Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 November	18 November >

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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Marino

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete long needed to be deleted article on person not elected to state legislature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never elected. Fails WP:Politician. MB 03:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidate only. Fails WP:Politician.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat to get an article, not just run for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Politician. Preaky (talk) 01:25, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lonsdale

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

BLP with primary sources. Also, weak assertion of notability - a vet, couple of minor books (according to prev AfD). (Came across this following paid editing/suspicious sock/blocked sock accounts, so inferring an element of promotion combined with borderline notability, a combination that requires scrutiny at AfD.) Widefox; talk 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable veterinarian and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Preaky (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination incorrectly implies that AfD is a forum for casting aspersions. Nor is AfD a forum to ask if a topic is notable. "Keep" as per previous AfD, whose closing IMO would have been better closed as a WP:NOQUORUM "keep". Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he's not satisfying any applicable notabilities and that's all that matters, especially since the article in fact emphasizes it. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serial media commentator does not add up to notability. Very weak assertion of notability; article pretty much describes Lonsdale as a run-of-the-mill academic, and the refs back that up - all either self-published, non-independent or routine coverage. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, AfD is pretty much solely a forum to ask if a topic is notable. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you arguing? Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:NOQUORUM suggests three outcomes - relisting, close with no-consensus (which is what happened), or accept nominator's preference ("soft delete"). There is no such thing as a "no quorum keep". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, WP:NOQUORUM states, "The discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:", and then four bullet points follow, not three. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... being relist, no-consensus close, and two versions of delete (soft delete and accept nominator's preference) - very well, let's call it four. In any case NOQUORUM cannot be used to support a keep position.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The logic of the reasoning is that "the closer's discretion and good judgement" don't allow a 'keep' result for an AfD?
        As for the delete argument, what is an "assertion of notability". Is that something like fame or importance, that Wikipedia WP:N doesn't consider as a key measure when determining notability? As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..." Another issue with the argument is that "routine coverage" implies WP:GNG coverage. I think that what Wikipedia cares about more than fame or importance, is reliability for our readers, including for obscure topics. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Closing admin could indeed utilise judgement to keep in a NOQUORUM situation (rare though that is), however that would hold no weight in future AfDs which achieve greater participation. An "assertion of notability" is basically a statement within the article that indicates that the article subject would be presumed to meet the GNG - nothing necessarily to do with fame or popularity, though they can be indicators. The closest this article gets is the assertion that Lonsdale has frequently been interviewed by reliable(ish) media sources, which is an assertion of notability under WP:ENT. Lonsdale is not the subject of these sources, but rather a participant - they are therefore not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to establish notability. He fails WP:ENT and WP:PROF and, most importantly, WP:GNG. There's really not much more to it than that. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:54, 29 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sayan Navaratnam

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

I found this yesterday as part of an Indian advertising campaign, and this one happened to be by one of the advertising-only accounts, and this article itself quite honestly contains nothing significant or convincing, everything listed is either simply name-mentions or clear trivial advertising such as the one source being his own business listing. This is quite honestly A7 material but, considering the damningly trivial "senior position at Bell", AfD may be best. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable business executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Preaky (talk) 01:28, 24 November 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 as Withdrawn, as noting else has happened (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsvilla

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

Was at AfD in May and I'll note myself all of the listed links there blatant advertising, not only because Indian publications are so damningly notorious for "pay-for news", but literally everything in those links are either "Information supplied by the company", "Information given today by the company, see their website for their services" and other blatancies; even the American links listed here, such as the Forbes, are then by a "special contributor" which obviously hints it was not an actual publication journalist, but instead a freelance PR person. Also, the other link, Entrepreneur is then seriously only a guide.

I commented about these concerns at the first AfD as it is, so they not only apply, but they're also supported and complimented by simply the sheer blatancy of advertisements, including of this nature, therefore the only solutions are to delete them as what they are: Blatant advertising. Also, to show the blatancy, the history itself shows not only both the Indian advertising-only accounts but IPs also, so it's quite clear this was an advertising campaign and it was to the company's own efforts and acknowledgments of it. Important to note, this has literally been speedied twice before within years of each other and it's clear this was the third attempt, thus simply advertising in each and every case. (WP:NOT policy still applies) SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nomination has been modified with a quiet change. Unscintillating (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Google News search results are providing a lot of coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This one should be notable. Indian media is notorious for paid-news, yes, I agree to that assessment but one must not generalise the issue. If we reject all Indian sources for India-related topics, then I don't think there would many India related articles left on Wikipedia. What is more reasonable approach is to evaluate sources case-by-case basis, which I did and believe this particular entity meets the required standard (I didn't link any refs in here because they are abundantly available on web. Please do a simple google search or try here. Mine assessment was more based on Hindi-language sources.) Anup [Talk] 22:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination provides no WP:DEL-REASON, so editors must guess as to the purpose for the nomination. In the previous AfD, the nominator cited "notability", which would be WP:DEL8, although when sources were brought to the AfD the nominator asserted that they were "simply expected coverage", which is not policy-based terminology. No mention was made then of "advertising". Currently, there is no concern for notability. The word "blatant" or forms of the word appear here five times. If the problems are now "blatant", how do we interpret the absence at the last AfD of a concern for blatancy or any concern for "advertising"? The nomination states that the concerns were stated at the previous AfD, but objectively I see no basis for this assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the sources currently cited in the article:

"Ethnic wear the hottest fashion trend this festive season | ETRetail.com". ETRetail.com.
"Women and Jewellery- A flawless combination | The Sequitur". The Sequitur.
"Indian E-Commerce: Misled By Bad Data | Huffington Post". Huffington Post.
"How to Build A Great Retail Brand Online | iamwire". iamwire.
"E-commerce is changing the fashion industry – it's time to catch up | The Guardian". The Guardian.
"How Indian e-commerce will pan out | The Next Web". The Next Web.
"Ethnic e-tailer Craftsvilla raises Rs 220 crore | The Times of India". The Times of India.
"Craftsvilla ropes in Manish Kalra from Amazon | Business Standard". Business Standard.
"Ecommerce companies say GST will be taxing for customers | Economic Times". Economic Times.
"E-commerce firms, retail groups boost handloom sales | Business Standard". Business Standard.
"Did all the things a startup shouldn't do: Craftsvilla co-founder Manoj Gupta | The Economic Times". The Economic Times.
"Indian Ecommerce Fastest Growing Market In The World; To Cross $120B By 2020: ASSOCHAM | Trak.in". Trak.in.
"25 Ecommerce Conversion Hacks to Make Your Website Profitable | Entrepreneur". Entrepreneur.
"How E-Commerce Companies Can Eliminate Pogosticking Behavior and Maximize Add-to-Cart Conversion Rate | Search Engine Journal". Entrepreneur.
"E-commerce boom: Investors turn focus to profitable growth | The Times of India". The Times of India.
"Foreign investment in ecommerce: New guidelines give clarity but leave room for misuse in name of smart-structuring | Financial Express". Financial Express.
"How to Build A Great Retail Brand Online | iamwire". iamwire.
"Funding Galore: Startup Fundings Of The Week [25 April – 30 April] | Inc42". Live Mint.
"6 Smart Ways To Use Website Design To Boost Your eCommerce Prospects | Forbes". Forbes.
"Moment of reckoning for Indian ecommerce as valuations plummet | ZDNet". ZDNet.
"FDI in e-commerce: Need clarity on the path ahead | ETRetail.com". ETRetail.com.
"Why offline retailers acquire e-commerce companies | Business Line". Business Line.
"Craftsvilla acquires virtual logistics startup Sendd, values company at $5M | ETtech". ETtech.
"Craftsvilla Acquires PlaceOfOrigin to Strengthen its Foothold in the Ethnic Market | iamwire". iamwire.
"India Dealbook: Wipro Ventures invests in Vectra Networks, Craftsvilla buys F2SO4, Shapoor Mistry firm buys stake in STC Power | Deal street Asia". Deal street Asia.
"Influence and Scope of eCommerce in Tier II and Tier III Cities | iamwire". iamwire.
"Vidya Balan voices her support for World Ethnic Day | The Times of India". The Times of India.
"22 times Bollywood took Indian ethnic to Canne | Vogue". Vogue.
"Indian-American creates doll to reflect ethnic diversity | The Times of India". The Times of India.
"Can Indian Ethnic eTailers Scale Up Globally? | iamwire". iamwire.
Meet Craftsvilla founder Manoj Gupta - Times of India
Lendingkart joins hands with Craftsvilla.com for loans to its sellers - The Economic Times
Poor and the deprived have a space in this Craftsvilla - The Economic Times
Why Flipkart, Craftsvilla and others are banking big on image search - Times of India
My work with artisans led to Craftsvilla.com, says co-founder Monica Gupta - Firstpost
Craftsvilla expands reach to Middle East, New Zealand and Australia - Times of India

Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - One thing that we've established here at AfD and any recent AfD for an Indian company closed as Delete, will show that these such publications are notorious for including company advertisements and paid ones at that, therefore both violating WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (both policies) and thus general ones such as WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:N will not apply; first of all, the Forbes links here are not in fact staff-authored, and they explicitly say "contributor-generated" hence it's basically an indie blog hosted at Forbes itself. The other sources explicitly include interviews, company financials and other such listings, therefore also violating WP:SPAM and WP:NOT because Wikipedia is explicitly not a soapbox or a PR webhost and that's one of the Wikipedia Foundation Pillars, therefore any general notabilities would still not apply.

Next, these links, as if not blatant enough, literally contain such information such as If you look at the company website, it shows us....The company said today....The company and its clients....The company's spokesman and businessman says....The CEO's thoughts are....The company's services for its clients are....This information is from the company's website...The company's own records shows.... None of that is independent and we should not mistake it as such, especially since once again the history itself and the first AfD showed the blatancy of it, and how this was itself clearly a company-initiated advertisement, once again also violating policies WP:NOT.

