned in songs, seen in movies, covered in news", etc. None of this requires that a list-article be limited to a mere directory with telephone numbers. Imagine instead a wonderful encyclopedic list, with illustrations and learned discussion and great references.

At least C applies already, and is enough to establish that this AFD should be closed Keep, IMO.

I will taper off in replying to comments. To the deletion-nominator: I get it already that you hate everything about this topic, you don't need to repeat yourself... see if you can refrain from commenting on every single vote or comment by anyone else. :) --do ncr am 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one of the entries even has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is not notable as this article is basically a list of bars.--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WCF Wrestling[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 10:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in fact A7 and WP:NOT also applies since this only exists as a listing, enough said. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found...literally nothing besides social media. Exactly zero news coverage. Agree that it is eligible under no credible claim. I have nominated for A7. TimothyJosephWood 18:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darrick Angelone[edit]

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

Non notable lawyer trying to be a producer. He lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing good for notability. (This is part of a promo campaign on Wikipedia connectected to Jacky Jasper, an article previously spammed here by User:Darrick122). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BIO and good old GNG. Associate producer of a moderately successful movie with a $900,000 budget and executive producer of a non-charting album doesn't get it done. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing but named mentions or others and none of that amounts to substance at all, given the fact that's all this article cites. SwisterTwister talk 01:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ehrlichman[edit]

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

Non notable individual. He lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Independent sourcing is about the companies, not him. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a few sources from the Google News link atop this discussion; more are available.North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Meet USA TODAY's Entrepreneur of the Year". USA Today.
"Porch CEO on rough year: 'We got distracted'". USA Today.
"Matt Ehrlichman Sold His First Startup At Age 28 For $60 Million, And Now He's Back With Porch.com". Business Insider.

Delete as links above are simply published and republished PR, announcements and interviews and we'd be damned as an encyclopedia if we started accepting such advertising, against policies. SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Thomas (producer)[edit]

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

Non notable individual. He lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primarily him talking about himself, not independent. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violating our policies since this is clearly formatted as his own PR listing, sufficient in any case of deletion, regardless of what else could be said. SwisterTwister talk 01:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus. AfD is better than speedy for these in one respect : it lets us use G5 for recreation. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Finlay Jr.[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Speaking as someone browsing Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling, I'm looking at well over a dozen AFDs which are not only nearly identical, but initiated by the same editor for the exact same reason. If these articles are the product of sockpuppetry, then surely there must be a better process for that than a process such as AFD, which presumes that each little piece should be treated as if it exists in a vacuum. I'm not sure I want to offer !votes on every single last one. Many of them concern an effort to expand our coverage of notable wrestling promotions, which in past AFDs has been viewed as a rationale to !vote keep. From reading this particular article, I see a featured performer for a major wrestling promotion, which has also been seen as a rationale for keeping in the past. The main problem I saw in browsing a few of these articles was in the choice of sourcing. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response I appreciate your concerns. Numerous articles were created by a blocked, sock-puppet account with much the same content. I proposed each one using AfD, not Speedy Deletion, as I felt this was the best way for those with a knowledge in this area to discuss the articles' merits. If there is a better way to propose a suite of dubious articles, I am willing to learn the process. I can only offer a view on notability as a non-wrestling expert. I arrived at these articles doing standard spell-check processes. I have no axe to grind about wrestling. But you must allow me to use cut/paste for my reasons for AfD as so many were themselves repetitive, unsubstantiated, not WP:GNG and promotional in my assessment. However, I can assure you that I checked out each reference link before proposing each article. Where others appeared to have independant, supportive citations from the sock-puppet account, I did not propose them for deletion.Parkywiki (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for wrestlers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a wrestler in a major wrestling promotion and is now holding the NEVER 6-Man Openwight Championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.236.58.152 (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — 193.236.58.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - The wrestler holds a championship in the world's second largest promotion and appears on internationally-broadcast pay-per-views. 88.145.196.147 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that there's no evidence that this is a promotional article. The nominator appears to have carelessly nominated multiple articles for deletion using copy-and-pasted rationale. 88.145.196.147 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Response to comments by 88.145.196.147 and 193.236.58.152 My cut/paste approach to innumerable, near-identical and unreferenced WP:AfD articles by the same user has actually been criticised by Huon as being unnecessary, and that speedy deletion would have been more appropriate under WP:G5 for articles created by a user who has had at least 60 sock puppet accounts identified. (I note that comments recommending retention of this article have been made by two new anonymous users, both with no contributions to any other topics outside this arena.) Parkywiki (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Back when he first won the NEVER title, I actually tried to create this article, but had to abandon it because there simply is not enough material on him in reliable sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 06:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). The "keep" !vote does not offer a policy-based rationale either. Huon (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Drunkers[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. Another short-lived group. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be keep they won the Open the triangle gate champions and every information is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.236.58.152 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — 193.236.58.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Actually, "every information" is not needed. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus. AfD is better than speedy for these in one respect : it lets us use G5 for recreation. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Halubets[edit]

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

This article should be deleted for failing WP:BASIC, and per the outcome of the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iurie Emilian.

I trust we can agree to the following: being "an elected volunteer member of the Eurasia Regional Scout Committee of the World Organization of the Scout Movement" does not confer any sort of notability, absent "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-at least 4 people disagreed with you last time, so no, we don't all agree with you, and again I point out your bad faith. I already knew you were lazy, failing even to split the two last nominations into sections, and I already knew you were dirty, based on your red herrings, even if your understanding of notability is thorough, but failing six times to warn the author (prod and afd), and your smug, gloating edit summaries, [4] are too much. I deny your competence as a Wikipedian and cast aspersions on your homepage tag that you are somehow "trying to spread peace." I call bullshit. People who lie are liars.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top of that you're a troll [5]. Bring it to an admin, I dare you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to establish notability. Calling people "trolls" is not generally considered behavior acceptable on Wikipedia and I would ask Kinetetsubuffalo to refrain from such personal attacks on other editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is trolling generally considered behavior acceptable on Wikipedia? Have you even looked at the diffs? Didn't think so.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Kintetsubuffalo. --evrik ^(talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Said "rationales" happen to entirely avoid addressing WP:BASIC, fulfilling which is sort of a basic (heh) requirement for biographies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is not going to be saved by hurling insults and abuse, but by demonstrating that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Anything else is just a distraction. Furthermore, as WP:NPA admonishes, "comment on content, not on the contributor". (And yes, stuff like this surely crosses the line from a CIV matter to an NPA one.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wish both sides of this discussion would calm down. Kintetsubuffalo please address the issues and not attack other editors. Biruitorul, have you seriously looked for sources? We are all volunteers. We build articles slowly. This article and the others you nominated are quite new. The World Organization of the Scout Movement is an important body and people associated with it and its continental regions are likely to be noticed in the press fairly frequently as time goes on. Many of those notices may not be in English. I think this nomination should be withdrawn to give editors time to look for sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion runs for a week. If someone adduces evidence that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", of course I shall withdraw. Until then, the burden of proving notability rests on the "keep" voters. And remember, we need actual sources, not airy suppositions about what is "likely to be noticed in the press fairly frequently as time goes on" (a formulation that smacks of crystal balling). - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - and replying to pretty well every comment is not appropriate! It smacks of bullying. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)--Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything that isn't from the official scout site or a Wikipedia mirror. It actually may qualify for A7. Also, for the record, WP:FUCKYOUKEEP doesn't appear to redirect to WP:ADHOM, but maybe it should. Also, for the record, some people in the conversation probably need to go the hell outside and cool their jets for a while before things escalate further than they already have. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fairly clear failure of GNG. The Cyrillic name generates zero Google hits outside of WP and a mirror, the sources showing are inadequate for a GNG pass, and I'm not seeing anything for the Latin name either. The elected position falls far short of the WP:POLITICIAN SNG. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zapeando[edit]

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

Seems very much like a paid advertisement created by an editor on his very first edit (Too good to be a first edit!). Articles covering looks very much likely to be taken from press releases. Mr RD 18:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not paid advertisement at all, I am just a fan of the program. I usually work on Spanish wikipedia and I saw that other related programmes were in the English one (Sé lo que hicisteis... or El Intermedio) so I thought it will be useful to translate this article into English - I had already translated it into Catalan too. I have only found one reason to delete it: the program is not widely known out of Spain. --Jorgemg14 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A television program with over 500,000 viewers is notable if the article is accurate. Being internationally known isn't a requirement. Hang googles (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The program has been nominated for several awards, see "Zapeando#Premios" in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userify. Will userify to User:TCMemoire/Bloomington, South Dakota after close; this article should not be returned to the mainspace without additional sources being added. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomington, South Dakota[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. The two sources are unreliable and no other source for the one-time existence or destruction of this town seems to exist. GNIS shows a Bloomington locale in South Dakota, but in Charles Mix County, not Clay County. In addition, Route 77 (off of which the sources claim the ghost town lies) hasn't existed in South Dakota since it was replaced by Interstate 29 in the 1960s. Brycehughes (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Apparently I made this article, although I have no recollection of doing so...) Now that I live closer to the site of the town, I could probably find better, book sources for it; but I won't be able to do so until January as I'm away. I'm seeing more results of mentions of it in other sources, but none of them particularly reliable. I'm seeing some books in my library database that could be helpful. – T C Memoire 23:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If TCMemoire is interested in attempting to add improved refs at a later date, then the best solution would be to userfy the article in anticipation of that happening (assuming no suitable sources are found prior to the conclusion of the AFD discussion). This would preserve the article's history and text. Inclusion of reliably-sourced information not easily found in existing internet sources is something that should be encouraged. Antepenultimate (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (as nom) with userfy suggestion, given TCMemoire's consent. Brycehughes (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am willing userfy and source at a later date. – T C Memoire 06:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral but perhaps this can be figured out. It seems to have been a real town and pass WP:V. This book about prohibition in South Dakota describes it as a "frontier town" that apparently even had its own church. There are references to a Bloomington in this book about the history of South Dakota. References in this book too. The reason I didn't vote "keep" is these sources seem to indicate the town was far west of the location indicted in the article, more near Platte. There doesn't seem to be a definitive history of this town seemingly available online. Perhaps non-online sources have more. --Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Bloomington in Charles Mix County (see here), where Platte is located, and not the subject to the article, which was supposedly in Clay County. There is plenty of evidence for the Charles Mix County Bloomington, but seemingly none verifiable for the Bloomington under discussion here. Brycehughes (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One on FOX[edit]

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

Not enough independent notability. Moreover, we don't have articles on every country's tv coveraged of Formula One, simply because there are so many of them.T v x1 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC) T v x1 02:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been improve and will have improvements during the year.Rowde (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would have to agree per nom, in many countries there are multiple channels which currently, or have in the past, broadcast coverage of Formula One. To create an article for each and every one, detailing race broadcasts is excessive. Also borders on WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Eagleash (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This information should be in the List of Formula One broadcasters page Seasider91 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navaneetha Krishnan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Last deletion discussion was not properly done as the editors voting keep was doing it casually without citing any policies or rules to back their vote. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Non-notable entrepreneur and page appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, yes fails GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Shesh[edit]

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

No sources show that he had written as the count shows in the article. Not much in the searches. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. First, the nom does not make any argument for deletion, just that the factual content of the article may be a problem - and while I cannot verify the 10 novels, the cited source does confirm 22 plays. Second, subject seems notable (in-depth coverage, won some awards). At most, I can see this tagged with {{verification failed}}, but deletion discussion is the wrong venue. I recommend speedy keep since the nominator did not make any valid arguments for deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Just because the nominator does not know the writer in question, does not mean the article is deleteworthy. Nominator must come up with a proof that the writer is not a known figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youth and Environment Europe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria for WP:NONPROFIT. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first glance and reading through the article, I would've said keep. There are a severe lack of sources (I can't find any on Google that would be suitable). For that, it doesn't meet the criteria and therefore, I'm voting delete. st170e^talk 00:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Rock art lab[edit]

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

Non-notable art collective lacking non-trivial support. Association "with a with notable band" does not support inclusion since WP:N is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails just about every notability criterion, especially WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Nobody has ever published anything of significance about this group. Mduvekot (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above - checked references, nothing notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Day (2005 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. All the sources mentioned are websites considered as blogs by WP:ICTF. Searching also does not offer any better sources Jupitus Smart 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the movie is clearly non-notable. I could only find two reliable sources – 1 & 2 – both of which give a passing mention of it. In fact, both of these sources are focussing on this movie's actress - Disha Dinakar. Her article is also up for deletion. We cannot redirect it anywhere, as it's a wrong title. It should have been titled as One Day (2015 film). BTW, this movie's article has been proded before. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's hard to find sources because of the other films that exist with the same title; that being said, the onus is on proving notability and no evidence of this can be found Spiderone 09:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I don't believe the nom has given any reasoning for the opening of this deletion discussion. For that reason, I'm going to close it as Keep rather than relist. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Coté[edit]

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

Reason Rockstar85* (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMOTION

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No real reason for deletion presented, and a literal drive-by nomination as nom's only edits have been to post this nomination. No prejudice to a re-nomination if an actual reasoning is presented. Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Lee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lee was Miss Nevada in 2011. Being Miss Nevada is not enough on its own to establish notability. The sources here are weak. The one from the Las Vegas Review Journal that looks to be a good coverage of her time as Miss Nevada was written by her. Others are from PR newswire and other non-indepdent sources. The coverage is just for the one event of being a beauty pageant winner. My search on google came up with no additional sources that would be helpful toward establishing notability. Just a few more blog postings and a Linkedin page. The previous two nominations were about a totally different Alana Lee. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, I was unable to find sufficient content to establish notability or expand the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are sources from the article, the last four just added:

Lee, Alana (July 2, 2011). "My year representing Nevada in the Miss America Pageant". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved October 25, 2012.
Johnson, Steve (July 5, 2011). "Dixie State College Senior Alana Lee Crowned Miss Nevada July 2nd". KCSG. Retrieved October 25, 2012.
Leach, Robin (January 11, 2012). "Miss Nevada Alana Lee: Miss America Pageant 'a phenomenal experience'". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved October 25, 2012.
"Heartbreak and joy as 2012 Miss America Pageant hopefuls arrive in L.V." Las Vegas Sun. January 4, 2012. Retrieved 2013-04-04. The 22-year-old Mojave High School graduate was in the Top 5 Female Students of the Year and made the dean's list when she graduated last spring from Dixie State College magna cum laude with an associate degree. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Miss Nevada relatively new to pageants". Las Vegas Review-Journal. January 10, 2012. Retrieved 2016-12-20. ...her bedroom boasts not one, but three pictures of Jesus Christ. She's a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Her father, state Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, nudged her into her first pageant at Dixie State College in St. George, Utah.
Amy Gardner; Karen Tumulty (October 17, 2011). "Miss Nevada outshines Romney (staff blog)". Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-12-20. Mitt Romney wasn't the big star at a campaign rally under a blazing Nevada sun at an office park a few miles off the Las Vegas strip.... No, the glamour emanated from Alana Lee, Miss Nevada 2011, who worked the packed suburban parking lot like a - well, like a candidate for president.... Lee will also lead the Pledge of Allegiance in advance of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate...at the Venetian casino on the Las Vegas strip
"Dixie State College Senior, Alana Lee, Crowned Miss Nevada". St. George News. July 6, 2011. Retrieved 2016-12-20. In her new role as Miss Nevada 2011, Lee will spend the next year traveling the state to promote her personal platform of patriotism.

Some of the things I found were that the previous AfDs were for someone else. Next, Lee's father has a Wikipedia article, which I have noted in the Alana Lee article by adding a See also. Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO#1 for notability. The remedy for editors who believe that this topic fails our notability guideline is to merge the reliable material as a mini-bio to a suitable target article such as Miss Nevada. Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above assertions are just plain false. This does not meet GNG. The coverage fails under the one event test. It does not meet any bio. Even unscintillating does not believe we should have a stand alone article. To do anything but delete undermines the Wikipedia project and the need to have high quality articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Telling me what I believe is called WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a state-level pageant win hardly qualifies as WP:ANYBIO#1, as multiple past AfDs have abundantly demonstrated. The GNG is not met as the sources are all local and coverage is routine, as in "local person gets award". Nothing else stands out about this contestant, and in such case, article on state winners are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nevada seems to be one of the more-prominent state pageants given the presence of Robin Leach in the Las Vegas news industry, so the claim that Miss Nevada is "hardly" well-known and significant doesn't seem to have a foundation.
If past AfDs are not based on policy, they are simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
WP:GNG is based on the presence of reliable sources, and says nothing about local/routine sources. "Local sources" is a concept in WP:AUD in WP:CORPORATION, and "routine sources" is a concept in WP:EVENT. This argument seems to require that Alana Lee is both a corporation and an event. The "all sources are local" argument looks out of place, as it is not reasonable to argue that St. George, Utah [123 miles (198 km)] and Washington, DC [2,085 miles (3,355 km)] are local to Las Vegas.
The argument that this is an event seems also to be without a foundation as more than one reference above shows that her reign lasted a year.
Finally, editors for whom non-notability is a concern can volunteer to do the work to merge the reliable material to a suitable target such as Miss Nevada. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no worthwhile reliable material beyond the fact that she won and other minimal information already available at the Miss Nevada page. There is no need for a merger, there is a need to delete with all possible speed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the applicable policy for the situation from the viewpoint stated? Is it deletion? (See WP:ATD.) Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that Miss Nevada is special is simply junk, the type of juhnk unscintilating is spewing is these discussions. He wants to plead that every Miss some state is notable, and then make special pleadings for some. Well his argument is rubbish. No Miss some state pageants are notable to in and of themselves establish notability for the winners, none. It does not rise to a level to pass any bio on its own. This was clearly shown by the actual comments to the RfC on pageant winners back in August, and is being shown by the current one. Winning a state pageant is not enough on its own, and nothing else here is enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ATD is not "junk" and "rubbish", it is it a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". There is no WP:IAR argument that beauty pageants are a threat to the encylopedia that they should be WP:IAR deleted outside of WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss America may qualify under ANYBIO1, but not state-level wins. The sources bear this out. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Miss America "may qualify under ANYBIO1", which means the argument is based on not knowing if Miss America is a well-known and significant award. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss America award is "well-known" but whether or not it's "significant" is open to debate :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts have just said that sources show that Miss Nevada is either not well known or not significant or both, while the significance of Miss America is in doubt. What are these sources, and how do they show this? Unless you are arguing that significance has changed, do these sources cover the period from 1960–1980? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coment Of the sources listed, only the Washington Post might come close to adding towards GNG. However that is only one source, not multiple like needed to pass GNG. Anyway this is really just routine coverage of the comings and goings during an election, not significant coverage of Lee herself. There is just not enough here to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Passing notice from one paper at one event during a persidential campaign is not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. This comes under Wikipedia not being a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG only requires coverage that is not trivial, such as coverage more than is in phone directories. It doesn't need to be entire articles. There has to be enough non-trivial coverage for it to be significant, which is generally understood as "two good articles". Claiming that the sources here don't pass GNG reduces Wikipedia notability to opinions by self-selected editors who are not bound by metrics. (Or perhaps you have some metrics of which I'm not aware.)
Nor given the policy [[WP:ATD}] is Wikipedia notability the core issue here, because the remedy for non-notability is exactly what your post says you want, which is to not have a standalone "encyclopedia article" on the topic. In effect, the core issue becomes, "If non-notability is an issue, who is volunteering to do the work to merge the material?" The argument for deletion is then the WP:IAR argument, "Since editors are writing standalone articles instead of mini-bios in suitable target topics, the community has the right to intervene and destroy their work." Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Nevada, which is my standard view of what should be done with non-notable pageant winners who nonetheless won notable pageants. Redirects are cheap, and it is possible someone could search for the woman. I don't think there is much material worth merging, but if there is, it can be done after the redirect since the page history is intact. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as it's clear she's not independently notable and as such is not convincing for a saved article, we've established these cases as it is and there's simply nothing else to suggest this is an exception to the numerous others. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and Salt. This subject has already been deleted at AfD twice. Enough already. National Miss America is inherently notable, state level pageant winners are not. Coverage is ordinary news reportage akin to local coverage of city council politicians, etc. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, as I said at the close of the nomination "the previous two nominations were about a totally different Alana Lee".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And I said the equivalent thing in a post above, "...the previous AfDs were for someone else." Unscintillating (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carrite: As for "local coverage of city council politicians", why does the first page of ghits for ["alana lee" -site:.com -site:.edu -site:.org "Miss Nevada"] include URLs from

Canada,
Montenegro,
New Zealand,
Ireland,
Australia,
United Kingdom, and
India?

Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The given sources, both in the article as added to since this AfD started and in this discussion itself, are unpersuasive for establishing notability under WP:GNG. Where there is significant coverage, it is either not independent (e.g., Las Vegas Sun articles) or not reliable (e.g., blogs and social media). Where it is independent and reliable coverage, it is not significant (e.g., the Washington Post blog article). Nothing satisfies all three prongs of WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (1) Las Vegas Sun satisfies the requirements of independence of WP:GNG. (2) The Washington Post staff blog satisfies the requires of non-trivial (substantial) coverage of WP:GNG. (3) This !vote asserts that the topic is non-notable, without making an argument for deletion that includes WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, so does not attempt a deletion argument. Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is making an explicit WP:ATD consideration a requirement for a contribution to AfD discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show she is notable enough on her own. Eggishorn's comments pretty much sum it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State level pagent winner isn't inherently notable and there isn't enough significant coverage to make up for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parnia Porsche[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Db-repost was declined since article was different from previously deleted but the issues discussed in the first AfD have not been resolved. Minor additional fight aside the subject does not come any closer to meeting WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that she fails notability as a boxer, but she has notability as model. If the article doesn't give importance to her modelling career, the article should be deleted. Non-notable boxer, notable model. 1, 2, 3, 4. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also the previous nomination had votes by sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Three out of four of those sources are related to single incident where she was thrown out of the Candy Shop mansion. It was news because of the mansion, not so much her. Still is an unnotable boxer as well.

PS last AFD only had one sockpuppet. Mdtemp was wrongfully blocked and Papaursa has done nothing. Just thought I would add that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't vote at the previous discussion, but I don't see anything new that increases her notability as a model and no one is arguing she's a notable boxer. Papaursa (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merging was only recently suggested as a potential alternative to deletion, but I'm loathe to relist this discussion a third time, and consensus seems clear that the subject lacks independent notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Kelly Price[edit]

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

Price's work just does not meet any of our metrics for notability of an artist. The Ensign article I dug up really is mainly using his work to narrate a story. There is a level where telling history through paintings can make one notable, but there is no indication that any of Price's work rises to that level. We would need lots of sources referencing his work and its impact, and we do not have such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The artist's name has been spelled incorrectly in the article since its creation in 2009 (it was/is spelled incorrectly in some sources). I just moved it to Clark Kelley Price. So please also try:

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

--do ncr am 21:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the one museum listed could be convincing but I have questions about the ingenuity about it, and there's simply nothing else beyond it for otherwise better, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Poorly cited due to heavy self-publishing and primary sources. Questionable notability. Deaddebate (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (was "Keep", see my comments below) Keep for several reasons:

Searching for sources under the correct spelling yields this review in Western Horseman, a not-yet-noticed solid source
Scottsdale Independent article that gives info on the Cowboy Artists of America, as does http://cowboyartistsofamerica.com/...it is a private club, perhaps all white men in fact judging by group photos and names of members, that is apparently selective. I would not suggest all members are Wikipedia-notable, but membership is something; I might wonder why a cowboy artist is NOT a member.
An award: the Cowboy Artists of America bio states "Clark has twice been selected for the Arts for the Parks Top 100 in Jackson, Wyoming, winning the historical award one year."
When the article was started in 2009 (by the deletion nominator in fact), the artist seemed notable based on then-fresh publication of the Deseret News article which is still good coverage; notability is not temporary.

--do ncr am 22:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "perhaps all white men" is needless racist grandstanding. You can not tell peoples races from pictures, I am insulted that anyone would attempt to in this day and age. I have a friend who carries his birth certificate so people do not falsely class him as white when he is black. Unless you have real evidence a group excludes based on race lines like "perhaps all white men" are unneccesarily racially inflamatory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "racist grandstanding" is, or whether I did it, but point taken about telling people's races from their group photos of members. Sorry about that. Perhaps they discriminate based on hat ownership, though. :) Hey, what I wrote came out that way because I was being defensive about the CKP's membership in the club as supporting his notability. I do think it supports his notability. However I am uncomfortable in general with using club membership as an indicator of importance. I happen to have created or edited several hundred wikipedia articles and list-articles about clubs/clubhouses (e.g. Masonic Lodges, Elks lodges, and individual elite businessmen's clubs, and women's clubs too, starting with many whose buildings are listed on the National Register). There are aspects of Wikipedia coverage of clubs that should make us uncomfortable, in terms of which clubs get covered and why we should be in the role of sort of promoting them. So anyhow I was sort of trying to pre-empt criticism of my making anything much of the cowboy artists club by myself pointing out (erroneously as you note) something I anticipated might come across as negative about it. I really know nothing about it at all, and I should not have gone that way, I'm sorry. --do ncr am 19:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was wondering if I should after all create a "Cowboy Artists of America" article, which could perhaps list the member artists, and I just find that it exists: Cowboy Artists of America. I will add CKP's name there and develop it a bit, despite my general misgivings about clubs.

Merging this CKP article to Cowboy Artists of America#Clark Kelley Price is an option, leaving a redirect behind, allowing this article to be recreated without loss of edit history, if/when there are more sources explicitly about this artist. Merging is superior to Deletion. In general we should look for good wp:ATD Alternatives to Deletion, and I think merging this works. Table rows there can hold content including sources about each artist. --do ncr am 19:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Paintings in a history museum are not necessarily there because of the quality of the art. Based on reading it, the nature of the deseret news article is clearly propagandistic, not objective. Our standards have generally risen since 2009, and in particular we are more consistent about artists. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG's reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:DGG's "!vote" was before merging/redirecting to Cowboy Artists of America#Clark Kelley Price was suggested and somewhat developed as an option by me. --do ncr am 01:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Micaela Hierro Dori[edit]

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

I do not see any elements of notability here: she has been head of a number of apparently non-notable youth groups, and runs a blog. . There is no corresponding article in the Spanish WP. No significant publications DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desynchronized[edit]

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

Zero notability, plain and simple. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSONG, WP:GNG - Notability is not inherited. Even though the musician is notable, this does not mean the single is. I could not find multiple neutral secundary sources. A google search for newsitems gave only 1 result about a lawsuit. As such it fails WP:GNG. It did not comply with any of the three criteria at WP:NSONG. - Taketa (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playbak Magazine[edit]

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

I would quite honestly suggest we have an unspecified paid advertisement here because the author has avidly removed any attempts of changes, including the last attempt of 2 for dele, I still confirm my PROD as it in fact also suggested advertising motivations. WP:NOT explicitly allows removal of such blatancy and there's no questions about it. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A previous version with a different title (Playbak) was deleted as spam (G11). The current version does not qualify under G11, though. However, looking at the sources we have ref. 1 which looks like it's a press release, ref. 2 which is about the magazine's founder and only mentions it in-passing, and ref 3. which is just a newsfeed. The external links are inappropriate links to the magazine's Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts, a link to a YouTube video (not a reliable source), a photo of unclear relevance where Playbak is mentioned, a link to someone's personal website where the magazine is mentioned in-passing, and a link to a site offering the magazine for sale. In short, not a single one of these references provides the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is needed to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per G5, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr. GAB^gab 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Institute for Administrative Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N at this time. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [6]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Kasner[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:NOTINHERITED/WP:BIO1E case. The only (and only fairly minor) coverage of him in the news media is in relation to him being the brother of Angela Merkel. His citability in GScholar is pretty low and he does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF on his own. A PROD was declined by the article's creator, so I am bringing this to the AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe he is sufficiently notable as an academic with a Habilitation++ who is included in Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender (encyclopedia of German scientists); the fact that he is the subject of some additional coverage in relation to being the only brother of Angela Merkel, Europe's most important leader, also adds to his notability, but is not the sole reason for it. He is also of some historical interest due to his role within the opposition in the late 1980s in the same small circle that his sister started her political career in, and in the events leading to the German reunification.

In any event, he is at least as notable as Maya Soetoro-Ng (Obama's half-sister who is described as a former high school history teacher and who certainly doesn't have a career that would merit a biography here), Lolo Soetoro, Sarah Onyango Obama, Zeituni Onyango, Marian Shields Robinson, Capers Funnye (who seems to owe his biography only to the fact that he is a first cousin once removed of Michelle Obama) etc. etc. --Tataral (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a second doctoral degree, such as habilitation in the German and French system, or D.Sc. in the Russian system, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF. I could not quite figure out what Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender is. It is possible that it lists all German scientists with a habilitation degree or a Professor appointment in Europe, in which case it is closer to a WP:DIRECTORY type publication and would not be indicative of academic notability. If it more selective than that, then it would be a good and solid source for Kasner, but it is still just once source. Not enough, IMO, to establish his notability per either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Now, regarding your comparisons of Kasner with the other people you list. The original reason that the news media became interested in them may have been their association with more famous people, but these individuals themselves received specific and detailed coverage. For example, Capers Funnye has been the subject of two profiles in NYT [7] and [8], an article in 'Forward' [9], an interview by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum [10], etc. There are no examples of comparable in-depth detailed specific coverage for Kasner. All we have for him are a few brief mentions in the news-media, in stories about Merkel (at least as far as I can tell). Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why a relatively brief article in a highly obscure publication such as forward.com should be a better indication of notability (for a guy leading a congregation of 200 people) than this interview[11] with Kasner in Die Tageszeitung. In fact, I see nothing in those other articles which demonstrate any greater notability than Kasner, rather the opposite. In my opinion, it is especially the combination of Kasner's academic career, the coverage of him in relation to being Merkel's brother, and his early political activism during the revolutions of 1989 (in the same small circle in which Merkel started her political career), that makes him notable. --Tataral (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tataral (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the above discussion (WP:OSE makes a lot of it irrelevant), it's pretty clear this BLP fails WP:PROF. Doing postdoctoral work and having a few publications is pretty far from the notability bar. The only claim to fame is being the brother of Angela Merkel, and that's already mentioned at her article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merckel. No pass of WP:Prof yet, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- An article doesn't need to pass WP:PROF when it already passes WP:GNG and when the subject isn't exclusively notable for his scientific work. I dare say that Maya Soetoro-Ng, the high school teacher and current Faculty Specialist of Community Outreach at the Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace & Conflict Resolution (which seems fairly obscure), and the other countless articles on relatives of prominent US politicians, don't pass WP:PROF either. --Tataral (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not pass WP:GNG either. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:PROF. I am not seeing coverage that would help with GNG. Which source discusses him in-depth? Kürschners Deutscher Gelehrten-Kalender could be the article's saving grace as a rule of thumb we consider people who are written in other encyclopedias notable, but could someone outside the article's creator confirm it is a reliable source? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. - Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the obvious solution in our policies given that's what the article itself starts with "Known for Angela Merkel", case closed for any independent substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have done anything significant outside of being a family member of someone significant, which isn't enough for notability. South Nashua (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Molinari[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is unsourced, and I can't find anything really mentioning the character, aside from the novels themselves. If someone were to create a list article for Godfather characters, and added this one to it, I would not be opposed, assuming they were also able to find at least some sort of third party source to support the information, but there's no real way this character will be able to support an article of its own. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may kiss the bride[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced, only 2 of the 9 sources/external links are reliable-ish; the rest are Facebook, Twitter, and iTunes links. I can't find any available online sources, but maybe someone who speaks Turkish can. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - people need to read a few manual of styles tbh.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs TNT. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally nothing but their own websites cited, which is deleteable alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Afuni[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and I'm failing to find reliable online sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear WP:NOT material given only his websites are offered as information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruiser (band)[edit]

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

Can find only one source on ITunes, and it does not list any hits, top concerts, etc. Does not meet notability requirement for Media and Music. Rogermx (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:BAND.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of CHUM number-one singles of 1985[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. These are number-one singles lists for the local charts on a single local radio station in a single media market. For Canada we do permit the CHUM Charts to be listed up to 1964 — no official national charts existed in that era, but CHUM's local chart did hold special status over all other local Top 40 charts as the de facto national chart. As soon as RPM launched in 1964, however, CHUM no longer had any special status as anything more than a single-station chart of the type we don't compile or maintain for any other single station. We keep lists of this type for national charts, not single-station local ones, so the CHUM Chart is not encyclopedically relevant, and has no special notability claim, anytime after RPM took away its nationalized status. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Two years ago you had obviously a slightly different view. Your reply on "RPM took over by mid 1964,possibly lost notability then." was "nope; the chart's entire history is notable enough for our purposes". You contributed yourself in creating the 1986 list. What happened to change your mind? Giovanni-PSV (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years? According to the edit history, any contributions I made to the 1986 list were ten years ago rather than just two. And, for the record, 1965 and 1986 are the only two of these lists that existed at all before 2016 — all of the others were created only this year, precisely because the rule changes I'm talking about here took away the rationale for anybody actually creating them until somebody who didn't understand the reasons why they didn't exist misidentified them as "missing" articles rather than ineligible ones.

The reality is that a lot of our rules and standards have changed significantly over the years — in 2006, we were allowed to create and maintain lists for, and ascribe WP:NMUSIC #2 notability to a musician or band on the basis of, any record chart whose content and history it actually remained possible for us to verify. The rule has been tightened up since then, however, as the old standards proved too open to abuse and manipulation, and we are now restricted to IFPI-certified national pop charts that pass WP:CHARTS, and not single-station local ones anymore.

We used to accept a lot of things that we simply don't accept as notable anymore — Wikipedia's rules about what is acceptable content have changed, and even if these lists were once acceptable under the rules that pertained at that time they aren't acceptable under the rules that pertain now. I've even supported the deletion (sometimes even nominating it myself) of stuff I was the actual creator of, which may have been acceptable under our old rules but became unsupportable as the rules tightened up, so the fact that I merely contributed to a page in the past does not mean that I do (or that I have to) unconditionally support it in perpetuity regardless of the rule changes that have taken place around it since then. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to offend you; I merely wanted to understand your motivation. Please feel free also to propose List of CHUM number-one singles of 1984 for deletion, created by "somebody" who did it assuming good faith.

As a consequence, 1) the CHUM chart should be listed as a deprecated chart for entries after 1964 and 2) all references to the chart should be removed in every article on this basis. Giovanni-PSV (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's comment. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale laid out above. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One weakly notable film does not imply the film-maker is notable. The argument that he has worked with notable people is of course irrelevant. nj.org as the state government site is advocacy for the state, not reporting. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cerrito III[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC/WP:ENT with no in-depth secondary sources, just a lot of WP:NEWSPRIMARY local interviews, and blog reviews of his films. Looks a lot like the work of a single COI editor, with User:MikePlant1 spending two years doing nothing but studiously promoting Cerrito before trashing this article with four bizarrely abusive edits (perhaps the result of an account being hacked, or a paid editor not being paid?) and being indef blocked. McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- after google search there is plenty of articles on this person. Also, NJ.com is not a local interview, it is New Jersey's website. He has done some notable work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.210.235 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NJ.com "Woodstown High School graduate Mario Cerrito is realizing his dream as a writer/producer" seems an unremarkable local-boy-done-good WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview. The other articles are similar in tone, and simply repeat interview quotes at face value. --McGeddon (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention page has had numerous edits by editors and already patrolled by Postcard Cathy almost two years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.210.235 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few. 1.)http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_filmmaker_to_release_thriller_deadly_gamble.html

2.) extremely popular poker website and magazine- http://www.allinmag.com/poker/inside-poker/the-personalities/april-2015-raskin-blog-mario-cerrito-deadly-gamble

4.) popular horror website "horrornews.net https://www.google.com/amp/horrornews.net/96767/film-review-deadly-gamble-2015/amp/?client=safari

So I ask you, how is this filmmaker not deserving of a small article. It only can keep growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.210.235 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is all extremely local, and there is no evidence that any of his works are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I was more or less canvassed to comment here, sought advice from helpdesk and they replied that I could comment here providing the circumstances were explained. and a diff given. Think I was asked due to deprodding one of the director's film articles, here is a diff of the message here. Regarding the article, agree that national references would be preferrred such as NewYork Post but local rs news coverage is allowed for GNG except for companies and inview of the horror news review which is a reliable source for the horror genre, the New Jersey.com articles, theme specific poker magazine and website articles think there is just enough for a borderline pass of GNG, and although secondary sources are preferable primary sources are allowed so am voting! Keep. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the local news interviews is more that they are interviews, than that they are local. We shouldn't write a biography based entirely on statements that the subject has made about himself and his work: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." --McGeddon (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell horror did an exclusive article on Mario Cerrito without interviewing him at all. hell horror is a big legitimate site and reliable source. Having over 165k fans on social media. http://hellhorror.com/movies/review/47713/Deadly-Gamble.html — CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Definantly worth having a Wikipedia page. Enough sources found through google. Notable movie and has done work with notable people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC) — CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(Double !vote struck, CaliforniaWave appears to be the IP who has already !voted "KEEP" at the top of this AFD, according to this "Hello Jimmy!", "Thanks Jimmy!" conversation.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It was correctly transcluded, User:CaliforniaWave removed the AfD from the log a few minutes after their vote above.--McGeddon (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP enough sources found during google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.25.190 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP created page Deadly Gamble his film which went through AfD process and passed and deemed notable. His work has been signed by notable distributor Cinema Epoch has worked with Hollywood actor Renoly Santiago Brian O'Halloran and Jessica Cameron. Many secondary article can be found on him through internet searches.— MovieManNJ84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:19, 27 December 2016‎ (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaker Khazaal (author)[edit]

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

Issues addressed by Variation 25.2 on first AFD have not been fixed. WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources but they don't make him notable. None of his books are notable. None of the websites ranked him 1st or declared him most influential are notable. Title of the article was changed from Chaker Khazaal to this one to avoid CSD G4. Mar11 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same basis as during first nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awards are not significant, has not received enough coverage to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republicanism in Thailand[edit]

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

I'm bringing this article to AfD not because the subject shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia (it's a significant issue that warrants a proper article) but because the entire article, in its current state, is a massive BLP violation. Supporting republicanism is a serious allegation in Thailand, amounting to treason and punishable by death. The article labels a whole lot of people as republicans without providing any supporting references. It's probably not blatant enough to be speedied as an attack page, but it's bad enough that I don't think the article can be salvaged. Paul_012 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - I agree with what saying you're saying and you're right about the subject matter warranting a proper article. So why not just rewrite it as opposed to deleting? Charles Essie (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should be destroyed, and a new one with the same name should replace it. We can't leave this lying about in the mean time.--Yellow Diamond (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Angels' Greatest[edit]

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

Notability issues. Probably did not chart. Editor keeps creating articles and including company info Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reached No. 5 on the Kent Music Report, ref now added.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:NMUSIC in that it is a charting record. Dan arndt (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at the risk of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, well it does, that is no more notable than this. Just scrapes in I think (against the current standards). Aoziwe (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC because it charted. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 17:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Their Finest Hour... and Then Some[edit]

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

Notability issues, looks like it didn't chart. Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep peaked in the ARIA Albums Chart top 100. Ref now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:NMUSIC in that it is a charting record. Dan arndt (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep at the risk of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, well it does, that is no more notable than this. Just scrapes in I think (against the current standards). Aoziwe (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC because it charted. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Website awards[edit]

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

Unsourcable spam magnet.