All these Keep votes have stated are "You're not explaining why it should be deleted" or triviality such as "Sourcing exists" , but none of it actually acknowledges the concerns especially now considering policy WP:NOT, therefore we should not ignore it. As for the earlier comment of "Indian media is notorious for paid-news, yes", this once again emphasizes how we therefore cannot confide in Indian publications, regardless of anything or anyone, because that in itself then violates the Wikipedia foundation of WP:SPAM which explicitly states "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising", all of the links in that Search still only consists of PR, either blatantly stated as such or covertly stated. As it is, WP:Deletion policy allows such cases since that itself is also founded in policies about article deletion. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's with the shifting indent for this post? The same thing happened in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question If WP:SPAM says that it is a content guideline, why does the post say that it is a "policy" and a "Wikipedia foundation"? Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't see anyone raising an issue of notability in this AfD, so why does this post challenge the people saying "sourcing exists"? Regarding the 761 Hindi sources, the post says, "all of the links in that Search...consists of PR, either blatantly stated as such or covertly stated" I will assume that a "blatant press release" is the same thing as a "normal press release"? Besides the question of how someone translated 761 Hindi sources, and was able to confirm "covert press releases" for the links that were not "normal press releases", the whole exercise is irrelevant without a notability concern. So does this suggest that an as yet unstated notability concern will be forthcoming? Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question The previous AfD said nothing about advertising or WP:NOT issues, so why does this post discover "the first AfD showed...clearly a company-initiated advertisement...also violating policies WP:NOT"? Unscintillating (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources available to satisfy WP:GNG, and AFD is not cleanup so the current state of the article, contrary to SwisterTwister's claims, is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that the publications listed are notoriously blatant for republishing company advertising and any Indian company AfD will show this, therefpre it's blatant advertising and we're hosting it if it's accepted. Also, this is violating policy WP:NOT itself because it's an advertising page, WP:GNG is a guideline, unlike WP:NOT which is a policy that we use everyday. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the claim of "any Indian company AfD will show" "that the publications listed are notoriously blatant for republishing company advertising", let's look at the previous AfD. By the previous post's definition, this previous AfD satisfies "any Indian company AfD". This previous AfD does not include the words "WP:NOT", "blatant", and "advertising". As the editor who made the previous post was a participant in the previous AfD, one can not suppose that the previous AfD was a statistical fluke. Thus the claim is falsified. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This particular firm is actually notable. It is however interesting that the article is written exactly in the cookie-cutter style of e-commerce firms. I am unable to tell if this is a case of imitation of other WP articles under the false but understandable assumption this is what we want, or undeclared paid editing, or something in between. But this one is worth fixing. About half the article mentioned above are mere mentions, and some are from sources prone to promotionalism , but the overall impression I get is that they are sufficient to support notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH, sources are present in abundance. Pratyush (talk) 18:40, 2 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. I have no connections to the pharmaceutical industry, other than the cough drop that's in my mouth right now. Joyous! | Talk 00:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. King

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

This article fails WP:PROF but seeks to establish the subject's notability as a crank by association with the egregious Geiers. However, I think it fails in that aim, due to lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP sourcing issues and WP:FRINGE WP:COATRACK - a WP:TNT. Nom beat me by a minute. (came across this as part of COI, paid editing, so suspicious editing from new account brought me here) Widefox; talk 22:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 16 is enough to pass WP:Prof. Public activism adds to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Not an expert at Prof, but per WP:Prof "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied", so can you expand? Article currently has one ref, so fails WP:GNG. Taking into account the ref is for CoMeD rather than this BLP, I consider it counts towards the notability of CoMeD, which is preferable to this but probably also not notable. Widefox; talk 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would contributors to this AfD care to state if they have any connection to the pharmaceutical industry? I have none myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

None. To clarify, I came here via checking on sock block evasion (just blocked) /COI/suspicious accounts. Two independent editors taking to AfD at the same time is quite persuasive that this is in no way some conspiracy?! Per WP:AGF, I'm assuming that you'd like to answer my question above, rather than question other's motivation? Thanks. The sock was at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikethomas8585. Now to be taken up at WP:COIN. Widefox; talk 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand why that question is totally inappropriate, as well as embodying at least two fallacies, then you may not be competent to edit Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced he was impactful enough in chemistry to pass Academic Criteria 1. Chemistry as an applied science has a high citation level, and I have not seen evidence his level of citation was high enough to count as impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because the subject is a proponent of the fringe anti-vaccine movement, I feel that the citation counts are not an appropriate indication of the notability under the WP:ACADEMIC guideline, which is intended to assess an individual's mainstream scholarly impact. Many of the papers listed on Google scholar appear to be WP:FRINGE research, with lots of self-citations, and low quality open-access echo chamber citations. Google scholar is a notoriously unreliable indicator of notability of academics for those at the fringes. The most over-the-top example I know of is Florentin Smarandache. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. Disclaimer: I have no connection to the healthcare industry. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sławomir Biały. In WP:FRINGE cases one should not rely on raw citability data as many citations returned by GScholar are to fringe sources that do not pass WP:RS. For a high citation rate field like chemistry, a raw GScholar h-index of 16 is fairly marginal anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sławomir Biały. Preaky (talk) 01:29, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mark Harrison

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

Fails to meet the notability requirements for biographies as there is no significant coverage of the individual in RS. The dealstreetasia source is probably the best, but it is an interview about his company which doesn't establish his notability. The FT blog is about a press release he put out stating he would buy De La Rue, which they were not complimentary about... He obviously doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR either. A search for other sources turned up coverage of a housing development in a local newspaper which again doesn't establish his notability. SmartSE (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman with coverage nowhere near enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this is a valid up-and-coming new character in business with plenty of credible press references and a solid family legacy rooted in the a firmly established page of Wikipedia.Dennis Lee (talk)

Delete - "up and coming" is practically an invitation to go against it. Seriously, this is a ordinary young business person, one of thousands in Singapore. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Preaky (talk) 01:30, 24 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pediophobia

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

No reliable WP:MEDRS sourses. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Recent consensus has gone against -phobia articles. If needed, merge into Specific phobia. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; if kept, move to fear of dolls. I found a reasonable source [6]. As for other articles, I disagree that MEDRS sources are needed; if it is well-used by cranks and uncareful journalists, it is still in use (though the article would have to specify that it is not a medical term). However, it should be moved to the common name if there is no reason to prefer an established medical term. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:10, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bimlesh Adhikari

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

notable? not so much. it is quite trivial of an entry. Pyrusca (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing here, what's listed is trivial and unconvincing, the history shows nothing else to suggest this is otherwise convincing. It's quite simple to delete when all there is, is simply triviality. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage needed for general. Lacks significant roles in multiple notable films and other criteria of WP:NACTOR. Searching found nothing helpful beyond current sources. Gab4gab (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Preaky (talk) 01:32, 24 November 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 '. Article deleted as A7 prior to end of AfD. Joyous! | Talk 01:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blk. (water)

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

Nonnotable product tagged since October 2014 Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 20 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decred

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

Nominated previously for speedy delete, but tag was removed without clear reason. Article fails WP:GNG and is subject to copy-paste copyright violations of promotional content. This is a new "product" that got some exposure in the press but has no lasting legacy or notability (yet). P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt This probably should have been nuked as soon as the copyright violations were called out. That, and there's no content! 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Preaky (talk) 01:33, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Bingham

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bingham has not played in a Tier-1 international match, nor in a fully-professional league, so she fails WP:NFOOTY. There is insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. The sources presented in the article are essentially all primary sources, and the only article that covers the player in anything other than routine mentions that I can find is this. Fenix down (talk) 09:39, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wordbee SA

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

Procedural nomination as article tagged for A7: article may not meet the notability guideline for software or the general notability guideline. Promotional, though that can be solved through editing. Appable (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent soures besides usual promo/PR stuff. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Just a company page stating facts. There are far worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.68.214 (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Should have left the CDS A7 tag! -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because i have deleted any PR word for god's shake! Can't understand why the references i used for almost every sentence do not matter. -- BillTango⁺⁺ 14:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Note: I am the nominator) after reviewing a bit more. While there are references, almost all of them are trivial coverage such as directories of companies, which does not show the significant coverage needed for inclusion. The one more substantial source appears to be a press release from Wordbee, as it was distributed across multiple websites. None of these sources show any reliable, third-party coverage of Wordbee, and I cannot find other sources online that discuss the company in any more depth. Appable (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete (Note: I am the creator) I understand that some might find the sources not valuable but it is a pity to consider "Trivial" references from huge organisations that Audit and control companies like the GALA association or the Common Sense Advisory. BillTango (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.68.214 (talk) [reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the closing admin Please note that there is no such user account as User:BillTango and instead the user is User Talk:Bill_tango. Also, the three don't delete !votes above were all made by the same user (IP:212.66.68.214 - BillTango) who has a conflict of interest since he declared that he works at WordBee on the article Talk page. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Preaky (talk) 01:35, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SafeFlame

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

Trademark name for an unproven product using old technology. (That is to say: there's no evidence that they've actually produced the product they describe) See Oxyhydrogen#Production. Jergling (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as un-notable commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete instead as I've only managed to find a few things, nothing explicitly better for a convincing article, best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Preaky (talk) 01:37, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Tunisia

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

Comprehensive list of non-notable hotels. Only three of them have blue-links out of the 100 or so. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 17:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete - I think nom is right that "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like" (per WP:NOTTRAVEL). I even went further and googled a few of the redlinked entities. None would come close to notable, three exist only on Wikipedia and Facebook, and one appears not to exist beyond this page. And it doesn't even have beautiful pictures of the beaches... AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Charles (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there were a lot of blue links, this (currently) serves no purpose. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki transwiki to Wikivoyage. The WIkipedia sister project. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page Michael Ten (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTDIR. Preaky (talk) 01:38, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Troscianko

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

Fails WP:GNG and entire article is written as an Obituary. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stunning citations on GS. Did the nominator carry out WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- @Xxanthippe: I did... Did you read the article? Full of promotional WP:EL and culminating in a link to "celebrate Toms' Life".... The very definition of WP:NOTOBITUARY...--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I daresay he did. At first I was taken aback by the article tone but its mostly not that bad. It wouldn't take much to remove the celebratory stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cursory glance through Google shows the man to be notable. AFD is not cleanup. Agathoclea (talk) 10:17, 19 November 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 List of neighborhoods in Dallas. "Delete and merge" is not possible, but with a redirect any relevant content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 12:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of districts and neighborhoods of Dallas

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of districts and neighborhoods of Dallas

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

Duplicate of List of neighborhoods in Dallas which I am editing. This particular list of districts and neighborhoods is both incomplete and entirely duplicative of the article List of neighborhoods in Dallas. Further, districts and neighborhoods are essentially the same in Dallas, some simply are called "districts" because of their location or because they are historic. Most commonly, a few entertainment districts such as Bishop Arts contain the word District as well as a couple areas downtown, but all are essentially neighborhoods. The historic districts also contain this name, and this article does nothing to break down the difference between the two. However, editing isn't necessary and deletion is appropriate because it is a duplicate of the previously cited article. VinceLeibowitz (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to List of neighborhoods in Dallas. Ajf773 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki transwiki to wikivoyage. the Wikipedia sister project. https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Main_Page Michael Ten (talk) 05:16, 22 November 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. Nomination withdrawn after sterling cleanup effort. Congratulations to nominator and participants. Shirt58 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvic acid