It is near-impossible to source any coverage of something so trivial and inherently self promotional as website awards. One or two might just about make it. The idea of a list article like this, to scoop up those which clearly can't make it as independently notable articles, is just asking for trouble. For that trouble, see recent edits where edit-warring and socking are rife to remove some insignificant criticism of an insignificant award. The whole mess is unencyclopedic and we're better without the lot. They're web publishers, let them do their own self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, what I do not see fair is to link to external untrusted sources and making statements based on them as truth. Papoman001 (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a rather obvious sock of Mittens700 (talk · contribs), both of your contributions are more symptomatic than constructive. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I care about the information being reliable, adding random information and undoing things randomly I do not it see as constructive. Papoman001 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Delete it. I have been trying to keep this page factual for many years and socks like Papoman001 and Mittens700 (talk · contribs) just keep popping up and making it near impossible with their obvious connection to one award platform with no other contributions toward other awards. This sock claims any articles that shed a critical eye on their obvious employer, Awwwards, are fake, that Medium is fake... that an army of socks are all out to get Awwwards. This sock has even commented on this page which is another red flag, obviously worried about whistleblowers exposing bad things about their employer. If Wikipedia can't contain balanced information then what is the point. Delete it and Delete Awwwards' page along with these obvious - and recent socks. Good riddance. Webdoctor001 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion, as made up by the creator of the article. Not only is there no evidence anywhere that the term exists with the meaning attributed to it in the article, but there is evidence that it does exist with a completely different meaning, making it potentially misleading to keep the current article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winner-Take-All Law[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. This is a term that doesn't return any hits for what the subject is talking about doing a google search or a scholar search, and appears to be pure WP:OR. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sky Zone. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Zone Australia[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. a mere 3 gnews hits. Blatant WP:ADVERT created by single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge some of the opening details, dates, etc. into the history section of the Sky Zone article which covers the brand globally. Don't think there's enough there to warrant the Australian operation having its own article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sky Zone. The two articles currently are weaker as separate then they would be combined. Individual country articles do not seem to sufficiently distinguishably notable subjects. Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Sky Zone. A reasonable WP:ATD-M; the merge target only has passing mentions, so this will improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honee[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. a small 2016 start up. The only coverage is really for a completely different product "bee free honee" LibStar (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON. Also one quarter of the article is about the founder and other companies. Better would be an article Melbourne Accelerator Program and then list this subject in that article along with any and all others. Aoziwe (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gnjilane mass graves[edit]

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

There are no reference.]] Hakuli (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added, that is not the reason to delete article, and there is already one source in the article. Bad faith request, per IDONTLIKEIT. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kosovo War, if all you have to say about it is 2 sentences then it doesn't need a separate article. ValarianB (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: Article is expanded, and will be fixed even more soon. A lot of sources about this. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be still of local interest only. ValarianB (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note – The article name was changed to Gnjilane massacre via a page move (performed by another user). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep already with the subsequent improvements, and it looks like more to come. Also, fundamentally not covered by WP:GEOSCOPE...at all. TimothyJosephWood 16:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources, per improvements since nom. BabbaQ (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Antibiotics School[edit]

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

This is an educational institution article. Yet nominating due to WP:GNG,WP:PEACOCK, no references and notability. Devopam (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Also does have a reference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Secondary school that we have evidence exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Sharma (actor)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON: I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR Spiderone 17:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Timothy has done a good job with the TNT and rewrite so no longer necessary to delete Jac16888 ^Talk 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The amazing awang khenit[edit]

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

no indication of notability, or even if it is actually on TV, overly promotional and written with a clear conflict of interest, no sources Jac16888 ^Talk 11:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy, I think it qualifies for the tag I put on it as the exact same article is on the Malaysia wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Working TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Keep. After a complete WP:TNT, the article seems fine now as a stub, and definitely no longer qualifies for A2. TimothyJosephWood 15:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Ramrao Kale[edit]

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

Fails notability —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree per nom — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the keep arguments are not relevant to our policy. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djayy charliee[edit]

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

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) http://www.hip-hopvibe.com/?s=carlos+cureno http://www.hip-hopvibe.com/?s=carlos+cureno http://www.blogtalkradio.com/skygangmusic/2014/05/28/sky-gang-music http://deocjpromotions.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-youngest-mogul-djayy-charliee-has.html

Despite the claims given in the article, the only sources about him I could find are YouTube videos. He does appear to be a local personality of some sort but coverage in reliable sources is seriously lacking. Also, it appears that one of the claims in the article (that he ran KZNS-FM) could be an exaggeration since my search suggests he only hosted a radio show on the said station rather than actually running it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing research on local Hispanic leaders of the community and Djayy Charliee is the only person everyone has been telling me to go to, I was surprised to see such a prominent youth who has been awarded for his business and artistic efforts in two states, ran shows with Baby Bash, Dej Loaf and Sage the Gemini and who the FDA placed with the importance of being an ambassador for Fresh Empire due to his perseverance in clean living and healthy lifestyle, never smoking, drinking or doing drugs, would not be in Wikipedia. It seems that smaller, lesser known child stars like Maddy BRaps are. I do not want to draw conclusions from this or derail the purpose of the discussion so I will leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormaJean6767 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[That he ran KZNS-FM] was not claimed, the internal link to the blaze 97.7 wikipedia (which has not yet been created) sent the page to the Blaze KZNS-FM, this has been remedied — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormaJean6767 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube videos provided where only due to the high profile nature of Djayy Charliees associates and clients, such as Slim400 and YG, video evidence seeming the best way to avoid any claim of lack of evidence to support the fact he is the youngest member of their management teams — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormaJean6767 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I took the liberty of moving two comments by NormaJean6767 which had been mistakenly added to the middle of the nomination statement - they are the two comments immediately above this one. In the first one I changed a "this" to make it clear what NJ meant. --bonadea contributions talk 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fact this person has accomplished so much at such a young age and stands up for youths to not consume drugs, alcohol or tobacco, while simultaneously being known by all the celebrities in the industry he is in, not to mention his awards and nominations, the fact that he has a book published at Barnes and Noble and is a staff writer for Hip Hop vibe, and has held prominent positions in multiple respected labels and organizations makes him relevant and someone that should be included. Could you please advise me how to correct the existing article (source and stylize it properly) rather than deleting it altogether. I would hate for my errors to cause that to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NormaJean6767 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this, It has 3,820 google hits. 34,462 people talking about it on facebook. It is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanetpromo (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC) — Thanetpromo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - the sources in the article are mostly primary sources such as YT films, promotional texts about him, and texts written by him, and I find no reliable secondary sources that do more than mention him in passing. His books appear to be self-published (the publishing house "HHV Publishing" looks like an imprint of Barnes & Noble's self-publishing service) and in any case the books are clearly not notable at all. There are vague mentions of awards for the person and his companies but nothing to show what those awards are, with the exception of a couple of nominations. Being nominated for an award does not normally confer notability. Finally, the article is a bit promotional, and there is no explanation of what a "djayy" is. Cute made-up spelling of "DJ" is my guess but it doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence when there isn't even an intelligible description of what the subject does. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I met this awesome young DJAY at a club out here in Las Vegas about 4 months ago. They call him djayycharliee. I don't think he should be deleted because he also very gifted and talented young man! He has a lot of ties in the community and he is also a published author. The youngest person I know out here that is really made a name for himself! I'm am very impressed to see this young person doing positive things to pursue his dreams! Such an inspiration to other people his age. ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpen1 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC) — Lpen1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The article creator and Thanetpromo have been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormaJean6767 for more information. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Credible sources, see no sourced info that is written by the subject or promotional. Cited by multiple people of notability. Google returns 3,820 google hits. It is relevant. Arguments for deletion in response to other posters are ad hominem. As are other listed reasons for deletion. Requests to make the page more appropriate and for help have been ignored from what I can tell. And going to the profiles of those involved I can see that at least two users in support of nondeletion who cited valid reasons such as notability and relevance have been sumarily blocked from commenting and editing by the sole user arguing for deletion. This is not in the spirit of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.54.73 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is written in a decidedly advertorial tone rather than a neutral and encyclopedic one, and is referenced entirely to primary sources rather than reliable ones. No matter how impressive a person's accomplishments may sound, this is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article — he gets one by being the subject of media coverage, not by self-publishing his own social networking presence. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTube videos are not reliable sources, does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gianfranco Phino[edit]

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

Non-notable actor Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My first thought was that he could be notable, the article claims that he had several roles, and that could meet WP:NACTOR. But looking at IMDb it seems he had only minor roles, and that does not suffice for inclusion in encyclopedia, per cited policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete lack of sources to establish major acting roles. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was a suggestion to redirect to Rebel Alliances. Normally, I'd be looking for any excuse to go with the redirect per WP:ATD, but it didn't gain any traction at all in the disucssion, and in fact there are some arguments against the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there's no consensus on whether to redirect or not, so no prohibition against somebody else doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franks[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable academic, as searches specifically about him resulted mostly in false positives and hits for his book, which might be notable considering it has apparently been cited at least 60 times. But as for Franks himself, he does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 8 does not meet WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. WP:GNG is not met either. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I just need time to build the article, Ben Franks is referenced in many articles, papers and book chapters( Caledonian 365) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caledonian365 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An early-career academic who has turned his Ph.D. thesis (Rebel Alliances) into an actual book. Ho hum. Too soon for academic notability, and while there are the expected academic-journal reviews of the book (doi: 10.1057/cpt.2008.3, doi:10.1111/wusa.12009) I don't think they're enough in the absence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rebel Alliances now that it has been spun off as a separate article which appears to pass WP:GNG. Franks has no notability for himself, independent of the book, so WP:BIO1E applies, but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether or not he meets any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, Franks is, as demonstrated by David Eppstein, the sole author of a book which meets the general notability guideline. It would surely be foolish to claim that his book is notable but that he is not. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply that other editors are foolish. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, and, even if I had, that comment would not be a helpful one. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added some references to anarchist magazines which reviewed his monograph, indicating that his work is being read outside of academic circles. I have also added a reference to an article by someone else about his conception of "practical anarchism". It's abundantly clear to me, based on these sources and others added earlier, that Franks meets the general notability guideline, which should be sufficient. It is explicitly mentioned at WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC that a failure to meet a specific guideline (e.g., WP:ACADEMIC) does not preclude a subject being notable if the meet some other guideline (e.g., WP:GNG). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject neither meets the GNG nor PROF; that's the bottom line. Since notability is not -- and never has been -- inherited, that a work of the author's might meet the GNG certainly doesn't mean he does. If anyone's dissatisfied with this longstanding rule, I recommend raising the issue on the WP:N talk page. Ravenswing 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous articles about Franks's work are cited in the article. It is not clear to me at this stage what everyone is actually looking for, here. Tabloid stories about his personal life? What establishes an academic's notability if not articles about his work? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, for one, don't care about his personal life, but I want to see a body of work that has made a significant impact, either in academia or the broader world. In this case, the impact appears limited to academia (witness the academic journal book reviews rather than reviews in newspapers, for instance), and that's ok, but the problem is that by the standards we have established for academic impact (WP:PROF) it does not yet appear to be significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I note that the article currently cites two "popular" reviews of his book, as well as two academic ones. I don't have any particular views about whether or not Franks meets the guidelines set out at WP:ACADEMIC (I'm happy to take your word for it that he doesn't) but, based on the multiple articles about his work (two academic book reviews, two popular book reviews, and one peer reviewed article, among others, are currently cited), he surely meets the GNG, provided we are not introducing an ad hoc "Benjamin Franks" versus "Benjamin Franks's work" distinction. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. http://www.anarchist-developments.org/index.php/adcs_journal/article/view/11/11 may be worth careful criticism as a notability-supporting source, but I am skeptical. An article on a recent postgraduate by a continuing postgraduate student? Is this journal a reliable source, does it have an impact factor, I'm not finding answers. The lack of incoming links causes me to lean delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rebel Alliances. I found enough reliable reviews to start an article on his dissertation book. Most remarks on his scholarship are in reference to the book, so his name would make an appropriate redirection term. (Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap.) Now good luck summarizing its contents. czar 08:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I the only person who thinks that this result is bizarre? Imagine explaining it to Franks; "Wikipedia has determined that you're a nobody, but the book you wrote a decade ago- that's important." Josh Milburn (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear; I am opposed to a redirect. Deleting the article would be a better result. Franks's career and work does not begin and end at that book. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, notability is not inherited. If there is coverage of a single book and not coverage of an academic career, we redirect the author to the book. Also if your takeaway from your time at AfD is that deleted biographies are "nobodies" then you haven't been paying attention. Is there enough sourcing to the subject matter justice? Apart from the book reviews, all we have is the Swann article, so I don't see a basis for an article about the individual. It is clear, however, that his career is best known for this book. czar 22:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the sources and Milburn's comments, he meets significant impact criterion (especially this). --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy guideline do you claim is met? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC (criterion 1).--Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no pass of any of the categories of WP:Academic. Another editor admits this and has obsessively been claiming that Author or GNG passes. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Just to let everyone know that we're now at five scholarly reviews of his book, one scholarly review of one of his collections, two popular reviews of his book, and a peer reviewed article about his approach. Of course, you could ignore these and vote delete anyway; your call. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer watching this page. If you wish to talk to me in particular, please comment on my talk page. This has been an eye-opening discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that math is off. I count six workable book reviews and one review article (Swann). Everything else is either a duplicate or unreliable. If you're looking at the Cojocaru article, remember that is in a volume edited by Franks, and is not independent of the subject. czar 22:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not enough to make a book notable, unless the reviews were in the New York Times or journals of similar prestige. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure if that was a typo, but six reviews from reliable sources has always been enough to write a detailed article on a book. The book's notability is off-topic here, so move further discussion to another venue. czar 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed 2 of those reviews, one was a review of a book by some one else, the other was not at the link given.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been consistently held that a single mildly notable book does not imply the author is notable. Nor is WP:PROF met in any other fashion. This is a clear case to TOOSOON. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't meet WP:PROF, and the reason for that is WP:TOOSOON. Sometimes a single book can provide its author(s) substantial notability. This may be one of those cases, but it's definitely too soon to tell.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing evidence that Franks is a notable scholar or author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up anything to show this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. As been said, notability is not inherited. A book may be notable, but it's author may not be. Same with a song and a singer, a director and a film, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Schofield[edit]