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

~~Pseudo-scientific crap and medical quackery backed by fringe sources. Fails WP:PROFRINGE. See also WP:Complete bollocks.~~ Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination Bowing to clear consensus. That said we need to keep a close eye on the article to prevent the return of the naked PROFRINGE material that was excised. I am not seeing much left, but apparently there is a belief that it can be salvaged and turned into an encyclopedic article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider a merge to Humic acid. The fact that this article currently says more about about some harms from industrial agriculture practices doesn't mean that the chemical class is non-notable/not worthy of an article. WP:Deletion is not clean up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the article was originally created as a redirect to Humic Acid and briefly considered just doing a WP:DBR since pretty much anything worth discussing in the article was pure bunk. The problem is that I am seeing similar problems at Humic acid. And no we don't keep articles because they discuss alleged issues with industrial agriculture, when in fact it is just a promotion of pseudo-scientific BS. -Ad Orientem (talk)

comment - I removed about 90% of the article which was irrelevant, misleading, or unsourced. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the mass redaction. I noticed that it was at one time a redirect to Humic acid. But I am concerned that article may have similar issues. I really think we need someone with a certain degree of expertise to have a look before we consider any kind of merge or redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humic acid is in considerably better shape and there is no reason why Fulvic acid could not also be brought to the same standard. Boghog (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic gets over 36,000 hits on GScholar and browsing the first two pages of hits shows quite a few articles where this is treated in depth. GBooks also nets about 22,000 hits. This looks like a highly notable mainstream topic in soil chemistry. Eliminating undue fringe stuff is a matter of editing, not deletion--thanks go to Staszek Lem for cleaning this up. --Mark viking (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that the article was poorly sourced and biased, I notice that it was entirely created from the ground up today by a new editor. It looks to me like it was a sincere newbie effort. I have no idea how widely used or notable "Fulvic Acid" is as a nutritional supplement. Maybe this could be a topic for an article in itself, if done to Wiki standards. I left a note at the new user's talk page, encouraging him/her to keep trying and not take this personally. JerryRussell (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per reason given by JerryRussell(above)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I recall from long ago Environmental Chemistry lectures, humic and fulvic acids are major components of soil, and are among the key organic building blocks used by plants in order to grow. Any claimed medical benefits in humans are to my knowledge entirely fictitious - these are nutrients for plants, not people - and certainly such quackery should not be allowed on Wikipedia, but this is no reason to delete the article, as this family of compounds are both notable and have many reliable sources which an improved article could draw from. That said, I'm not sure there is really enough content here to justify a fork from the much better written page about humic acid, as they are really just sub categories of a larger group of organic acids found in soil, so this page could probably be merged and made a redirect again if no one can be bothered improving it. Meodipt (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's less of a coatrack, it seems like a decent base on which to build. — soupvector (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. I also notice some reviews on PubMed. For example, there is research into use of fulvic acid with nanomaterials. Cheers! Georginho (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a real thing with research into real uses. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 19 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VALIKHANÏ

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician, sourced entirely to online music stores and downloading or streaming sites and social networking platforms, with zero evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. And the article doesn't really make any strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC either: as written, this just states that he exists and has released music, the end. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; RS coverage supporting a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NMUSIC. Preaky (talk) 01:39, 24 November 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. Sandstein 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey J

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

Highly promotional article on young musician not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, under any of the stage names used or his birth name. Wikishovel (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete musician who does not pass any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove AFD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:958:8E40:E400:B8DD:E865:5F2A (talk • contribs) — 2602:304:958:8E40:E400:B8DD:E865:5F2A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. Joyous! | Talk 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houda Darwish

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

No indication the subject passes the general notability guidelines or the notability guidelines for authors. Her book was published by what seems to be a vanity publisher [7]. All of the "sources" listed on her ar.wiki page [8] are links to landing pages, not any actual articles. The only other reference I could find is a bio page on The Karta Arabic Fiction Awards [9]. There is no indication she has won or that it is a significant/notable award if she had. Jbh ^Talk 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pinging @Tagishsimon: because they expressed an interest in this article at User talk:Jbhunley#Houda Darwish Jbh ^Talk 15:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC

Mmm. Thanks. I'll stand & watch, whilst conceding that you're doing the right thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks to be mere PROMO. No RS on page. None found in my searches on her name. Perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 17 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PIAA District 4

(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

Non-notable high school athletic association. While the statewide PIAA is notable, its individual districts are not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added all related articles about this district's individual sports championships. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable. Pichpich (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:05, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Crossley

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

Non notable actress actress, Google brings up nothing on this BLP, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find anything to substantiate notability. Fails WP:NACTOR.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One possibly significant role in a notable film and apparently minor roles in some TV series. Fails WP:NACTOR. No in-depth coverage found to satisfy general. Happy to reconsider if anyone finds better sources. Gab4gab (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Preaky (talk) 01:41, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public House (Magazine)

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

Brand new magazine. Zero independent coverage. WP:TOOSOON. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a new print+Issuu magazine by a new editor with a probable WP:COI. No evidence of notability provided or found, so at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no sources on page. none found [10], [11], [12] . mere PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Dawson

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article about non-notable individual. I don't believe that winning the "Miss Suprastar Philippines" pagant in 1911 is enough to be notable. Yintan 13:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsourced article. I don't see any clear claim to notability beyond that, but the lack of sources is not good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brogrammer

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be a slang term with limited usage. Everything said in this article that isn't just defining the term has been stated in both the Gender disparity in computing and Sexism in the technology industry articles, rendering this article redundant. I propose we delete this article and redirect to Gender_disparity_in_computing#Fraternity-like_startup_environments or Sexism_in_the_technology_industry#Macho_culture as they contain the same information. TheDracologist (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as last time). No valid rationale for deletion has been given.

This term appeared in mainstream press (The Atlantic) three years ago. That is not a NEO, the article is sourced to demonstrate that it is a term of current and general use. It may be a slang term, but use by CNN is now far from "limited usage".

It is simply untrue to claim that the other two articles "have stated everything in this article". Sure, there is overlap, but the extent of discussion on 'brogrammer' is one sentence in Gdic. Nor do the sources overlap. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to point out that there was no consensus last time. It also seems that there is no usage in the last two years. The term may have been used in the article, but the article was not about the term itself, but rather macho culture in computing. I think expanding one of the sections I pointed to earlier would be more appropriate than giving this word its own article. TheDracologist (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this earlier, but what I meant when I said that everything in this article was covered in those articles wasn't that it was all right where the word "Brogrammer" was mentioned, but that throughout each of the articles, the points in this article are brought up in various places. If you read through the articles, you will see the parts about women getting fewer BS degrees in Computer Science, the amount of women citing workplace culture as a reason for changing careers away from computing careers, and macho culture in computing. TheDracologist (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No different than last time really. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 09:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last time the decision was not "keep" but rather "no consensus", so I don't understand how the last nomination would be an argument either way. Also, many of the people who said keep argued that it could improve, which it hasn't. Finally, the subject of the article seems to be getting less relevant over time, which might bring WP:SUSTAINED into play. TheDracologist (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny little note: I know "I haven't heard of it" isn't a good reason for deletion and this is the internet, so there's no reason you should believe me on what I say I am, but I feel like I should bring this up anyway. As a woman majoring in computer science, I would think I would have heard of this term before. Take this as you will. TheDracologist (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this certainly could use some copy-editing, but clearly this is notable based on the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this shit, bro. It's fuckin' sick... nificantly covered by independent sources over the span of several years. Now let's pound some Bawls and bang out some killer mergesorts. Jergling (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept has been covered by the media in detail, and the sources in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Someone could start up a merge discussion if they wanted, but I don't see any way we can delete this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - We don't necessarily need a Wikipedia article for every neologism that is invented. That's for Wiktionary to do, not Wikipedia. The concepts discussed in this article would be better handled at Sexism in the technology industry, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gotten discussion from secondary sources and the article makes a good demonstration of that writing from differing references. Sagecandor (talk) 02:59, 22 November 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:G11. Vanamonde (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valo software

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

sounds way too much like advertsing Pyrusca (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A platform for what? Subject not even mentioned in the sources. All the buzzwords fail to actually categorize it or explain what it is, only what it supposedly implements. Jergling (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be speedily deleted as per CSD A7 -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 18 November 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 SNOW Delete The article barely is coherent enough to be understood, and is not encyclopedic in anyway. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Democracy

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

WP:NOTESSAY TimothyJosephWood 13:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Delete. Unsourced article that is unclear in it's focus. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research. --Finngall ^talk 15:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#ESSAY; but note that the phrase "fake democracy" is in fairly widespread use, notably in 1 2016 Essay by Helen Epstein in the New York Review of Books, The Cost of Fake Democracy, [13].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy'd for A1. No context, just a disjoint rant by a single editor. Jergling (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly eligible for a WP:SNOW. Essay articles are not eligible under CSD. TimothyJosephWood 19:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An essay implies some structure or goal. This is borderline nonsense and lacks context to explain what "Fake Democracy" is. Is it a concept? A neologism? A movement? A rock band? Jergling (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am naming my new rock band "Fake Democracy". Please don't steal it. Jergling (talk) 19:58, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinutech

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

This does not appear to be a notable business. References are small-town paper puff peices or are non-independent; no signficant news coverage. The only contributors of article content are single purpose accounts, one is Spinutech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so this appears to be essentially an "autobiography" (self-promotional conflict of interest). Also, the article was created using the Articles for Creation process, but was accepted and moved into article space by the article's creator, inappropriately bypassing the normal review process of AFC. Deli nk (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a small business which makes no claim to notability. The coverage provided in references is local. I can also see indication of a Chamber of Commerce award in its home town (Waterlook Courier 2006 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but nothing to indicate more than a company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam & A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur this is in fact speedy material, basically nothing else significant otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 20 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siridao Beach

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

De-prodded with following reason: "Goa state is known for its beaches, so its important to include all beaches in wiki so that tourists can explore them." That's not a valid rationale for inclusion. There is nothing to show that this particular beach is notable, and searches did not turn up anything to alter that opinion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, and I saw this when it happened, a beach is quite rarely convincing for its own article, regardless of whether it's known or not, simply because there's nothing to suggest an independent article. SwisterTwister talk 17:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND per a review of available sources, one of the core bases of topic notability. The beach has received scholarly coverage and coverage regarding its salt water baths and as a tourist destination. Another option, and alternative to deletion, is to merge to Siridao, which would make the merge target article more accurate and comprehensive. See some source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Locals swear by healing properties of salt water baths". The Times of India
"The residents of Siridao once again held a protest at the tourism department office at Paryatan bhavan, Patto, Panaji". The Navhind Times. 2:47 duration newscast.
"Community structure of sand-dwelling macrofauna of an estuarine beach in Goa, India". National Institute of Oceanography. 4 pages. Based upon sand-dwelling macrofauna at Siridao Beach.
"Role of salinity in structuring the intertidal meiofauna of a tropical estuarine beach: Field evidence". Indian Journal of Marine Sciences. Quote: "... The ﬁeld study was further supported by laboratory experiments with commonly occurring benthic harpacticoid and turbellarian species. Materials and Methods The sampling was from Siridao beach on the northern bank of the river Zuari, located in the central part of Goa. ..." pp. 356-361.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic apparently satisfies the General notability guideline. Anup [Talk] 21:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anupmehra. --do ncr am 03:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: named natural features are considered notable (WP:GEOLAND). Pratyush (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Northamerica1000, satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Just to quibble a bit with the above, GEOLAND does not grant inherent notability to named natural features, it only suggests an article is appropriate for inclusion provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist (this is true for this article). It also suggests that minor features should be considered for inclusion in an article about regional geography rather than a standalone article. A merger to Siridao would probably be the best ultimate outcome for a minor feature such as this, but that could be handled by bold editing or discussion at the article, it's not something that needs to be mandated here. Antepenultimate (talk) 12:29, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Ross