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

Simply because there's a listed major news source is not automatically inheriting genuine significance or actual notability and the information and sources themselves in fact show nothing for actual substance, the career is simply trivial and unconvincing. WP:NOT policy fittingly applies because this is simply a job listing. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete general notability guidelines require multiple sources that are reliable. A local color story in a newspaper is generally not how we show that someone is a notable historian. There is only one reliable source about Schofield in the article, we need multiple to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep assuming it can be verified to Wiki standards, I say weak keep simply because he has interviewed several notable people. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not clear to me yet. I've been tidying up his article and looking for sources. There are several "Jonathan Schofield"s to shuffle through - and he's clearly written about a lot in the Manchester paper. I'll do some more digging and see what I can find, for instance book reviews would be helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been vacillating between weak keep and delete, but I think it should be delete. What makes him notable - in terms of BBC interviews, references in books, and the success of his tours - is that he's a historian. But, I'm not finding meaningful reviews of his books and his classic, oft-referenced line about Friedrich Engels, "without Manchester there would have been no Soviet Union. And the history of the 20th century would have been very different" is based upon faulty logic (perhaps knowingly to make for an enjoyable tour, but doesn't lift his reputation as a historian). There is more that could be written about him as a public speaker, for instance, but I still don't think that would lift his notability appreciably. (He sounds like someone I would like to get a tour from, though, because of his personality, background knowledge, and passion.) Also, I could not find one comprehensive article about him from an independent source - and some of the content that still is in the article likely shouldn't be, like his books (lacking independent reviews), perhaps the BBC content, etc.

Postcard Cathy, I moved the information about who he interviewed, gave tours to, etc. to the talk page - because as a journalist and tour guide, that would be a standard part of doing business. I posted it there in the event that there might be something noteworthy about his interactions with these individuals, but I didn't come across anything when looking for sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The average reporter and tour guide never gets to meet people such as those mentioned. Local reporters might meet local or regional VIPs but I can tell you for my sleepy suburb, I have no clue who our mayor or chief of police is, and I doubt you do either! Or care, even if you did. Postcard Cathy (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you think that information should be returned feel free. I agree that he is probably getting more that the usual allotment of celebrities, because from all that I've read he's the most well-known tour guide in the city.

(I know who my mayor is, and I know the chief of police is a woman, but I forget her name. That's funny, though!)--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added them back with a {{cn}} tag. In addition, it would be helpful to have more information for context, since the interactions could fall into one of three categories: interviewed by, interviewed, or took on a tour.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability would be as an author. WorldCat [12] shows that his guidebooks to Manchester are not the most widely held ones, at least in libraries. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage about the person. He has a job and is probab;y good at it. Being used to answer some interview questions doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - his name rings a bell, but the article does not prove notability. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nitcha Tengprawat Le[edit]

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

Searching with her Thai name "ณิชชา เต็งประวัติ เล", I got only two sources in Google news. This biography currently don't meet notability as per WP:TOOSOON. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There're plenty of news references, but almost all of them are either coverage of her receiving the award,[13][14] or articles and interviews focusing on her company's products.[15][16][17] --Paul_012 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as Weak keep. --Marvellous Spider-Man 10:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards don't seem to be notable awards and some of the content is PR. In others, the subject is receiving a mention in context of her company (WP:NOTINHERITED). The quality of the sources leaves much to be desired as well and in any case, I don't see reliable sources about the subject herself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I looked at the Thai Wikipedia and it seems the article was deleted there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the company article. Thinking of it, the subject doesn't appear to be independently notable. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pitam Pura. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kohat Enclave[edit]

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

Non-notable housing society. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the government of Delhi considered it notable and major enough to spend a fortune making the Kohat Enclave metro station on the Delhi Metro, then it's notable to us. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT applies considering it's only a local housing place, not an actual major subject, and we never keep articles because "one person or another considered it significant, therefore we must also accept it". SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would WP:NOT apply to a neighborhood even if it was "not an actual major subject"? We have hundreds of thousands of articles that are arguably minor but notable topics. And it wasn't "one person or another considered it significant", but the entire Delhi Development Authority, Delhi Legislative Assembly, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation not to mention the Parliament of India which all funded and approved the Delhi Metro and where to place the station. --Oakshade (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe simply naming a metro station for a neighbourhood means it passes WP:GEOLAND. I'm guessing that if one could find Hindi reliable sources for this subdivision one could make a case that it passes WP:GNG and therefore GEOLAND for subdivisions, but that's just supposition on my part. Unless those sources are found, I'd say redirect to Pitam Pura, at least, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kani Kusruti[edit]

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

Promotional prod removed by editor hence starting the AFD discussion. Page is overtly promotional and is written like an advert. Moreover the person lacks notability. Recommend DELETE Film = Revolution (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that inpart the article is too promotional but don't think it is bad enough for TNT, the promo parts can be edited out. There is reliable coverage such as the Hindu here, Manorama here, a short piece in Times of India here, and controversy reported in the Asianet News here, there seems to be enough for WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable person. There are many reliable coverage like Times of India here,The Hindu here, Asianet News here, Deccanchronicle here,Manoramaonline here are these. Page is well written too. there seems to be enough for WP:BASIC Ayyappan CS 15:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayyappancs (talk • contribs)
Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed characters are noticeably "woman, "singer", "guest", "wife" and "housekeeper" and those are the ones aside from the unnamed characters; that itself is not what establishes notability and the listed links are still nothing but announcements, mentions and other entertainment casualties, nothing we accept for substance. As it is, Ayyappancs links are shown to be nothing but these same exact sources: Interviews, announcements and mentions, none of that is what satisfies our set established policies. What's worse is the sheer fact we've establishes these such publications are largely paid for publishing such materials by the subjects themselves, hence also unacceptable. We make no compromises because of "She's from another country" or "She's a woman", and we never have established that in policy, and we won't now. I'll allow Drafting if needed, SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pirillo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Now, we've clearly changed since 2010 especially the specificity of articles and what they contain, and this case, this is simply a business listing, regardless if it's not as overblown as the others, because both the information and sources themselves are trivial and unconvincing and only something suitable for his own company website bio, not here. Also, the history explains itself that there's still nothing convincing for independent notability and substance, and my own searches are finding nothing but either his own authored articles or PR, and that says enough. As it is, the 2010 AfD itself had potential and was foreseeable as a Delete, but here we are for current analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pirillo is clearly managing a fanbase who are no doubt motivated to claim the relevance in keeping this article. To date Pirillo's sole purpose is to run an online shop and a YouTube channel driving people to it. He also finacially benefits from small events his team organise. My research is that, following more time spent with his Daughter and family, his output is less as and his YouTube popularity is on the decline (socialblade). This article serves to encourage people to sponsor him/his business and does not add any value other greater than that. He is not a significant YouTuber (340k subs +45k in the last 5 years) but is a keen business person who will enjoy and benefit from this article remaining. However it appears as little more as a favorable CV. Recently a line was included relating to Trump and racism and referencing a video which with no citation link - on research I found the video in question was only available to patrons of his Patreon campaign meaning whomever wrote the line must therefore likely to be be a fan or or even more likely part of his PR team. The video has since been re-edited and made public with the Trump and racism claims removed.Roundcat (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hate to go against ya guys on this one but I think there is enough via Google Books to establish N.

Boom and Bust in the Blogosphere: Case Studies of the Blogging Industry pp 68-70
Social Media Judo pp 19-20
The Virtual Handshake: Opening Doors and Closing Deals Online pp 50-51

There are shorter blurbs in other Internet marketing books [18][19][20]. And of course the Guzman piece in the article now, which is fairly substantial. Wishing that we had more to flesh in the article -- citations for his education for starters -- and I'm usually averse to propping up Internet marketing stuff (e.g. Twitter Power) but I think we have a genuinely notable guy in this case. - Brianhe (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Promotional in intent, not too bad in form and content. Just revisiting the 2010 discussion, which closed Keep, adds THIS source from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which — combined with the sources mentioned above and in the piece, indicates to me that we're in Keepsville. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waaree Energies Ltd[edit]

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

Article by a clear advertising-only account and it shows since it's literally not changed since then, and the fact these links were so boldly piled here shows no one actually cared to show an actual article, simply any attempts at PR; the sources themselves, regardless, are still published and republished advertising and it shows since it's the same consistency of emphasized company specifics and business information, which means only the company itself would've been involved. Next, searches easily ad unsurprisingly found nothing else but this exactly, showing the company is damn good at inflating itself with PR and republishing it, hence WP:NOT applies since none of this is anything else but an obvious business listing. When an article is this overblown, it shows no improvements would help as the advertising foundation would still exist. A damning fact of obvious company involvements is the sheer fact this begins with the company's own "About Us" link! SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just commercial advertising. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: The best of the references in the article is the August 2013 Economic Times item, which carries a byline, but it hardly rises above reporting a routine announcement. My searches are finding further routine announcements [21], which confirm this is a firm going about its business, but nothing to establish encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 15:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Welinder[edit]

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

Highly promotional article about a businessman with no indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, and only a passing mention in Gnews. In its present state it could probably be speedied G11: while this could be fixed with an appropriate amount of shovelling, the notability problem would remain.

There's an evident WP:Conflict of interest between this article's creator and a recent autobiographical contributor: this page was originally created as the autobio user page User:Lacwel by WP:SPA Special:Contributions/Lacwel, then pasted here by a second editor Special:Contributions/Bezzanet, who also created the blatantly promotional Softvision, Welinder's company. Lacwell has also just created a spam article very similar to the Softvision one, on Draft:Stephen Berry, Welinder's colleague at Softvision, using photos of Berry uploaded by Bezzanet. Note that "Bezza" is a colloquial nickname in the UK for the surname "Berry": [22] Wikishovel (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to establish that the subject meets general notability guidelines, there's essentially nothing in the press, so it absolutely does not meet the criteria for significant coverage. (There is information that can be found from the basic google search, but it would take a lot of weeding out to find reliable, independent, secondary sources). In addition, there article is now largely uncited and there appear to be other issues as well.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of Magnitude (album)[edit]

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

This article makes no assertion of notability: I don't think it passes NALBUM or the GNG. Slashme (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect as the best solution since it's not independently convincing as an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with history - Article has one primary source, and should be redirected with history as a valid search term to Information Society (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thorgate[edit]

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

Speedy was declined basing on fact it's "Major company" and I am quoting. I didn't find any sources supporting the claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing with clear WP:NOT materials, enough said since it's clear this is all that it's planned for. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete as the list of all major companies can be found from here (http://www.taust.ee/top/2015/) and Thorgate is the largest in Python in Estonia (http://www.taust.ee/top/2015/?limit=50&sort=turnover&page=185). Meriloi (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meriloi: If this company is so big, there should be plenty of coverage in mainstream estonian media. Could you please list few (eg. 3) such sources? My search found nothing so far. Pavlor (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor: 1) It news from the biggest business newspaper Äripäev: http://www.ituudised.ee/uudised/2016/09/20/algas-python-codeclubi-4-hooaeg <- it's clearly stated here that Thorgate is indeed the largest Python agency in Estonia. 2) the largest business magazine in Estonia: http://www.director.ee/scrum-jt-agiilsed-tarkvara-arendusmeetodid/. 3) One of the most well-known IT news site in Estonia: http://geenius.ee/veebimajutuse-blogi/thorgatei-disainer-stefan-hiienurm-raagib-heast-disainist-ning-toob-eestist-kolm. Meriloi (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Meriloi: Thanks! I read these articles only via Google translate, so take my notes with caution: First one is only about event sponsored by Thorgate, not much about company itself; second article is much longer and seems to have content about Thorgate, but my comprehension is too weak to judge this one; third article is blog post by company employee = primary source not suitable for estabilishing notability. However, there is clearly claim of notability (as you wrote: "largest Python agency in Estonia") - too bad we don´t have good English sources. Pavlor (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "one of the largest Python (programming language) and Django (web framework) development agencies in Estonia" with 25 employees is hardly a claim of notability or significance. An unremarkable company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete: Python is a significant programming language. Thorgate is the biggest company dealing with Python/Django in Estonia. Please provide references if you find any larger companies dealing with Python/Django in Estonia. Meriloi (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.10.66 (talk) [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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pasty tax[edit]

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

It is not notable enough for a page on Wikipedia, it can easily be contained within George Osborne. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what WP policy are you using to propose its deletion? It was a rather important topic at the time and is certainly notable; it was well-covered by the press. The 'obituary' to Osborne's political career even features a mention. I wouldn't consider this to be 'just another' tax. st170e^talk 00:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my original concerns, and no response from the nom. st170e^talk 13:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs some work, notably because it has a large "Opposition" section with seeming synth, but there is no real "Support" section or any way of letting the politicians in particular have their word or defense, like in this article: Mr Cameron said that the move - which will add 20 per cent to the cost of hot pies and pasties sold by shops like Greggs - would defend takeaway restaurants against competition from major chains.. I think I'll add some tag about it this... However besides that it seems notable enough and doesn't seem to fit solely in Osborne's own page as it was simply part of the "March Budget" and not some sort of lone personal proposal about a pasty tax. All of this would be way too large to fit in there in any case. Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not create this article but did improve it some time after it was written. As a political topic that had considerable mainstream coverage at the time of the debate, I can't see any argument for deletion. And it does not belong in the Osborne article, the phenomenon was just as much about a campaign that randomly sparked public/press interest, than about the particular Tory politician who made the proposal. Sussexonian (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objections after several weeks, so treating this like an expired PROD. I'll restore it upon request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topological functioning model[edit]

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

I believe this article presents a novel synthesis form published sources, and I do not think the term itself is in wide current. A Google search for the term in quotes yields 37 unique hits, including Wikipedia. The user has no other contributions. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Russian language version of the article has been proposed for deletion for about a year.Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lviv in Polish[edit]

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

there is no mention or proof in the article that any of the books meet the criteria WP:NBOOK nothing found on a web search. Domdeparis (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The books in the series seem to have several reviews. One in minor but seemingly peer review acacemic journal ([23]), one or two in regional newspaper of Polish minority in Ukraine, pl:Kurier Galicyjski ([24]), two at least in Polish portal on the Polish East, pl:kresy.pl ([http://www.kresy.pl/publicystyka,wydarzenia-tygodnia?zobacz/ukrainki-ratuja-polska-spuscizne-lwowa-czyli-nie-jest-tak-zle-w-naszym-lwowie-szanowni-sasiedzi), one in Polish portal on history, pl:Historia.org.pl ([25]). There are few more sources like this. They are all niche sources, but taken together I think they give the series borderline notability, and this time I'll lean on the keep side. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Piotrus: All the links are in Polish I was wondering if you had found a translation of the books themselves into English. If not I was wondering what the justification for having a page in English as there seems to be no crossing of the language barrier either in terms of the subject itself or the coverage? just so I'm clear if a Polish book or series of books do not exist in another language they are useless to a non Polish speaking person and in consequence any Wikipedia page in English seem to be just as useless unless there is sufficient coverage in English to make them notable which seems not to be the case. Domdeparis (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you are new around here, and so misunderstand two crucial facts: notability is not language dependent, and non-English sources are totally valid. A book (or anything else for that matter) only has to be notable to be encyclopedic, which language it was written in, and what language are the sources for the article, does not matter at all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi not that new and I do fully understand that notability is not language dependant, my question is that if the books only exist in Polish and have not been translated into English or any other and have no coverage in any other language what is the point of a page in English? This is a specific question concerning books that have not been translated out of their original language. There seems to be no claim of notability in the article. Domdeparis (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong - the books were written in Ukrainian, the Polish version is a translation.Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok same thing logic though, if they are only in Ukranian and Polish etc etc and there are no sources in English and they not translated into English what is the point of a page in English? Domdeparis (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The series describes a cultural phenomena of so called ghost signage. That subject of study attracted scientific attention since 1980-ties. The series geographically cover the area of Lviv and nearby territories which are the “blank space” in the minds of the majority of Europeans. While scientifically Lviv ghost sign heritage is the unique part of the world cultural heritage. That is because the signs were mostly made in the languages such as Polish and Yiddish. They are not the languages of the modern city population. I hope that in Wikipedia Lviv ghost signs of Ukraine are not less important than the signs of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Canada. I plan to expand the article to show that Lviv signage is an integral part of ghost sign heritage of the world. Speaking of the scientific notability the first volume is mentioned in English book Advertising and Public Memory: Social, Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Ghost Signs by Stefan Schutt, Sam Roberts and Leanne White. The series are recommended for summer practice studies for students of Polish philology, Slavonic philology, History and Culture studies departments in National Ivan Franko University of Lviv as well. Through the soviet times the signage of Polish, Jewish and Ukrainian communities was pained off and destroyed. No scientific research was allowed to pass through the “Iron curtain”. Does English Wikipedia still wish to be like that?Янця Гонак 16 December 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added the suggested references from @Piotrus above. I put in one or two I found. With addition of the extra references the article now meets WP:NBOOK and should be kept. Pauciloquence (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Piotr has provided adequate references. A subject that is notable in one language is notable in any language. – Joe (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice about renaming or moving this page, so long as a consensus is reached on the article talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Liberal Party (UK, 1918)[edit]

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

As far as I know there has never been a UK party called the Independent Liberal Party. This article is about the Liberal Party (UK) during the period 1918-23 when they were sometimes referred to as Independent Liberals to distinguish them from Coalition Liberals. Regardless of how they were described, they were always the Liberal Party and never the Independent Liberal Party. Graemp (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books searches turn up plenty of modern and contemporaneous texts that unambiguously refer to a British political party called the "Independent Liberal Party" active in the 1910s and 1920s. So it is clearly not correct to say that "there has never been a UK party called the Independent Liberal Party". Of course, many parties have more than one name in common use (e.g., "Conservative Party" vs. "Conservative and Unionist Party"). If "Independent Liberal Party" is just another name for the Liberal Party, then the article should be redirected and merged into Liberal Party (UK). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Books searches for "Independent Liberal Party" turn up very few references that specifically cover the subject of the article, and when they do, it is to use the suffix to distinguish them from the Coalition Liberals/National Liberal Party. Any source that uses it otherwise, does so in error. Perhaps the best and most reliable source to clarify if there was a party called the Independent Liberal Party is F. W. S. Craig. There is no mention in Craig, F. W. S. (1974). Minor parties at British parliamentary elections 1885–1974. London: Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-17152-7 nor Craig, F. W. S. (1983). British parliamentary election results 1918–1949 (3 ed.). Chichester: Parliamentary Research Services. ISBN 0-900178-06-X. It would be a mistake to merge the content of this article into Liberal Party (UK) because just about all the content is factually incorrect or misleading. Unfortunately the editor who provided the two references used in the article has misunderstood the sources. This whole subject area is adequately and more accurately covered in many other wikipedia articles.Graemp (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion You may be referring to me, Graemp, and I don't agree that I have "misunderstood the sources", I've simply given the information in them, referring to an "Independent Liberal Party". You could of course say that the authors have misunderstood the outcome of the split of 1918. Clearly, for some years beginning in 1918 there were Liberals standing against each other, some under the leadership of a supposedly Liberal prime minister and some under the leadership of Asquith, but whether they were in formally separate parties seems obscure, as does which of those had the better claim to be the "real" Liberal party. It's entirely possible that neither Liberal parliamentary party had a formal corporate existence and that they were both merely the private office of a parliamentary leader, as was the case with the Conservative party until quite recently. We do of course have the article National Liberal Party (UK, 1922), and that seems to make rather vague claims about what exactly it was. If you could show us that there was a continuing organization before and after 1918 called the Liberal Party, which from 1918 excluded the Lloyd George Liberals, you might have a stronger case. Moonraker (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the problem here is that this is a very subtle matter which isn't resolved by the existence of different pages all including the word "Party" in their names. Until the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, absolutely anyone could stand for election using the label "Liberal", and once elected the successful candidates might or might not take a party whip. The only "Party" that mattered was a parliamentary party, and I'm not aware that there was a "Liberal Party" outside parliament, although there were of course constituency Liberal associations. At some point, the Asquithian Liberals (who were arguably a breakaway group, but that could be disputed) adopted the name of Parliamentary Liberal Party, in defiance of the Lloyd George Liberals. It might be useful to have a page for each of the Liberal parliamentary parties for the period from 1918 to 1922, when Lloyd George established the National Liberal Party. One of those might incorporate most of the content of this page, which could redirect there. We could perhaps call them Parliamentary Liberal Party (Asquith) and Parliamentary Liberal Party (Coalition). Moonraker (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original two sources used both present data about the Liberal Party not a party called the Independent Liberal Party and were mistakingly used as sources for this article. The recent edit adds material from a source whose author (Stobaugh) clearly misunderstood the situation. So I don't believe Moonraker is at fault here.

I will try and clarify what the actual situation was. The Liberal Party, which had Asquith as Leader, was the party that had been in existence since the 19th century.

In December 1918 there was a General Election at which Liberal Party candidates stood. Some of these candidates were endorsed by the Coalition Government led by Lloyd George. At the election neither Asquith nor the party that he led, the Liberal Party, either came out in favour or against the Coalition Government.

After the election there continued to be only one Liberal Party and one party organisation in the country. This party continued to be led by Asquith. However, in parliament the party's representatives were divided over their support for the Coalition Government. Those who supported it were called 'Coalition' Liberals and those who opposed it were called 'Independent' Liberals (ie. Independent from the Coalition with the Unionists). They organised themselves into two parliamentary groups.

Asquith continued as Liberal Party Leader, and had no need to create a new "Independent Liberal Party" because he remained in full control of the existing Liberal Party organisation.

In early 1922 the Coalition Liberals, led by Lloyd George, formed the National Liberal Party (UK, 1922) with a party structure, HQ and local associations. This meant that there were only then formally two parties, the Liberal Party and the National Liberal Party. In 1923 the two parties agreed to merge and the National Liberal Party was wound up.

Neither the National Liberal Party (UK, 1922) or Liberal Party (UK) articles explain the situation as clearly as I have. However, if you take all the wikipedia articles that cover this subject into consideration, that is the general picture that is portrayed. There is one particular article that runs directly counter to the situation, and that is the article which is the subject of this discussion.

Anyone wishing to further read around their subject, in addition to Craig and Cook, can check the Liberal Year Books of the time and visit the Liberal Democrat History Group website.Graemp (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to re-assure Moonraker and others that the Liberal Party organisation outside of parliament, that oversaw the constituency Liberal Associations really existed. There are a number of wiki article that confirm this;

Graemp (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages aren't helpful, and what they say rather strengthens the case I was making. On the page Leader of the Liberal Party (UK) we read (probably correctly) "Before the adoption of the 1969 constitution of the party, the party was led by the prime minister or the most recent politically active prime minister from the party." If that's correct (which it may not be) the leader was presumably Lloyd George throughout the period in question, although a list on that page asserts that it wasn't. But I doubt that there was a party leader distinct from a parliamentary party leader. On the page President of the Liberal Party, we read that until 1936 there was no President of the Liberal Party and no Liberal Party Organisation, instead there was the National Liberal Federation, in which, please correct me if I'm wrong, both the Asquith and Lloyd George Liberals continued to slug it out until 1922. I'd be amazed if the Women's Liberal Federation excluded the womenfolk of either side, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. It isn't clear from the National League of Young Liberals page that it split before 1922, or indeed ever. These aren't something called the Liberal Party, they are surely support organizations which were led by people not subject to any formal split. In the mean time, Asquith and Lloyd George led rival parliamentary parties. Moonraker (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why there's no page for Liberal Party Organization? What exactly was it? Moonraker (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Roy Douglas's later book, the Liberal Party Organisation was the product of the 1936 reforms that overhauled the party and appear to have consolidated the structures as a single organisation. Whilst the Conservatives weren't actually terribly well constituted until the 1998 reforms, other political groups had the concept of the mass party rather than the parliamentary party & supporters' clubs - Labour was reconstituted along such a model in 1918. I suspect the LPO doesn't get much attention because to all extents and purposes it was The Liberal Party (in more ways than one - the reforms also allowed for a clean cut out of Liberal National supporting bodies) in a way that the National Liberal Federation hadn't been. Timrollpickering 11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages confirm my earlier comment that there was only one party organisation until 1922, the Liberal Party. Your comments clearly acknowledge that, which is helpful as this AfD is about whether some other different additional party existed between 1918-22 as claimed in the article.Graemp (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graemp, two points on your comment above. 1. You say "Those pages confirm my earlier comment..." but they are all so badly referenced that they confirm almost nothing. 2. What you say is confirmed is that "there was only one party organisation until 1922, the Liberal Party". I notice that one or two of them do refer to something called the "official Liberal Party", but I strongly suspect that's just a figment of someone's imagination, perhaps yours. The National Liberal Federation was not in itself a political party, any more than a local association or a local or National Liberal Club was. They were all support organisations, generally favouring something called "Liberalism" and the election of "Liberal" politicians.

Before the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, "political parties" were simply parliamentary parties, constituted (if at all) by their members in the Commons and the Lords, and at the time we're speaking of there were two Liberal parliamentary parties existing alongside each other, both no doubt with relationships with the support organizations. What exactly those relationships were could be helpfully clarified here at Wikipedia by the use of reliable sources, but that can only happen by establishing articles that are in synch with the reality.