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for a living person. There are only six references listed. Of these six, two do not lead to a verifiable article, a third does not mention the subject, and a fourth is hidden behind a paywall. It seems Andrea Ross was at best a minor local figure and does not warrant a Wikipedia page Bwabwa7 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ross has not reached the level of notability as an actress or musician to justify an article. She may at some point, but that point will be in the future. Her acting does not come close to the level of a notable stage actress for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adds up to a handful of minor roles in minor productions. It's just not enough. (From the dates, it appears that he may have gone into another line of work).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She does not seem to have reached or sustained a level of fame or importance that would justify an independent entry. bsarnacki (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local small-stage actress whose unremarkable career fizzled in her teens...this appears to be a vanity page at the very best.MeowMeowBeans (talk) 23:59, 23 November 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. Article was relisted twice, with no additional discussion generated. I am soft deleting the article. Joyous! | Talk 02:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Santhosh

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor. Just appearing in notable films does not create notability - the roles must also be notable. reddogsix (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:25, 17 November 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 Autobots. Go forth and Be bold! Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topspin (Transformers)

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

This article does not establish notability. The reception link, even if it was active, looks like it's probably just trivial fluff. TTN (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or Disambig and Merge the four fictional characters on the page to pages appropriate to each one. I suggest Wreckers_(Transformers)#Marvel_Comics, Thirteen_(Transformers)#Nexus_Prime, Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon#Autobots and Wreckers_(Transformers)#Transformers:_Prime for the four, in that order. Mathewignash (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Autobots. I'll go along with a merge. Topspin was apparently in several forms of media, including the films, but the coverage seems limited to fan sites, listicles, and price guides. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots, per NinjaRobotPirate. I agree that the coverage on the character is mostly from unreliable sources, and the bit that is not is trivial, at best. Thus, merging wouldn't be very appropriate, as we would only be able to merge non-sourced information. The List of Autobots seems like an appropriate target list, as the various incarnations of the character are all included in that list, making it a simple place for this page to redirect to. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the List of Autobots is a horrible choice for merging, and should be the last choice. There are CLEARLY pages with more detailed informaiton on Topspin on wikipedia that that one, which is merely a list of names. Please see the several suggestions I made above.Mathewignash (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. I'm not convinced that we need a disambiguation page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a disambig page, here: Topspin_(disambiguation), we just add an extra line to that. I would say simply redirect Topspin (Transformers) to that disambig page, then on that page you provide links to the three pages I listed above which contain information on the three different Topspin characters.Mathewignash (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect instead as we've established as it is that all of these characters are not specifically notable for their own article, and there's nothing else to suggest otherwise better for an encyclopedia, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. No content worth merging. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:41, 23 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Zhaojun

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

There is a lack of reference - but more fundamentally, there may be a problem with this person's notability. Assuming the assertion here is true, I think the person is close to being notable, but not quite. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Nlu noted, if the assertion is true, he may be somewhat notable however that information cannot be verified. Meatsgains (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP with no prejudice to re-creation (or change to keep) if sourced. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are many sources in Chinese, but I know too little about calligraphy to understand them. Seems moderately notable based on what's presented in this article. Pinging User:Lemongirl942 to take a look. Timmyshin (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:14, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Sankarreddy

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

The more recent version of this article had been around for five years so it deserves a bit better than speedy deletion. In a quick glance through the references I did not find any in-depth assessment of the guy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No part in the content is advertising, promotion or spam. The content is fact-based and supported by ample number of citations. Many acts of the person in different fields are notable, and the person continues to be an influencer, resulting in the person being termed as notable. The article and most of the sections in the article has been in Wikipedia since 5 years. Two more articles in Wikipedia, including an important article of a political party in India, link to the person in this article. The article has been recently updated with more citations. — Townblight (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Townblight (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can see nothing notable despite the many refs provided which are mostly Press releases and funding bids for a pedal powered electricity generator. Nothing here that indicates notability for the article subject. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Dear editor, it is not just a "funding bid" as pointed out by you, but the person has actually won the award as mentioned in the news article. Townblight (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject has not received substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and the article reads like a pure advertisement. Anup [Talk] 21:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Besides not meeting notability guidelines, a copyvios search shows that sections of the article were copied directly from the subject's own website. CherylHew (talk) 11:56, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Christopher Shelton Koelmeyer

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unable to find any indepth coverage, the only independent reliable sources merely confirm that he is an ambassador. Dan arndt (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An ambassador is the official represent of one nation to another - It's hard for me to see a better argument for eligibility than that! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is no such thing as automatic notability simply because an individual is an ambassador - needs to be supported evidence that the individual is notable. There is plenty of precedence for the deletion of articles on ambassadors where there is no evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I fully disagree - I see no reason for not having articles on ambassadors! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is a WP:ILIKEIT kind of reasoning with zero demonstration of how WP:BIO is met. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Oleryhlolsson, if there was such thing as inherent notability of ambassadors, then none of the articles on ambassadors would be deleted, which is not the case. Secondly there have been at least two proposals, that I am aware of, at WP:BIO to give ambassadors inherent notability. Both of which have failed. So unless you can provide evidence that there is a WP policy that supports your view, the article fails to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete absolutely zero inherent notability. A simple gnews and gbooks search of his name (without middle name) reveals little coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. @Oleryhlolsson: I have no doubt that you were caught off guard by the rejeciton of this article. At first, I also thought an Ambassador must the WP:NOTABLE, this was true even though I was fully aware that in the real world this is a job often given to campaign donors and non-notable career diplomats. Many Ambassadors are notable, but we establish that by finding sources to pass WP:GNG. Some positions (membership in a provincial legislature, for example) confer notability on all incumbents. Ambassador does not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not default notable, and the sources are not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax (TV series)

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

Seems to be a hoax. The only Google results I can find to back any of it up are mirrors of some 2014 hoaxer-IP vandalism to a voice artist's article. McGeddon (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. "900 episodes so far" and no mention in IMDb, or in the supposed stars' IMDb entries, or in sources like behindthevoiceactors.com? Pull the other one. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 21 November 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 deleted as vandalism. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Binit Virus

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

Inappropriate page and can also be classed as cyber bullying. Francoll (talk) 07:05, 17 November 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 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:33, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lords International School System

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

Article topic does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:NSCHOOL. — Gestrid (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable one-line article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original article was clearly intended for advertising purposes. The original author has not worked on any other articles that I can see in their contribs, and we've also had to clean up a copyright violation on the article. After the copyvio was removed, the current article is all that remained. — Gestrid (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sjrct (talk) 02:56, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Yerevan

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article was only created a month ago, and proposed deleted but de-proded due to "there is precedence for lists of hotels of cities" (not a valid reason as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are all examples of what Wikipedia is not:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Charles (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another Yerevan travel guide from this user. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom Spiderone 19:14, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Miracle Crusade

AfDs for this article:

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

Been here for a long time, tagged for a long time--I decided against the speedy since it's not a very new article, but the article lacks references, and the internetz, while providing videos and forum posts, did not show me any good sources during a quick search. Note: check history for the contributions of a longtime sock (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Lpkids2006)--there may be some helpful material in there, though I doubt it. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This revival movement appears to be notable in the Philippines.

Jesus Miracle Crusade celebrates 20th year in Zamboanga, [14]. Mindanao Examiner

Jesus Miracle Crusade brings words of God to Africa , [15]. Mindanao Examiner

Nor is all coverage positive, Court affirms libel raps vs preacher Eli Soriano, [16]. The Manila Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I just added a little descriptive material from a reputable looking book to the page. Several other descriptions of this church came up on a quick gBooks search, so the article can be expanded by a willing editor. And clearly needs it. It's a pity that so many article brought here are merely in need of sourcing and editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is quite notable/notorious in the Philippines. Needs sourcing, but that's a WP:V problem, not notability.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Obsidian Soul, and E.M.Gregory, all y'all point at a relative wealth of references from the Mindanao Examiner. It's worth pointing out this isn't much of a newspaper--in fact, it's more a charity project than a paper, it seems. And even if it were, it's still very much a local paper, and that is not so helpful for the purpose of notability since one can assume they'd write up most any church in the area. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why its mostly Mindanao Examiner that's showing up on Google. Anyway , there are also books. I quote three below. Note how they all characterize it as "prominent", "influential", "highly visible", etc.

Whither the Philippines in the 21st Century? :"Two prominent charismatic groups - the Jesus is Lord Fellowship and the Jesus Miracle Crusade - have both gained prominence over the years due to their growing resources and number of followers... The Jesus Miracle Crusade, on the other hand, is one of the largest apostolic churches based in the Philippines. Wilde Almeda, an evangelist pastor, and his wife, Lina Almeda, also a pastor, founded the group. Not new to political campaigning, Almeda's group is also wooed by politicians for support during elections. It is present in 45 provinces and has chapters in the United States and China. The crusade gained prominence in 2000, when it sent representatives to preach the word of God to Abu Sayyaf, an armed Muslim rebel group that gained prominence by kidnapping 21 foreigners in Basilan, an island in Southern Philippines."
Christianity in Southeast Asia: "In the second place, the independent churches, by and large, established and developing in the latter part of the 20the century, tend to place the predominant emphasis on the supernatural, including works of miraculous healing, deliverance, conviction of sin, conversion and empowerment consistent with waves of "charismatic" spiritualism that has moved through churches around the world in this period. Thus, for example, the Jesus Miracle Crusade International Ministry (JMCIM) based in Quezon City, one of the largest and fastest-growing independent churchs in the Philippines, focuses its ministry (as its name suggests) chiefly on miraculous healing, both from physical disease and from spiritual malaises manifesting themselves as substance abuse, marital, and familial problems and so on. With services taking the form of huge rallies (often held in a stadium or field), featuring testimonies from people who have received miraculous healing, and with its own radio programme, the Jesus Miracle Crusade has been able to attract millions of adherents throughout the Philippines."
Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism: "Another highly visible group in the Philippines is Wilde Almeda's Jesus Miracle Crusade International Ministry, which holds anti-communist rallies throughout the country in the name of Christ. Claiming millions of followers throughout the Philippines, Almeda regularly packs in people in a large stadium in Manila. A huge banner flanking the stage reads: "Communism is Satanism", and another refers to the international embrace of Almeda's organization and its alliance with Jubilee Cruades. A charismatic group that believes in faith healing and speaking in tongues, the Jesus Miracle Crusade has cadres of young volunteers who live, pray, and work together. It appears to be a very patriarchal, authoritarian community where believes are required to fast for long periods of time."

They are usually mentioned prominently along with other large Philippine independent Christian groups, like Jesus is Lord Church, Members Church of God International, and Iglesia ni Cristo. Most of them are notorious for their political clout (due to their tendency to vote unanimously for any candidate chosen by their leaders), and for their cult-like behaviors. This article from Abante Online (a local language newspaper) for example, shows a presidential candidate, Senator Chiz Escudero trying to woo a JMCIM rally. Almeda's capture and detainment by the Abu Sayyaf was also widely covered in both local and international news sources. To be honest, I don't care much whether the article gets deleted. But I can attest to their notability.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 08:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source South China Morning Post, (Territory crusade for evangelist Gren, Manuel. South China Morning Post [Hong Kong] 12 Feb 1996: 5. [17]) establishing that revivals are held not just in Philippines, but in Hong Kong and Africa (above). There were more news sources found in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plus there was that major incident, The kidnapping in 2000 of 12 evangelicals from the Jesus Crusade by the Islamist] militant organizaiton Abu Sayyaf. It needs a section in the article, whcih can readily be supported by major international ant Philippine news sources. (TROOPS FREE 12 FILIPINO EVANGELISTS AFTER ATTACK ON REBELS AMERICAN IS STILL HELD WITH 4 OTHER HOSTAGES: [FIVE STAR LIFT Edition] The Associated Press. St. Louis Post - Dispatch [St. Louis, Mo] 03 Oct 2000: A2. [18]), (Philippine police chief vows to arrest Abu Sayyaf rebels once hostages freed BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political [London] 20 July 2000: 1.) and much more coverage on incident exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources brought to this page amply confirm NOTABILITY. Article just needs an editor to expand, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- E.M.Gregory, volunteer and I'll withdraw. (I hope you believe as much in blackmail as I do.) Drmies (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, like most people, I neither admire nor react well to blackmail. A request or an offer to collaborate on a revision would have been more collegial. But while I may or may not chose to invest the time needed to rewrite this page, I am firmly persuaded that the available sourcing makes deletion inappropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Drmies was joking. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article's a mess but nothing a good lick of editing won't fix since it's a verifiable and a notable organization --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with other comments here. It needs some serious updating but the article topic is an important one in history and in charismatic Christian history. Callsignpink (talk) 02:13, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Mauritius

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

Big fail of WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. Unlikely to pass WP:LISTN as every single entry is a red-link Ajf773 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as most of the hotels on this list have no articles. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of non-notable hotels. Meatsgains (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some great photos. But yeah: even if every entity was blue, I think nom is right that "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like" (per WP:NOTTRAVEL). AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Charles (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there were a lot of blue links, this (currently) serves no purpose. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:38, 20 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Ōno

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating with WP:NPASR. Repeating previous arguments in an attempt to reach a clear consensus.

ANN role analysis:

1) Oruphaliru Redspirit (Eien no Aselia - main)

2) Faury Carat (Aoi Umi no Tristia - main)

With only two main roles, and neither of the productions the subject's been in are notable, Marina is not notable enough to warrant her own article. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 17 November 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 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:ENT, I just looked at the Japanese article, and it is decently referenced with multiple books and magazines sources. The same with several relevant articles such as the ones about her musical albums (eg. [19] or [20]). As pointed by another editor in the previous AfD, the anime dubbing is apparently just a minor occupation for this voice actress, singer, model, radio presenter and entertainer, the article needs to be restructured as to include her other activities and credits but there are enough sources for writing a quite detailed and extensive biography. Cavarrone 08:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavarrone. Article just needs to be restructured and expanded to include her more notable activities. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person passes WP:ENT, also per Cavarrone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 19 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah AlAhmad

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

Page's content cannot be verified. Subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources and only current reference is to Facebook Meatsgains (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot create articles sourced only to facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 18 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cannella Spirits

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

Per WP:NCORP, WP:TOOSOON (company is only 2 years old), and WP:advert (references are mostly advertisements for the products, not reviews or awards). The one award THAT establish any sort of notability is from Playboy.com. I think a company in the spirits industry needs more independent coverage than what is currently available in order to meet WP:GNG and every other policy cited above. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and any kind of coverage in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 24 November 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. Please do not keep renominating an article just because you don't like the outcome. Doing so is considered disruptive. Give it at least a couple months before nominating it again. In the meantime, feel free to work on improving the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanaho Katsuragi

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeating previous arguments + Angus's analysis with WP:NPASR.

ANN/video game search results:

1) Crayon Kingdom (Cloud - main)

2) Doremi (Ms Seki - supporting)

3) Digimon: Data Squad (Kudamon - supporting)

4) Fafner (Yoko Hazama - supporting)

5) Setsuka (Soulcalibur series - main supporting)

Relisting once again this is a renomination. Subject only has Cloud as her main role; rest are supporting. Subject has yet to garner enough main, significant roles to assert her notability. An article should either be kept or deleted - there is no in between. It is important to reach a proper consensus in AFDs. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:22, 17 November 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 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

procedural speedy keep Once again this is a renomination of an afd that has been closed for one day as no consensus. Given that the nominator continues to relist such afd's despite objections as well as being quite forceful with demands that we must have a consensus rather than allow time for improvement, I struggle to assume good faith with such a listing. However as the nominator got his way on one article and had it deleted after displaying obvious bias towards his desired outcome this appears to be validating his approach. A line needs to be drawn to prevent these trivial relistings and the demands of an editor who has continues to show poor judgement. The continued lack of respect for completed procedure is not helpful to the A&M project or Wikipedia in general. Sufficient time should be allowed to pass before a new afd and a day, or even a month is not really sufficient. Edit: The guideline does not prohibit relisting and even suggests it, but this is up for interpretation, after all it was already relisted twice within the previous afd and therefore ran for several weeks. Either way, the justification for nomination is because the nominator is not happy with the outcome, which as a reason for renomination is not a convincing one. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:12, 18 November 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 Yevadu#Soundtrack. Sandstein 20:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yevadu (soundtrack)

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

Redundant with major relevant content already present at main article Yevadu. Fails WP:CFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yevadu#Soundtrack: Although target article is a GA, there seems to be enough space to contain reliably sourced information on music. I noted that large chunk of soundtrack article is either OR or unsourced, and when removed, it would be reduced to like a forever stub article. Anup [Talk] 23:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 17 November 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 S/O Satyamurthy#Soundtrack. Joyous! | Talk 02:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S/O Satyamurthy (soundtrack)

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

Redundant with major relevant content already present at main article S/O Satyamurthy. Fails WP:CFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Should be kept as standalone piece. Target article is a GA and already bulky -- adding these contents there may make the navigation if not impossible, definitely pretty much difficult. Plus, it meets WP:NALBUM#1. In addition to cited sources, here are few more: Music review by IBT, coverage dedicated to songs by HT, another by TOI. Anup [Talk] 23:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack article has 2 paragraphs and 1 list of 7 songs. The 1st para is already present in the main article and 2nd para is of an unsourced review and when the success party was celebrated (how encyclopedic!). So how will deleting this and moving a table of 7 songs make the original article bulky and un-navigatable? Also, the new soundtrack article was created post the GA review. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I overestimated the bulky nature (readable prose size of target article is only 31kb, and article to be merged is about 1kb; together less than 40kb). Also, there is very little scope for expansion (even in that case there will be about 20-25kb left for such expansion). Thanks for following up. Redirect to S/O Satyamurthy#Soundtrack. Anup [Talk] 11:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volt & State

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC completely. All the sources are WP:PRIMARY - the Beatport chart cannot be considered reliable. Karst (talk) 22:56, 7 November 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, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Weak delete. Article is well-written but the sources have to back it up. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Additional references needed for verification but subject appears to be notable. Meatsgains (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @VegasCasinoKid: Large part of the article is taken up with a quote on why the duo decided to split up. I'm not sure how constitutes a well-written article. @Meatsgains: I would be interested to know what criteria under WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG you feel that apply here at this stage? Karst (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the quotation should be trimmed significantly and the page is not "well-written".

As far as meeitng WP:MUSIC - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"

Your EDM
Your EDM
PHouse
Broadway World

Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 15:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poovaipalayam

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

Poovaipalayam is a village near Vedasandur in Tamil Nadu (source). It is so small that it does not figure in the 2001 census; the demographics section is a remnant of the copy/paste edit that created this article. There are many villages in the state, and I don't believe this one is notable enough. The source I listed above is one of only three I could find (see here); even then, the village is only briefly mentioned among many others. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 18:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many villages all over the world, and we keep articles on them if they can be shown to exist even if they have a much smaller population than 700. What is so special about Tamil Nadu that we should treat villages there any differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 700 figure appears to be unsourced, originating in the statement "population: approx. 700 in 2009" by the creator of the article. Also, I suggest you read WP:GNG and other parts of that guideline. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low, per WP:GEOLAND. (I once came across an article about a village in Poland with one inhabitant - notable? yes.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Poovaipalayam does not appear to be legally recognised. I searched for it in the 2011 census list of villages, but the village did not come up. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Returned another reference at [21]. Badly written article, but probably can be improved rather than deleting. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Cry Baby (album). Joyous! | Talk 02:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Baby's Extra Clutter

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

not notable. has not charted. not yet released. few references. and the tracks are already available elsewhere - the "Extra Clutter" are the bonus tracks from the album "Cry Baby" - hence the name, Cry Baby's Extra Clutter. Kellymoat (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Cry Baby (album). fails on WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks, JohnTombs48 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

MERGE A blatant entertainment promotional. Better suited for the artist's page, or artist's already existing album page.WP:Promotion

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information from "Extra Clutter" to the "Cry Baby" page. It is safe to move/delete when the time comes.Kellymoat (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I've seen far less relevant EPs have a page of their own. For the cleanliness of the page, I propose it to be its own page. If it charts or has mild success, it will clutter up the Crybaby page--Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 23:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate using "but others are doing it" as justification. I find that there are way too many pages wasting space on WP. But, that is a separate discussion for a different arena. Do you think that the fact that this has been posted for 2 weeks and has gotten very little to no input is a sign of "not notable"? Kellymoat (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellymoat: - yes you definitely have a point there. It is not very notable.--Jennica✿^{Ping Me!} 01:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:11, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Flower and Garden Show

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

Non-notable routine event. Does not meet any obvious criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (events) such as international coverage or wider impact beyond the recurring garden show itself. Coverage is clearly pre-planned and recurring, i.e. WP:ROUTINE. "Largest garden show west of Philadelphia" is the only claim to notability, and it is not a superlative that has received any interest or coverage, other than the aforementioned routine news bits. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for improvement. major, long-running cultural event. Covered in major papers, both within and outside region, and in the trade press. These shows are a combination industry event/popular attraction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources abound, although the peak for this sort of even was in the late 20th century. Here [22], for example, is a discussion of this show in the New York Times in a roundup article "Flower Shows: Pick of the Bunch," dated 1993. Anyone aiming to turn this into good article, and one can certainly be written, would find many national sources from that era, including coverage in gardening, shelter, and design magazines, but coverage of this year's show was impressive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the NYT: "Following is a chronological sampling of this spring's horticultural fairs: Washington". That right there is all you need to know. Indiscriminate, routine coverage of a run of the mill event. The age of the event, the attendance and the influence are unremarkable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

massive amount of reliable sourcing exists This long-standing, annual event draws national coverage. Los Angeles Times [23]. Makes Californians get all competitive [24], [25],. big feature stories in the Vancouver Sun: [26], [27], [28]. Nor is all of the coverage positive [29]. This merely a sample of the RS coverage that exists. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 17 November 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. A soft delete due to lack of participation. Joyous! | Talk 02:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Man 2007

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The article has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Richie Campbell (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 17 November 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 sources added by Askid are WP:SPS and can't therefore save the article. Sandstein 12:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Bittolo Bon