My question is still outstanding, does anyone know why there's no page for Liberal Party Organization? What exactly was it? When was it created? When did it come to an end? Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will help this AfD discussion if we stick to the subject of the article under discussion.Graemp (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled that you can't see the complete relevance of all those points. And my question is still outstanding, does anyone know why there's no page for Liberal Party Organization? What exactly was it? When was it created? When did it come to an end? Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be a titling problem about what is apparently a notable organized faction of the Liberal Party. By all means the title should be fixed. There needs to be more work on the Liberal Party in general, it sounds like. Carrite (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem with your idea is this was not a faction of the Liberal Party, it was the Liberal Party. Graemp (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Parliamentary Liberal Party (Asquith). Carrite has grasped the issue here. Graemp, we all agree that this page deals with a notable faction which was within the vague concept of "Liberal Party", not outside it. It was only a separate "party" in the sense of being a parliamentary party in its own right, one of the two that for some years were within the loose family of political associations and organizations then described as the "Liberal Party". So for clarity the title needs to include "parliamentary" and not "independent". We should perhaps say "sometimes misleadingly called the Independent Liberal Party" in the intro. Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Parliamentary" over "Independent" might get there. The problem with the current title is that it smacks of the name of the Independent Labour Party, the UK sister party of the Socialist Party of America, which WAS the name of that organization (a constituent part of the broad Labour Party umbrella). That isn't the case with this faction, there was no true organizational independence, I am hearing from the debate. It was an organized faction, not an organization. Hopefully that makes sense. The way forward is to get some Keep votes stacked up and to get this deletion debate closed down and for people to get bold with a new title. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the Liberal Party was a "vague concept" is not something that has found agreement in this discussion. Both myself and Timrollpickering have confirmed that the Liberal Party was not just a parliamentary grouping but a mass party with an organised structure. This fact is confirmed by links to other articles that detail the Liberal Party structure.

The idea of renaming this page as Parliamentary Liberal Party (Asquith) or variants of, is not a good one. The structure of this group in parliament was that of the Liberal Party rather than any separate new entity, here is another page that confirms this fact Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats. Also renaming the article would mean that the article would need to be completely re-written as just about everything in it is wrong.

I welcome the contribution of Americans like Carrite to this Afd discussion as I don't believe that you actually need to know much about a subject to make a useful contribution. What is useful is ones understanding of Wikipedia and its processes. It should not be overlooked by this discussion that this article does not actually link with any other article in wikipedia. That alone should seriously question its justification for existence. Graemp (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the other people in this discussion aren't also Americans (or at least, not British)? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is to be renamed, then the text should still discuss the usage of the "Independent Liberal Party" name, since this name is used in several reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we please get this debate shut down "No Consensus" so that the titling debate can move forward? Carrite (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Stamp[edit]

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

First reference is to a listing in a film guide; second reference is to a Wordpress blog. Google search turns up a number of promotional results and offers to purchase the sound track, but no significant reliable independent coverage. Nominating or deletion with no prejudice against recreation once appropriate sources can be identified. KDS4444 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A perforated argument

There are SCORES of references to the 1935 stamps on the internet. I have added some more and could add another half dozen - but that would start to look a bit silly. Picknick99 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep in mind: this is not an article about the stamp, this is an article about a film which is named after the stamp. You could add a thousand reliable references about the stamp, and that would not make the film notable. KDS4444 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the BFI reference seems rs, have added this review here seems enough for a close pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Described by the BFI as "the GPO’s most widely-seen production, indeed one of the most widely-seen films ever in the UK," the film is of historical importance. What's more, a Gbooks search for the film yields coverage like this, this, this -- granted none of them are massive Ghits but I do believe the film is historically notable, even if it doesn't exactly meet WP:NFO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as one of the pioneering documentary films made by the GPO film unit whose films were added to Unesco's memory of the world register from the British Film Institute must make this notable enough to be kept. Besides which it not just tells the story of the stamp in question but provides a history of the democratisation of the British postal service from the mid-19th century major revolutionary postal reforms to the rise in stamp collecting as well as the George V's own interest in stamps, being one of the world's most famous stamp collectors, who amasses the Royal Philatelic Collection. It features the first film score by Benjamin Britten. It certainly has enough source to verify its notability. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mungrani[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a tribe and lists seven individuals. I can't find any sources mentioning any of these people, nor the Mungrani tribe in general. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:V. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; the article is entirely original research. I'm not going as far as to call it a hoax but the claims made are certainly difficult to prove. What's more it has an unencyclopaedic tone. Spiderone 22:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Ford[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. The only secondary source cited in the article was this, and it was pretty thin. Unable to locate any other secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker without adequate sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronx Times[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline: Article does not include demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage, and a BEFORE search did not produce any such sources. PROD'ed page undeleted per this charming request from the page creator and apparent owner of the website in question. —swpb^T 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided in my article, The Bronx Times, states ONLY facts. Nothing postulates, that a person's or entity's or object's existence depend on whether or not somebody, unknown who, has made a reference to that existence. Maybe I have to give you access to my mailbox, for you to see the hundreds e-mails I get daily from the NYC Mayor's Office, from various NY Senators, from Public Advocate James' Office, from the Press Office of NYC Comptroller, from Manhattan District Attorney's Office, from the Press Office of the Bronx Borough President, from a myriad of colleges and universities where students from Bronx study and achieve, from tens of local charitable, religious, civic, etc. organizations and private persons, and last but not least from the White House Press Office. Say the word and I will let you have a look. If you have suggestions how to change the article, make those suggestions, but you have no right to delete my article just because SOMEONE has not mentioned The Bronx Times somewhere.Milosheff (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Wikipedia, there is no my article. Editors who create/edit articles and the subjects they are written about do not have any ownership rights over an article. Editing is done through collaboration with other editors and through consensus. Wikipedia is not a free web host for individuals/organizations to post "their" article or to use as a proxy website. All articles are evaluated in accordance to relevant policy and guidelines, and those which do not comply with these policies and guidelines are sometimes needed. One of the main reasons articles are deleted it because their is no evidence the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Basically, articles are only supposed to reflect what multiple, independent reliable sources say about the subject; therefore, for an article to be suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article is is expected to have received significant coverage in such sources. Wikipedia notability is not the same as existence, and a subject Wikipedia can not be made Wikipedia notable by simply editing article content. It makes no difference how many daily emails the paper gets or whatever else is in your mailbox; rather, you need to show how the paper satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you are able to do that, the article will likely be kept; if not, then there's a chance it will be deleted. If you can show that the paper has received anything more than trivial mentions in multiple independent reliable sources, then please add those sources as citations to the article or add them links to them on this discussion talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. No references, no indications of meeting GNG. MB 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hinterschellenberg[edit]

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

Hinterschellenberg isn't recognized as an official place, minor and unimportant, undue weight possibly given by creators and not properly indicated on page. Ramires451 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The instructions noted that I should include the version of the nomination on the page. I had put a regular deletion notice on the page late last month, which was removed within a day by Atlantic306. This is the first time I'm putting it on the Articles for Deletion board, however, so I just wrote it into the first step. Sorry if I made a mistake there, by that one – if I did, it was fully unintentional, and an edit that I regret. The user, presumably one with a great dedication to Wikipedia, posted a few times on the relevant talk page and I gave a few reasons for my argument. You can read most of it there, and I won't bother to repeat it and take up a considerable portion of the page. Mainly, though, it's just that Hinterschellenberg, in my opinion, does not meet the criteria for inclusion – and, I would believe, shouldn't have been created in the first place. It's a lot more minor than a few other villages in Liechtenstein, such as Lawena and Valüna, the main difference being that these are actually recognized by the government as actual towns and as official locations within their respecitve municipalities. Hinterschellenberg, while it is relatively large for a hamlet, is not even considered to be an official place, and happens to be pretty much a casual term – albeit one with a little bit of history – used for the equivalent of a fraction of a neighbourhood that a resident just decided to name. It has just over fifty residents, and thus is nowhere near notable enough, as per WP:NGEOTLAND which states that articles should be kept if the settlement is "a legally recognized place" which Hinterschellenberg is not. Frankly, I wouldn't be as staunchly opposed to retaining it if coverage on Wikipedia were less biased, as one of the reasons for my pursuit of this case is the fact that places like Hinterschellenberg are far less important than certain locations that really deserve a page or some more content, especially those outside of Liechtenstein – see aforementioned talk and the snippet right here especially since we would have to give articles for hundreds, and perhaps thousands – though it is, admittedly, unlikely – of even more obscure and less notable others. Most of the points that I made were on the comments listed at the front, as well as a bit here. Not everything was put there, though, so feel free to reply, and they could give more on it, afterwards. By the way, Ramires451 is 98.84.229.179, when I'm not logged in, although many people use it as a shared account. Ramires451 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a bit of easier references, I'm adding a bit of it into this page:

Hey Atlantic306, I noticed that you recently removed my deletion request on the page Hinterschellenberg a small village in Liechtenstein. You did add a comment with your edit, but I didn't understand it. Could you please clarify what you meant (I left a short note on its talk page). I listed as the reason that Hinterschellenberg wasn't an exclusive hamlet, as its population is quite small and isn't recognized as a village – such as Steg, Lawena, Mauren, Nendeln, Bendern, and Ebenholz – by the Liechtenstein government or reputable mapmakers like Collins or Dorling Kindersley. If the page is indeed retained, it should definitely be completely refurbished, updated, refined, and enlarged. And we would have to find editors with the time to create and perfect more than 100 different towns or settlements in order to meet the standards, guidelines, and requirements that Wikipedia has set in terms of notability. Since it's the main reason for proposing the deletion, I would think that it's far more logical that an admittedly unimportant hamlet like Hinterschellenberg not receive a Wikipedia page, at the expense of many more well-known and suitable subjects, especially in other parts of the world where population density is low. If you wouldn't mind, I would at least prefer if we could open a discussion in the area so that more editors – if anyone would like to contribute – could talk about this topic more openly. Thanks for your help and assistance. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, was referring to the common outcomes of Articles for Deletion discussions as per WP:NPLACE which says that villages are normally kept. For that reason I believe this article should be kept and improved, there is no time limit on wikipedia. Even if it is just a hamlet they are normally kept. Also, now that the PROD notice has been removed any deletion must be through AFD. thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I do understand, however, I just thought that it would be best if we could maybe create articles, then, if multiple people are opposed to its deletion, regarding some other small towns or hamlets in Liechtenstein. Personally, with that knowledge, I would opine that Hinterschellenberg does indeed have a very low population, and generally never met the criteria for creation in the first place. Plus, the page that you cite, while it does support your argument, also states in the relevant section that presumably only any address concerning "areas that [have] a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities", none of which Hinterschellenberg, as of the current circumstances, are, should be retained. In addition, one of my main concerns is the fact that there is no reason why other small locations, many of which indeed have higher populations than Hinterschellenberg does, don't get an article attributed to them, which would just serve to exacerbate the bias, no matter how few people would visit a page like this. Anyways, it's weird to see a village that doesn't exactly exist as a semi-independent, to-dome-degree self-governing settlement among the other small Liechtenstein cities that we see here, such as Rotenboden, Mäls, Masescha, and Mühleholz, which, in my opinion, sort of distorts their status and relative importance, as dictated by the national government. Regards. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And as much as I'd favor including more coverage on underrepresented countries like Liechtenstein, it just doesn't seem practical to me to open nearly a hundred more features for the sake of simply ensuring neutral inclusion when we could otherwise dump this completely ambiguous page where few information could viably exist for our readers, and that receives negligible traffic, anyways. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the caveat about government is for settlements that are not villages whereas villages are generally kept even with a low population. Even individual buildings if they are listed and/or protected as historical monuments are allowed articles if they are covered by reliable sources such as newspapers. If you think larger settlements are more deserving of articles you are welcome to write articles on them and that would be very helpful. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree but respectfully speaking it isn't one of my priorities, and frankly I'm sorry that I just really don't have the time to donate for so many other articles. My proposition, instead, would be to just remove the singular page for Hinterschellenberg and I think that would be quite a bit more sensible than having to scout and find some other users to make these projects happen. Even then, there's practically nothing to show on those pages, some of which have far less than 100 inhabitants, and no offense intended but isn't much interesting about those places, and there are far larger and more important cities or other locations that are much more deserving of a Wikipedia article than Hinterschellenberg or other similar places. My concern generally isn't about the other larger villages, or officially towns, which, with a few exceptions, are covered quite extensively here. But Hinterschellenberg isn't even considered officially a village or anything by the Liechtenstein government – in the national surveys, for example, they ask for a census subdivision that doesn't ever include Hinterschellenberg. Would there be any particulars in terms of Hinterschellenberg that you would consider to be major enough to otherwise warrant its being kept? 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