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

I considered PRODing this, but the subject is mentioned in reliable sources. However, they're mostly trivial as far as I can tell (they're all in Italian, and I can't find anything good in English). Might not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Adam9007 (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of being a notable musician. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page with references and it's not anymore an orphan article. Does it now match the Wikipedia policy?Askid (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 17 November 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 Khajuraho Group of Monuments . Sandstein 20:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hemvati

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

Minor character in the local legend of Khajuraho. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 2 November 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, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Khajuraho Group of Monuments perhaps the best outcome. Bondegezou (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Bondegezou. Several books mention the legend in a passing manner, but the article has no references. utcursch | talk 15:48, 25 November 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. User:RickinBaltimore makes a reasonable argument how they might meet WP:BAND, but that doesn't seem to have gained traction. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brutality (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated article which was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brutality (band). This latest version has more content than the one which was deleted, but it still has not been established how this band satisfies WP:BAND. Article has been tagged with {{one source}} since January 2013 and the only source cited is a trivial one which does nothing to establish the band's notability for a stand-alone article. I've tried finding better sources, but have not had much luck. I also asked about the band at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal/Archives/2016/August#Brutality (band), but got no response. Article was recreated by the same editor who created the version which was deleted according to the admin who closed the first AfD and it was recreated only about two months after the first AfD was closed in 2006. Ten years and only a single trivial source seems to indicate that this band simply has not received the significant coverage needed for a stand-alone article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This might be a subject for discussion here, but I believe the band meets WP:BAND specifically criteria #5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). They have had multiple albums released on Nuclear Blast, which I think would be considered an "important indie label" (having signed Slayer, Opeth and Fear Factory for example). The article however does need a lot more sourcing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This band shows NO evidence of notability whatsoever. There are no references in this article. That should say enough. In my opinion, there should be a banning or blacklisting of this band during the third nomination for spamming Wikipedia. Scorpion293 (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing their discography [30], I'm not convinced that WP:BAND criteria #5 applies. Otherwise, they have the coverage in WP:RS that one would expect for a local or regional niche band. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:03, 2 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeeOlive Tucker

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

Notable? --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, pending others who can do a WP:HEY and add sources. As written, appears to be a promotional piece. That said, if additional sourcing can be provided, I am willing to reconsider my position. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an Ebony article that mentions her: 2012. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. That helps some, we probably need a bit more. Montanabw^(talk) 07:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the article in Ebony mentioned above, she has also been covered in event listings and such in places such as Westchester Magazine and a longish profile in Saint Thomas Source [31]. Not hugely notable, to be sure, but still within WP:BAND Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as here's the analysis of everything here, the one keep comment is not fully confident and acknowledges the fact this would need a restart, the Keep vote above lists only local event listings and triviality, none of which are actually substantial, hence it's not amounting to actual notability. I have found nothing better and it's clear what's only available here is listings hence the "significant sources" above are not in fact so, and it's going to be clear when anything says "Local listing for a local event". SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up any significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources. The Ebony article mentioned above, is the briefest of mentions (she's one of several artists in a list of "also appearing"), and the Westchester piece is a pr piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 5 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 against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julissa Bermudez

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

Non notable tv personality. No major hits and nothing in terms of notability. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:26, 2 November 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 November 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 17 November 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 against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edan Everly

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

Delete: as non-notable musician. Notability not derived from relatives. Quis separabit? 16:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 17 November 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 against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Durationator

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

I think there's a slender claim of notability here % so am not speeding, but a brief seacrch throws up little of merit to establish that it passes WP:GNG. Imo this may become notable but ain't at the mo.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is being created to begin documenting the research being done at the Durationator, which is housed at the Copryight Research Lab at Tulane Law School. We are well-known in the community of copyright. We also have a social mission of spreading copyright information. The idea is to post information here so that it is more accessible, and create sub pages. We love Wikipedia, and this is our effort to give back as we complete this decade long project. This a way to make our research on the Durationator more public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etownsendgard (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gnews shows a passing mention in Wired and then there's this more lengthy discussion in this book, which appears to be independent coverage. It might just squeak by WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 17 November 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ConTech

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. " It was deprodded by User:Den q1 (WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Bottom line, this is a poorly referenced neologism that does not seem to rise to the level it merits an encyclopedia entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this simply seems to be another "what it means" and its sources equally showing, information suggests nothing else and there's nothing to suggest a fully independent article of its own. Likely best simply mentioned at another article. SwisterTwister talk 17:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- dubious & spammy. No indications that this concept has been noted by reliable third-party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional waffle. No evidence that it's significant promotional waffle. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 20 November 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. There are some difficulties in determining notability because of a language barrier in sources cited in the German version of the article. The number of sources and the fact that they appear to be reliable sources turns the discussion toward a conclusion of "keep." Joyous! | Talk 15:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria.tv

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Reesorville with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD), behavior I'd usually associate with spammer accounts. In either case, this fails GNG as outlined above, and also as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know I was supposed to reply at this page. I wrote in the talk section of the page, because I don't know where else to write. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's rules. Gloria.tv has a large daily following and it already has wikipedia articles on it in both German and Italian, that are linked to the article. Reesorville (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your talk page message. I did ask in the prod to be WP:ECHOed, and since you didn't notify me of your reply, I never saw it. Since you are not familiar with rules, you should check the ones I listed above and in the prod, namely WP:NCOMPANY. Also, given the article is unreferenced, you need to show sources supporting your claims about the website's popularity. See WP:V, WP:CITE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just listed a source from the website itself with some statistics. In terms of notability though, I recommend that you look at the German page on wikipedia for gloria.tv and note all the mentions of the website in various articles in the German media. Reesorville (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, [32] looks promising (major newspaper) but my German is too poor to judge. Are there no reliable English refs you could add? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that sources do not have to be in English to qualify toward establishing notability. At WP:GNG it states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't read all the references in the German article - and some are dead links - but these are WP:RS and are specifically about gloria.tv, which IMO clearly passes WP:GNG. The quotes are from the headlines or opening paragraphs.

Fundamentalistisches Portal "gloria.tv" - Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany)
Jetzt ermittelt die Bündner Kantonspolizei wegen gloria.tv - Die Südostschweiz (Switzerland)
Kath.net, kreuz.net und gloria.tv haben sehr klare Vorstellungen davon, was katholisch ist - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Germany)
Schweiz: Gloria.tv Mitarbeiter vom Bischof entlassen - Vatican Radio (The Vatican)

And that's just for starters, there are other major news organisations cited in the German article. Narky Blert (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen articles about the website in major English-language press, although it can be found mentioned in the 'Catholic blogosphere'. In addition to the German-language press, it has also had statements regarding it from various bishops' conferences, I think. I am not completely familiar with the controversy surrounding the site, but it is written in detail on the german page (I just used the online translator to try to figure out what it said). Part of the controversy seems to be something about the site having used Nazi imagery in reference to the German bishops at some point which ran afoul of laws in certain countries, which in turn brought in the police and condemnation from various corners. Reesorville (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the German wikipedia article makes it clear that this is notable, quite controversial, and well-covered in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 2 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Govasool

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

Delete and Salt please given the past 2 A7 deletions and the sheer fact this was then restarted immediately after these said deletions, and if it wasn't for the damning fact this has existed since then, it would've likely been restarted again, therefore we need to take care and acknowledge what will of course imaginably happen if it's deleted again. It's also not helping the fact these news publications cannot be taken seriously given their "pay-for" news methods, and the few links here and then in my own searches show this since it's all simply advertising.

As an interesting note, this was in fact being speedied again before being removed. To then state the obvious, the one account involved with this was an advertising-only account, so there's all in all literally nothing convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references in the article are predominantly start-up coverage of this firm among others, to which could be added this 2009 interview with the founder. Later references in the article relate to the eMart Solutions parent, possibly due to focus shifting to white-labelling services [33], also reflected in recent coverage of the parent [34]. I don't think that is sufficient for notability of the eMart Solutions parent and certainly doesn't inherit back to their retail service, which I think fails to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt -- nothing but corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources available for this entity are all PR and trivial coverage. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And for salting: correct me if I'm wrong but this topic was last deleted 5 years ago (a7). That doesn't seem to be repeated abuse of creation. IMO, they should try again in 5 years. Anup [Talk] 21:29, 20 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kelly (composer)

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

Spam from the artists vanity label. He is not notable. No major awards, no good charting. No gold records. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Looking at some sources starting at #1:

Mainly Piano. Personal site of Kathy Parsons

Improvijazzation Nation. Personal site of Dick Metcalf

Global Music Awards are an award farm, not a major awards. (Silver medal does not mean 2nd).

Solo Piano is a single "radio station". their awards are not major

HMMA is not a major award.

ZoneMusicReporter are not good charts. There awards are not major

Just Plain Folks Music Awards are not a major award.

MusicWatch. Personal site of John M. Peters

"Midwest Book Review is an organization committed to promoting literacy, library usage, and small press publishing".

Smooth Jazz Therapy. typepad weblog

MusicWeb International. amater review site

It goes on. Major bombardment of bad sources to mask the lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The citations are non-WP:RS chaff, and I found nothing better. Please make this go away. Narky Blert (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOT (promotional). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 28 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi Joyus, I understand that this page has been deleted multiple times. Looks like this person is a notable personality and has a lot of contributions to the Christian community. Could you kindly undelete and allow a review so that more references and sources can be added? I would like to contribute too BambiArk 15:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambiark (talk • contribs)

M A Varughese

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

No reliably sourced information. Has been deleted multiple times, but reappears with minor name changes. Does not meet WP:BIO. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact I would have speedily deleted it, but since it's here we may as well give a chance for discussion. Apart from the absence of any evidence of notability, the article is blatantly promotional, created by a promotion-only account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Turkey

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Turkey seems to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps merge any non-redundant material to, e.g., Turkey–United States relations? TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:37, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we are going to have CIA activities by country articles allowable for the likes of Syria and Iraq, then the principle of having such county specific articles is established. So it will be down to individual article content to decide if an article is deserving for a particular country. Given the closeness to both Syria and Iraq, as well as Iran, and the fact that it shared a Cold War border with the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain countries, I think CIA activity in Turkey is likely to be both substantial and notable. I have already added some additional content, and there is likely to be much more content that could be added to this article. For example, the CIA connection to ARIT was always a well known open secret, and a google search turns up some sources on this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Tiptoe's comment. --92slim (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Sandstein 20:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Brazil

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Brazil (while a closer call than some of the other CIA articles I'm submitting for deletion) seems to fail WP:GNG. The actions of the Johnson administration—including the U.S. embassy, Navy, and CIA—immediately prior to the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état are already covered (with nearly identical prose) in that article. For that reason I support a redirect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. The fact that the article is poorly-referenced and written with a point of view doesn't help, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:54, 23 November 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:SOFTDELETE given the lack of input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Haiti

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Haiti seems to fail WP:GNG. Right now all we have is single-sourced WP:OR. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:00, 17 November 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. Sandstein 20:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Honduras

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Honduras seems to fail WP:GNG. Most of this article is primary source WP:OR; non-redundant content could be merged to Honduras–United States relations. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Frankly, this mass deletion of half a dozen CIA related articles feels a little aggressive. I admit to not knowing much about CIA activities, but this article clearly shows that there was significant discussion of CIA activity in Honduras in the late 20th century. What is certain is that CIA articles need better sourcing and more editors. Deletion does not seem to be a good way to achieve this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the future I'll nominate them one at a time—is that what you want to hear? (If you admit to not knowing much about the topic, maybe you shouldn't vote.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:27, 25 November 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. Can be restored if somebody wants to transwiki. Sandstein 20:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Russia

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Russia seems to fail WP:GNG. Right now we scarcely have an "article" at all, just a bunch of quotes from a single primary source intelligence analysis. Note that there is a separate page for CIA activities in the Soviet Union. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this isn't even merge-able; it's just opinion/analysis without any description of actual CIA operations in Russia. GAB^gab 01:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to v:Wikiversity and categorize as political science. Michael Ten (talk) 05:11, 22 November 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:SOFTDELETE given the lack of input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in South Africa

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in South Africa seems to fail WP:GNG. Right now all we have is a single primary source document. (The CIA's uproven role in Mandela's arrest is covered elsewhere, though not mentioned in this article.) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 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 Drone strikes in Yemen. Sandstein 20:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Yemen

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Yemen seems to fail WP:GNG. I suggest merging with Drone strikes in Yemen. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:14, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nom. There is nothing here that isn't covered in greater detail on the drone strikes page, as I see no need for restating the obvious fact that the CIA operates in Yemen. GAB^gab 22:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:01, 17 November 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 CIA activities in Asia. If that is kept, else delete. Sandstein 20:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIA activities in Israel

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

I don't believe that all of the "CIA activities in..." articles should be deleted—in fact, I'm a major contributor to two of the more notable ones, CIA activities in Iraq and CIA activities in Syria—but CIA activities in Israel seems to fail WP:GNG. The bit about Israel helping to aid the mujahideen in Afghanistan is already covered elsewhere, and the rest of this page is WP:OR sourced to a single National Intelligence Estimate. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:22, 3 November 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: As you know, this is WP:NOTAVOTE - if you can't advance even one argument don't bother commenting. AusLondonder (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to explain myself to you and I don't need to be bossed around by you either. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment just shows what a non serious vote this is. An admin will therefore disregard this in closing the AfD. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph demonstrating perfectly once again his trademark disruptive and unconstructive behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge - I think that the fact that so many country's activities have their own page, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS really seems to apply here. I hate to use that argument, which is why its very weak that I say keep. The page however needs a ton of work. Nothing on it shows why it would meet WP:GNG. The page in general needs a lot of work. If no one is willing to fix all the issues, I say just merge it into CIA activities in Asia and call it a day. - Galatz ^Talk 20:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing on it shows why it would meet WP:GNG." That's an argument for deletion, not for keeping.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:29, 25 November 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.

Looks like at the same time as this was going on, CIA activities in Asia was up for deletion as well, and it was deleted. The end result here was to merge into that page which is now deleted. Never seen this happen before. Now what? - Galatz ^Talk 18:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Joyous! | Talk 12:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khanana

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Sources in the article are unreliable, and searches give no independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are non-reliable web sources. Clearly fails WP:NFILM. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 03:54, 26 November 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. With no prejudice against relisting due to low participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenager Universal

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The article has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The citations provided in the article is about Miss Teenager World. Richie Campbell (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple citations to WP:RS appear to have been added since notability concerns first expressed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

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. Uncontested and unsourced. Sandstein 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki93

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

No source plus not notable due to lack of info on chart sales Pyrusca (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 17 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Ooe

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

NOt that notable. Pyrusca (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll ask people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan what they think about the G-News result for 大江裕 (Japanese transcription of Yutaka Ooe). I can't read Japanese. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sponichi (already used in the article) is a very notable newspaper (despite the paucity of information in the article here on enwiki). The G-News result mentioned above shows articles about the subject (he's mentioned in the headlines) from Nikkan Sports (multiple), Oricon (multiple), and others. He's definitely notable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on top of Nihonjoe's comments above, he has had more than 10 singles appear in the Oricon charts. He's released 6 albums on a major label, with one of those charting too. Of the 12 criteria listed at WP:MUSICBIO, he definitely clears 1, 2, 5, 11 and 12. If I looked, I could probably find evidence that satisfies 4, 9 and 10 as well. No doubt about this one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments by Nihonjoe and AtHomeinKobe. Michitaro (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments by Nihonjoe and AtHomeinKobe. This article could be expanded with translation from ja. --Omotecho (talk) 20:22, 23 November 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 19:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vettinjayathil family

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

Fails to meet Notability guidelines WP:BIO. Just somebody mentioning some lore about his family, and using a tripod website he created as reference. PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 17 November 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 Mu. That is to say, the nomination makes little sense, and nobody else cares. If an AfD falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Sandstein 20:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spacetoon

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

spam without any relevant or encyclopedic|text=no enough resources and the content isn't useful and also don't have copyright SoulafHadad (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 17 November 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premium Internet

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Reptile49452 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). I cannot find any refs to show notability - seems like your average spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a term which is not very widely used. I am having trouble sourcing this. Nothing much in scholarly literature as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing here of actual substance aside from what it means and its information, unlikely to be convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. TimothyJosephWood 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing even resembling notability is demonstrated. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bat-Kado

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

Possibly borderline A11 if it's confirmed that the "game" is created by the article creator. But in any case, there are zero hits online for this card game. CSD as A7 was declined by Espresso Addict. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding the following article to the AFD:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither card games nor fictional characters are readily covered by the speedy system; I'm chary of using A11 ("obviously invented") as lack of Google hits could conceivably be a language problem. I suggested proposed deletion to Narutolovehinata5 as these seem uncontroversial candidates for deletion, unless the original creator can improve them to show notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank I'm usually wary of using proposed deletion for the simple reason that all it takes to oppose it is the removal of the proposed deletion tag. From experience, about 80% of the time I tagged an article for PROD the article the article creator removes it, almost always without explanation. Which is fine and perfectly acceptable under the proposed deletion policy, but it also means in the end such articles would usually end up being AFD'd anyway. Better to just skip the PROD step and go straight to AFD, at least actual discussion is possible. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this to the AFD:

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

Delete, no evidence of notability as nominator says. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found on the web Domdeparis (talk) 17:19, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Potentials Create Many Realities or Many Worlds

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

Despite an extensive search for coverage in reliable sources, I am unable to find enough significant reliable coverage for the book. I found only two pages specifically discussing the book, neither of which appear to be reviews or otherwise enough to establish notability. The remaining hits I can find are brief websites or sites selling the book. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi..OK.

The book is only referenced by Google Books and an unofficial Facebook page ... both referenced by Ingram Books. How much more coverage is needed? Are reviews needed?

The article needs significant coverage in reliable sources. This could mean news articles, reviews, etc. User-generated reviews on websites such as Google Books are generally not considered reliable. Please read WP:RS for more information. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I also concur there's nothing establishing actual notability especially since it's simply a newly published book which has imaginably not established itself with substance, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish the author well, but the book just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. I can't find anything to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (is it SNOWING?), the only thing the author doesn't suggest is a mind-driven perpetual motion machine, though I might have missed it after falling asleep on page 3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter balderdash. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...I have already submitted the manuscript for this book to the Vanderbilt Special Collections Library. Can you tell me the best way to have a summary ... on the book ... posted on Wikipedia for public viewing? I also deal with hallucinatioms and mental illness. Sorry for any inconvenience. The book is extremely important. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckerkd (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately in order for the book to have a summary on Wikipedia the book would have to pass NBOOK, which is extremely hard for self-published books to pass. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a new CreateSpace book. No evidence found to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 20:01, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Barlock

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has played in professional ice hockey leagues, including the highest-level ice hockey league in France. Changing to delete as notability is not assumed for those leagues he has played in. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:NHOCKEY/LA. The French league confers no presumptive notability. Joeykai (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing about playing professional hockey (especially brief stints in low-level minor leagues) that meets any extant notability criteria. No evidence this fellow meets the GNG. Ravenswing 13:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 18 November 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. czar 02:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Picnic Green Challenge

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since July 2008. The talk page contains a statement that would go here, had this article been AfDed 8 years ago, but now does not. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. About eight years have passed and there's barely any improvement to show for it. Completely outdated. Parsley Man (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be cited in a handful of articles related to crowdsourcing e.g. here, here, and other assorted mentions in GBooks and seems to have a dozen returns at GNews. This might be notable, but it's an edge case for me, so weak delete. --Izno (talk) 20:05, 1 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apadmi Ltd

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

Blatant advertisement with only the advertised information about where there is to say about the company and its services, and the sources honestly themselves are not actually significant, let alone substance, as they hint at republished company PR, and my own searches are finding this exactly. This was started last year by an apparent advertising-only account and there's literally been suggesting otherwise better and with the sources simply being republished company information, that's self-explanatory, especially since the article literally cares to start with mentioning its clients. Examining the history finds the company and employees clearly know this article exists because see how the advert tag was added in September but was immediately removed by "Andrew.lee.apadmi" so it's worse that it's the newest contribution by that and the other IPs only focusing with this one advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When searching for the company name without 'Ltd', there are many more sources. British Museum, BBC iPlayer and The Guardian are all significant, reputable sources. That there have been COI edits doesn't affect the notability of the company. peterl (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Contrary to the OP's belief, this doesn't seem to be written in the manner of a promotion. It could use more sources, but notability seems to be established from what I'm seeing so far. Parsley Man (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, although perhaps on a slightly weaker level, and the article does not have a promotional tone at all. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an objective, neutrally-worded overview about the company. Would benefit from expansion, rather than deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards, and keeping the article amounts to WP:PROMO as this is a typical startup blurb: funding, awards, etc. No indications yet of significance or notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like this is a stub at best but I believe there are a number of sites (such as Huffington Post, Manchester Evening News and Computer Weekly) which have content about Apadmi which would elevate this article to notable status. I'm happy to have a go at improving this article to a point where we're happy with it? Lancshero (talk) 14:51, 24 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Koshadze

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

The player does not meet the WP:NRU guideline for notability. He needs to play either for a fully professional club in a major league or have played in an international competition ie. World Cup. It is WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meat the WP:NRU criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remain - Georgia are officially a high performance union, as classified by World Rugby, WP:NRU desperately needs and update as four new nations are now also HPU. An appearance for Georgia at first team level should be sufficient for a player to be notable, regardless of competition. I have been trying to get this criteria updated but don't know who it is I need to go through so have left a comment on the page in hope. To conclude, if the WP:NRU criteria had been revised in the last 5 years there would be no question of this players notability. So, this page should remain.--BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi BulgarianBoy21 could you please give a source for the classification of Georgia as a high performance union by the World rugby i couldn't find the reference anywhere. The following is an extract from the valid regulations on the world rugby web site.

“High Performance Union” means a Union designated as such by the Council and/or the CEO. As at 24 May 2011 the Unions of the following countries are High Performance Unions: Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States and Wales.