So I get there should sometimes be a few rules regarding this kind of article, but it seems to me a bit unfair that Hinterschellenberg has a page when there are so many other locations – even outside of Liechtenstein, where it's generally a lot lower – left out, and especially as there isn't much to say, at least in comparison to other Liechtenstein villages/attractions. Since we have articles for all of the villages they're seen in so far – Wangerberg, Bendern, Silum, Mäls – and so on, which are official towns, we just don't exactly "need" one for Hinterschellenberg as well. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure that the editor hasn't replied to the thread or on the page since then. Because there was no other person following it, I just decided to add it onto the Articles for Deletion groups. Ramires451 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Essentially the ground for this AfD is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. It's evident that this is a real place, the location not only of the historically important WW2 event described in the article [26] but also the home of a landmark restaurant [27] with its own article in the official national website of Liechtenstein ("the Wirthschaft zum Löwen, which first opened in 1847, in the picturesque village of Hinterschellenberg" [28][29]. Given Wikipedia's gazeteer function, the bar has always been intentionally set very low for articles about geographical places, and this village satisfies those requirements. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Arxiloxos, thanks for contributing. I appreciate your opinions on this matter. First off, the book that you mentioned is, if I'm not mistaken, a relatively obscure travel guide to Switzerland that doesn't have any reviews on the Google search that you linked to. Further, this is just a small section of the public preview, which describes an unconfirmed (though I'm not challenging it) restaurant that appears to be in the municipality of Schellenberg. The only notice there is about the Hinterschellenberg bus stop, which, in itself, is actually a fair distance away from the hamlet of Hinterschellenberg itself. I won't dispute the validity of Lonely Planet, but I don't use the website, and it seems like just a bare mention about a few hundred soldiers who, according to the source, likely resided in the area for two years or so before taking off, which I don't think refutes my view that it's not notable enough, especially as an unrecognized and unofficial settlement with a current population of about a hundred, a situation that undoubtedly doesn't concern the sidenote about its accessibility (it's in the north, just like many other towns). I think you've understood from my arguments above, but it's mostly just a matter of unbalanced and unfair (in my opinion) attention from Wikipedia and its community. From all of the sources that I've referenced, it's clear that a major concern of mine is its inclusion in the category of that country's villages, which really distorts its status and puts it as an outlier among a group of actual towns or villages, as dictated by its own governmental authorities. And, just for the record, I never disputed its status as a real location. Ramires451 (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep still confirm earlier view that whilst not very notable this village is notable enough for its own article as it is very similar to thousands of other village articles. Improvements are of course welcolme but Wikipedia is an ongoing project and there are no time limits. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional losses due to food processing[edit]

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

WP:OR. The first source 404s and I can't get a find an archived version. The second source contains a table where the article's information seems to have come from. The problem is the source lists nutrient loss for specific foods cooked in specific ways; The article lists losses in non-specific "food" and doesn't mention what way it is cooked. It is oversimplified and misleading, presenting as fact, something that depends on the type of food, the method of cooking and the cooking time etc.

The article was transcluded into Cooking by the creator [30], and this should also be removed but I will wait for the outcome of this AfD first. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,and use ref in Cooking. This seems like an interesting article to have, but none of its contents seem supported by the one source that actually works. What's "typical"? At best, the table is WP:OR based on number-crunching the source. Since this article adds nothing of value to the source (which is valuable; it would be a shame to just make it disappear), let's simply replace the transclusion in Cooking by a ref to that source. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murela caste[edit]

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

Already speedied on several occasions and AfC rejected (see creator's Talk), but it keeps popping up. Google has never heard of Murela caste. Might even be a hoax. Yintan 14:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacking any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability or even existence Spiderone 19:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salt and delete--No proof of existence.That is has been speedied and re-incorporated into the article namespace many times supports the salting.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 06:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article fails to establish notability and still contains significant promotional content. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoundersCard[edit]

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

This article is written like an advertisement, and the creator has done nothing to rectify. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some phrases do read like an advert - but subject is evidently notable, and the appropriate sections have been tagged for improvement. Mike1901 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam. Belongs on the org's web site, not in an encyclopedia. No indications of notability or significance either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio de Santos[edit]

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

Directed a bunch on non-notable movies. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being "under" at present and worthy of an article in the mainstream (Wikipedia) seems a bit contradictory. Dentren | ^Talk 15:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are either created by the subject or not reliable sources like IMDb. We lack the 3rd party reliable sources that are required to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ENFOS, Inc.[edit]

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

Clear advertising in which WP:NOT applies since it's clear this is only existing for their own PR advertising gains and not an actual encyclopedia article, the sources show this since it's simply their firsthand published and republished advertising and the history itself shows nothing has changed at all; also before anyone suggests citing published and republished company advertising, searches found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content belongs on the company web site, not here. This is a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any article that mentions "solutions" that many times and has nothing to do with solutions, reeks of marketing. W Nowicki (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Countries Michael Jackson performed in[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD, no reason given. Likely to be of interest to only a specific audience, unnotable data best suited to a fansite. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable trivia. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see WP:LISTCRUFT; it fails on almost every point Spiderone 09:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete came here to state that it's listcruft, but Spiderone has beaten me to it. Schwede 66 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Barbarians[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Flanaess. A minor fictional group that has no reliable, independent sources. Right now, I'm leaning towards the former, simply because, as the article lacks inline citations, its kind of hard to determine which information is actually being sourced, and thus qualify for being merged. But, I wouldn't be overly opposed to the latter if that's the way the discussion goes. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as above. I'm happy to change my vote if decent third party coverage can be identified, but, until then... Josh Milburn (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Snow White and The Madness of Truth. There seems to be a broad consensus that the subject is not notable independently from her controversial art installation. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunilla Sköld-Feiler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion was closed as non consensus, but I'd like to generate more thorough discussion for this artist, who in my POV lack notability and known only for one work. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on Snow White and the Madness of Truth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was through a afD less than a few weeks back. And in fact the article was kept with No consensus at 01:05 on 4 December and this afD was initiated at 09, that is highly questionable. it is still WP:GNG and the sources are good. The article needs improvements for sure. Continuing to push for a article to be deleted to soon after an Afd is weird.BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should not have been relisted so soon. But the article could certainly be expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Closing admin Joyous! of deletion discussion #1 just a few weeks ago says to discuss on talk page, yet there's absolutely no discussion on the talk page. Per my original comment, American Google News search indicates WP:GNG] criteria met. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment on sourcing to keep, we would need substantive discussions of her work - more than just "Snow White"; stuff like profiles of her; museum shows; something to show that she is noteworthy beyond a single, controversial installation. I have searched but cannot find it. Even the "Snow White" installation was a mere temporary sensation that caught a news cycle; I cannot find being discussed as a significant moment in either the history of art or of political propaganda.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have preferred a discussion first as this was closed recently as a no consensus. Notifying contributors of previous AfD Shrike and E.M.Gregory who have not commented here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snow White and The Madness of Truth per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE. The subject seems to be notable only in association with the controversial artwork. The nature of coverage is all about the artwork and hardly gives significant focus on the subject. There is nothing else to show that the subject is independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Snow White and The Madness of Truth My searches did turn up a few hits on her name, but all of them that I clicked on were about the 2004 "Snow White" project; even the more recent articles, of which there were very few.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reading about I also agree with Redirect to Snow White and The Madness of Truth. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objections after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler: Symphony No. 1; Blumine[edit]

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

Outside the allmusic review, there is no coverage to constitute notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added two more reviews by by-lined critics: one from The Gramophone, the other from Classical Net. Together with the Allmusic review, I would have said that these are sufficient for WP:NALBUM criterion 1. This would therefore have been a "Keep" opinion had I not noticed that the distinct criterion 1 at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings places a higher bar for such recordings than for other genres. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niti Taylor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability concerns are there.Not much reliable,Independent ,Verifiable sources are there for this article and the article is almost fully relied on one source for its content.I think that it contravenes the Wikipedia policy regarding BLP. Param Mudgal ^talk? 06:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This aricle should not be deleted. She is a famous person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.124.127 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG; the sole keep vote doesn't cite any policy Spiderone 11:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lightspeed Media Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article's subject does not meet WP:NCORP & sig RS coverage cannot be found. AfD in 2007 closed as "keep"; the notability guidelines and community consensus have both evolved since then, so it's an opportune time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the current article doesn't seem to include any of the legal "issues" that the company was involved in, and that received media coverage. Some starter examples:[31][32]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial references here for this company... doesn't seem notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. but it might be possible for a NPOV article on the legal case. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nelson (director)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable director. Quis separabit? 04:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a commercial director with two minor films BobLaRouche (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both of his films pass notability guidelines per NFILM, enough to where they each merit their own articles. That's ultimately enough to justify him passing criteria 3 of WP:NDIRECTOR and I've seen directors pass AfD on just the notability from two productions alone, as significant in the third criteria essentially just means that their work is notable enough to have received reviews and ideally, to each have independent articles. It's a loose criteria, admittedly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BobLaRouche. Not notable for individual article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough work to pass the notability guidelines for directors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Rose Legal Group[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD here and also the fact WP:NOT applies because the current changes have now in fact made it worse of a blatant advertisement, and that's saying something since it was blatantly near speedy as it is. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree WP:NOT. Most of the article is a resume of the founder. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. References are not significant - not a notable company - seems promotional. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Texas Family Planning & Health Corporation[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable health organization in Texas (quite obviously created and edited by its employees, e.g. [33]). PROD was removed on the basis that "deletion w/o discussion is likely to be controversial - everything with family planning is controversial". I had endorsed the PROD after doing a thorough search. The subject quite comprehensively fails WP:ORG in terms of both depth and breadth of coverage with no other mitigating factors. The only references to it are Texas directory listings, their own website, one story on a local news site, KRIS-TV, about a woman who used their breast cancer clinic [34] and another very brief mention on the same site in an article about the importance of flu vaccination [35]. Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Hospitals. Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no attempt has been made to add any refs after several notices the original creator and subsequent IP only appear to be single purpose accounts for promotion of this non-notable organisation. Note: I have looked myself and failed to find any sources to show notability. KylieTastic (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above, seems promotional - needs more substantial references to establish notability?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). Huon (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-akatsuki-[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability, just to timetables of fights. Detailed text is unsupported by any citations, and is merely a poorly phrased, blow-by-blow account of individual fights. Nothing notable - purely a promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). Huon (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmyz[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability, just to timetables of fights. Detailed text is unsupported by any citations, and is merely a poorly phrased, blow-by-blow account of individual fights. Nothing notable - purely a promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). Huon (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Express[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability, just to timetables/results of fights. Detailed text is unsupported by citations, and is a poorly phrased, blow-by-blow account of individual fights. Nothing notable - purely a promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). The "keep" !vote does not provide a policy-based rationale to keep the page. Huon (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World-1[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability, just to timetables of fights. Detailed text is unsupported by any citations. Nothing notable - purely a promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beacause is one of the most acomplished units in dragon gate and beacause they stay very long and disbanded after four years of activity.— 193.236.58.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paladins (video game)[edit]

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

Three sources, two of which are taken form press releases and the third is a fan wiki. No evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find a number of articles about the game in RSes (including Forbes, IGN, Gamespot and PC Gamer) without much effort at all: [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. Joe Roe (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - With all due respect JzG, this AfD nom falls way short of WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search returns dozens of examples of sigcov in RSes (some of which have been provided by Joe Roe above). Millions of players, active eSport, direct competition to one of 2016's biggest games, all the coverage you could ever want is there online, the article just needs someone to work on it and add these sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the current state of the article could definitely use work, there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the game, as shown above. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per list of sources above - IGN, Eurogamer, GameSpot, and PCGamer are all very mainstream third party reliable sources. I too feel this was a failure of WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eh, I don't fault the lack of search, but at the very least this is a game by a developer with its own article, so it should have been redirected there before being brought to AfD. This said, reliable sourcing clearly exists for this topic even though it wasn't in the article. The move would have been to merge it to its parent and then to split it summary style when warranted, but doesn't look like that happened. Recommend withdrawing the nom. czar 06:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Through a simple google search I found tons of articles on this game. It also seems to be made by a notable developer. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 23:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hocine Gaham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The case for keep, I think, comes down to the utter ridiculousness of WP:NBASKETBALL. A player who played one minute in the three-game 1952 Yugoslav First Basketball League is deemed notable by that standard, but someone like Hocine Gaham who has played multiple games at FIBA's AfroBasket is not notable (in addition to being a regular starter on the best team in the Algerian basketball league). The spirit of NBASKETBALL which opts for including marginal players certainly warrants keeping Hocine Gaham. However, since I can't figure out such utterly ridiculous standards, I will instead opt for (the less ridiculous?) GNG standard. Newsbank has 27 hits, and 20 of those refer to the 2015 AfroBasket tournament. I couldn't find any player profiles or paragraphs about his work that moved beyond ordinary sports coverage ("Gaham added 4 points" or something). Searched three Algerian newspapers and couldn't find anything substantive there either. So, seems to fail GNG. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sports exceptions to GNG need to be looked at IMO, but basketball is the worst. John from Idegon (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe worth starting a discussion at the village pump, because I tend to agree with the concerns expressed here. Apologies for being off-topic to the discussion at hand, but its in a place where the suggestion will be seen... TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with AbstractIllusion's analysis re: GNG and NSPORT. GNG is the easiest to test here, and he fails that. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree we have created ridiculously low inclusion standards for some sports that have lead to the survival of totally worthless articles that say nothing and have victually no sources. However Gaham is not notable by either GNG or basketball notability standards and the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions".

[2] "New UCSD racial incident sparks rage, confrontation". 2010-02-20.

[3] "UC San Diego Freezes Funds to 33 Media Groups, Dissolves Student TV, Threatens to Punish Students for Protected Speech". 2010-02-23.

[4] ttp://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/ucsd-muzzles-student-media-while-free-speech-groups-cry-foul-1167. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] ttp://www.yaf.org/news/report-from-the-trenches-at-uc-san-diego/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]