There is evidence that there are 3 more nations who have entered the "high performance union" as this extract comes from the IRB investment statement suggests

"The main objectives of World Rugby’s elite Game investment are to maintain and improve standards of men’s 15s at both Tier One (the 10 Six Nations/Rugby Championship Unions) and Tier Two (the other 10 RWC qualified Unions)"

the trouble is that I can't find proof of which nations have entered. If you can find it I would be happy to support an immediate change in the WP:NRU criteria. I agree that it is not normal that the players from the number 12 nation in the world are considered less notable than those from the N° 17 (USA) N°15 (Tonga) N°14 (Samoa) N°16 (Romania) N° 18 (Canada). It would need to be IMHO a primary source from the IRB. I've just spent 30 minutes looking and couldn't find it. Good luck! Domdeparis (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following link infers in several places that all tier two RWC 2015 nations are high performance unions. But aside from inference they also reference the Tbilisi Cup as being a 'High performance competition'. This is both hosted and competed in by Georgia as it has been since 2013. http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/90002?lang=en

I agree that World Rugby have not done a great job making it abundantly clear that several unions have been upgraded to HPU, however I would also like to reference that earlier this year Georgia were welcomed onto the World Rugby council. This is something other unions such as Fiji, Samoa or Tonga have not achieved, indicating Georgia's standing in the world game and hence their players notability. http://www.worldrugby.org/news/158700?lang=en http://www.worldrugby.org/organisation/structure/council?lang=en

This link also references Tier 2 as being high performance. http://www.worldrugby.org/development/development-investment?lang=en

If you follow the link on this page it can be seen that it clearly denotes the fact that High performance tier two sides are defined by the 10 RWC qualified nations outside the Rugby Championship and Six Nations. This can be found under the high performance heading, two pages from the end. This is stated in both the text and the table of investments. http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/high-performance?lang=en

I think that last link in particular should be sufficient to justify Georgia's position as a HPU, especially when it is considered that they have already qualified for RWC 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BulgarianBoy21 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close but no cigar what we need is a list of tiers 2 unions and everything is in place to ask for a change in WP:NRU criteria. I'll keep looking too Domdeparis (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've pulled a quote from that last link

"High Performance

The main objectives of World Rugby’s elite Game investment are to maintain and improve standards of men’s 15s at both Tier One (the 10 Six Nations/Rugby Championship Unions) and Tier Two (the other 10 RWC qualified Unions)" I could provide a link to proof of Georgia having competed in RWC 2015, but there's really no need. There can be no doubt that Georgia, as a side who have qualified for the RWC every time from 2003-2019, classify as one of 'the other 10 RWC qualified unions'. Especially given that the document is dated 2015, meaning it could either be referring to RWC 2015 or 2019, but because they qualified for both it really doesn't matter. So it can surely be confirmed they are both tier 2 and one of 'the other 10 RWC qualified Unions'.

On the same page of this document it refers to World Rugby's 'High Performance Tier Two Unions (10) Investment'. The bracketed 10 here refers to the aforementioned 'other 10 RWC qualified nations '. This both clarifies Georgia's position as tier two and high performance. Thus their player notability is assured. What do you think Domdeparis? -- BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds good to me. What I'll do is post a comment on the talk page of WP:NRU and see if there are any objections and then update the definition of High performance unions. Domdeparis (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check out my suggestion for change here. Talk page NRU. Domdeparis (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good, hope this works out. -- BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as in fact notable for playing with not only the national team, but a team who itself has played in 2 major cups (one international and one world). SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 24 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Bailey

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

Non notable actress, The article's been unsourced since its creation (2007) and although there's mentions on Google there's nothing substantial, fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is fairly notable I think; most people in the UK will have seen her in something on Television (or theatre). The page is completely unsourced but I'm happy to remedy that myself in a few weeks when I have some spare time. Could the deletion be postponed for like a month? Then if the consensus was still that the article should be deleted even after I'd referenced it, I won't complain.

I think I've heard of her too but but just because we've heard of her doesn't mean she gets granted an article, Nope sorry - I had postponed an AFD before only for that editor to not bother doing sod all so I don't postpone these anymore, The AFD will be up for a week so you have plenty of time but as I say I can't find anything so I doubt you will either, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP without prejudice to recreation with sources. Happy to change to keep if properly sourced. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Philopater - Same here if anyone can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing appraoching 3rd party reliable source coverage. At one time it seemed like Wikipedia had decided to have an article on everyone who had ever appeared in a film, but through multiple AfDs we have set the threshold above that, and Bailey just does not meet our inclusion threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has extensive credits, once again we have to not conflate mediocre article quality with lack of notability. No question that sources are needed. But the solution is to take a serious look at verifying what's in there. Many of these film actors at this level take some digging to find source material, but it's often out there. Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced less known BLPs so it can be done however in this case there's nothing out there so quite honestly it cannot be done here, I have no objections to it being recreated but as it stands there's no notability and at present they don't warrant an article. –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her homepage cites some excerpts from RS such as the The Guardian about her performances. Maybe these can be located and put into the article do demonstrate notability? link Dead Mary (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are sources, now is the time to produce. After looking, I cannot find any in-depth coverage. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 14:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recent Coverage:
London Film Festival 2016 with Terence Davies and Cynthia Nixon: https://youtu.be/JGeGbEvp_HA
Raindance Film Festival 2016: https://youtu.be/HnKnEQddwks
Daily Mail Coverage of Official Competition Nominee A Quiet Passion at London Film Festival: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3833458/Cynthia-Nixon-cuts-sophisticated-figure-little-black-dress-promotes-Quiet-Passion-BFI-Film-Festival.html
Evening Standard: http://www.standard.co.uk/goingout/film/berlin-film-festival-2016-a-quiet-passion-review-a3181801.html
Guardian Berlin Film Festival Round up: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/feb/21/berlin-film-festival-2016-observer-roundup
Time Out, Dr Scroggy’s War, Shakespeare’s Globe: http://www.timeout.com/london/theatre/doctor-scroggys-war
Guardian, Dr Scroggy’s War, Shakespeare’s Globe: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/sep/18/doctor-scroggys-war-review-howard-brenton-shakespeares-globe-london-first-world-war
Guardian, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare’s Globe: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/jul/03/julius-caesar-review-shakespeares-globe-robustly-energetic
Telegraph, Julius Caesar, Shakespeare’s Globe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/10946996/Julius-Caesar-Shakespeares-Globe-review-suits-the-Globe-to-a-tee.html
Daily Express, King Lear, Richmond Theatre: http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/theatre/661443/Theatre-reviews-King-Lear-In-The-Bar-Of-A-Tokyo-Hotel-and-Boy
New York Times, Women in the London Theater Spotlight: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/theater/medea-julius-caesar-and-dogfight-give-pride-of-place-to-actresses.html
http://t2conline.com/catherine-bailey-is-making-poetry-in-a-quiet-passion/
http://www.the-totality.com/2016/11/an-interview-with-catherine-bailey.html
http://vulturehound.co.uk/2016/11/drama-dickinson-and-donald-trump-catherine-bailey-the-vh-interview/
http://www.reelhonestreviews.com/?p=3015
http://www.westendframe.com/2012/08/Interview-CatherineBailey-39Steps.html
http://www.lastminutetheatretickets.com/londonwestend/interview-with-catherine-bailey/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pf02cr0713 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I do not have time to go through all the sources you've provided, but I looked quickly and the few that I looked at were just passing mentions (she was at an event, etc.) and one was an interview. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When one of the three cited sources is to one of the Daily Mail's "Look at this woman's clothes/body" pruriencies, it's kind of scraping the barrel. In the article and the offered links above, I don't see enough to qualify her under either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nice job on the sources, unfortunately, several are non-rs, and the others, as was pointed out by Darth Mike, are only mentions. No significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:33, 5 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~~No consensus. Joyous! | Talk 01:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Isa

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

Non notable actress, Few mentions on Google but nothing substantial, Has been in Grange Hill and Waterloo Road so redirecting to one of those would probably be best, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - She is listed as a character on the Waterloo Road TV series, and the main body of the article itself lists "Lauren Andrews" (the character she plays). --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a character of a notable show doesn't grant one an article. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I feel the sources indicate notability. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 cites to 2 bbc programmes, A character profile and some random homepage doesn't indicate notability and infact it actually proves my point that she's not notable and doesn't meet GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable (a whopping four credits), and no viable sources. The BBC citations are merely episode recaps. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 07:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Nothing in the sources found seems to establish 'multiple significant roles' in TV series or movies. No in-depth coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She had a recurring role in Grange Hill as a named character. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a recurring role doesn't automatically grant one an article and the character she portrayed doesn't have an article either. –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 24 November 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rudy Rullo

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

Article is basically a campaign advertisement. Person isn't running for office until next year so at least WP:TOOSOON. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a very fair argument. This person is running in a currently active campaign, with the primary elections less than a year away. You can use this logic for any politician. Please clarify why you believe this page is unworthy, it fits all wiki criteria and guidelines. None of the info is false nor is it in any way an advertisement, i purposefuly wrote it in a very objective manner. If you have any thoughtful ideas on how to change it, however, please let me know and I will gladly cooperate. Markumansky (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- — Markumansky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG, definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, instead of attacking this and saying delete, could you all offer some advice on this issue? How can I change this around so that it does not fail? I am new to posting on wikipedia so I'm not sure that I understand. I would really appreciate advice and not complete shutting down. Markumansky (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markumansky: I understand it is frustrating and creating a page for the first time can be challenging. What you need to appreciate is that no one is attacking you or the page. This is how Wikipedia works. I'm sorry to say that if you are going to take such things personally, this may not be the place for you. Pages on Wikipedia must meet the General notability guideline and in this case WP:POLITICIAN. You want advice? Here it is. Read the following links: WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:OSE. Finally, as you are new, I would encourage you to consider using Articles for creation. This process will allow you to slowly build a page with assistance as you go without fear of the page being deleted before it is ready. Best of luck. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for your clarification, it does mean a lot. Would I be able to read those guidelines and try to ammend my page in that case, or are you going to delete in regardless? I will try to fix it as soon as possible. Markumansky (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:POLITICIAN being "an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability" and there is no other evidence this individual is notable or recognised outside New Jersey state politics. This article functions largely as a campaign advertisement. AusLondonder (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above, per WP:POLITICIAN among several other issues. I appreciate the frustration of the editor who created this article, but this article is not ready for prime time at this point. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy may appear on the primary ballot next year, which he may win, and then he may go on to be elected governor. If he wins the primary he may then have enough coverage to create a workable article. For now there just is not that and we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of now, he is not a notable politician. Meatsgains (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for office in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election. We create and keep and maintain articles about holders of notable political offices, not everybody who merely runs for one. No prejudice against recreation next year if he wins the governorship, but nothing shown or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the majority of views previously offered; individual does not meet the notability requirement for a politician, activist, businessman, or anything else. The article is written as a campaign advertisement, on top of that. ALPolitico (talk) 02:57, 20 November 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. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was procedural close. Author requested deletion, which has been carried out. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 64 (Glitches)

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

Per the video game scope guideline and what Wikipedia is not; a list of instructions on how to perform certain game actions does not merit an article; anything that there is a RS for can be put in the Super Mario 64 article 331dot (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author has requested deletion within the article. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 17 November 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.