Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 October	7 October >

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 Procedural close. This needs to be taken to WP:RFD. I will update the RFD link here very soon. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update:RFD link Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_10#Thwack --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thwack[edit]

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

Delete as an inappropriate redirect for non-notable "online community" which fails WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG and has no reasonable reason to sit as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. Guliolopez (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an inappropriate redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 9 October 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) 05:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design Can Change[edit]

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

Notability; pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmashLAB (2nd nomination) where it was suggested that the entire walled garden be "~~raised~~ razed to the ground". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let's raze it, not raise it :) I'm not finding any WP:RS that would evidence this article's subject meeting WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this concept is notable; being mentioned in several design blogs/portals does not cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaving aside problems with other articles, it's a single PR push by Smashlab rather than anything that had legs beyond the initial PR push. At best it could be a redirect to SmashLAB, if that were to survive - David Gerard (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been done in 2011 with the rest of the articles, but by keeping one of them I never saw the point in putting this up for AfD. GameOn (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and an advertisement. Citobun (talk) 13:39, 13 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indians who won international beauty pageants[edit]

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

This is a duplication list to include non-notable contestants to non-notable pageants. India's representatives to notable pageants were already listed in the yearly editions of Miss Universe Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International. Likewise, the national winners and representatives were also listed in the Femina Miss India, Miss Earth India, Miss Diva, Miss India Worldwide articles, and etc. Notable pageants for men have also another lists like the Mister International India, and etc. This article is just an expanded list to include non-notable pageant contestants without sources. Also, see List of beauty pageants. Richie Campbell (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial filter. Not an defining feature. Category:Indian beauty pageant winners is enough to have. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 9 October 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) 05:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Karjaluoto[edit]

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

Notability; pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmashLAB (2nd nomination) where it was suggested that the entire walled garden be "razed to the ground". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertizing-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not finding any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Barely survived AFD in 2011, and no new sources seem to have emerged in that time span to indicate notability. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a walled garden of promotion along with smashLAB and Design Can Change. None of these demonstrate solid WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as not only was 2011 was a pathetic and unconvincing time for the majority of AfDs, but no one actually cared about the concerns as serious as there are now, everything listed here was simply a shoehorn attempt of starting 2 PR campaign articles, nothing else apart that at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per last time. GameOn (talk) 16:17, 12 October 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) 05:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela at 2nd tier beauty pageants[edit]

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

Did not meet WP:GNG. The list of representatives did not received significant coverage. This is an original research. Richie Campbell (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- indiscriminate WP:LISTCRUFT on a non-notable topic of "2nd tier pageants". K.e.coffman (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just did a random sampling at Category:Beauty pageants by country and Venezuela appears to be the only country with the [sub]category of "2nd tier pageants". Quis separabit? 15:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "2nd tier" in the title shouts "this is non-notable."John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 9 October 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 Higher-Order Perl. Discounting the subject's own views per WP:COI, we have only one "weak keep" and a "keep or merge" on the keep side, plus a "redirect" and four "delete" opinions on the other. A redirect probably accommodates most views as it allows selective merging to the book article, subject to consensus among non-COI editors. Sandstein 09:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jason Dominus[edit]

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

Article written by the subject of the article (and heavily edited by them). Subject has marginal notability, all of it stemming from a book he authored and self published sources. Google hits are not an indicator since the subject of the article has done his homework on generating link engine spam. COI edits throughout, and reads like a book advertisement. Article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Higher-Order Perl. Questionable sources. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:35, 6 October 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 October 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May in fact be notable, though this article isn't good. If not kept, redirect to Higher-Order Perl, which is actually noteworthy in the field - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the subject of the article, which has survived three previous deletion discussions with strong consensus for “keep”. The proposal to delete claims that I wrote the article and edited it heavily; both of these claims are easily seen to be false. Wikipedia's policy on notability of authors says “The person has created … a significant or well-known work. Such work must have been the primary subject … of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” Higher-Order Perl meets this standard. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, the subject may well qualify as noteworthy and the article one to keep. May be a fixer-upper rather than a delete. And COI doesn't mean you can't touch the article about yourself, it means that you shouldn't beyond minor details (a can vs should issue). I mean, Dominus should definitely avoid editing the article, but it's incorrect to say it's forbidden - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very constructive and helpful suggestion. It's current sources are not secondary sources, and it still seems to make the most sense to redirect the bio to the article with the book because there is no context for his bio and the content does not meet standards as you pointed out earlier. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard: I think a review of my edits to the article will show that I have only edited it to make the most minor changes. For example, this is my most recent edit, in March. But if there is a concern about my edits to the article, this is not the correct forum for dealing with them. The procedure at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest should be followed. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now about the notability of Mark Dominus. COI, if it exists, is a distraction. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, although it would be best if someone else sort of rewrote the article, it is extremely poorly written. I would stay stick to coding, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete computer programming language figure who lacks coverage to pass GNG. The inclusion criteria back in 2005 were a lot more lenient than they are today, which is why Wikipedia is plagued by thousands of articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator seems to be a single purpose account, per WP:SPA, and has made few or no edits unrelated to this particular AfD nomination. Starting an AfD with their third edit to WP (after user page and user talk page creation) is not typical behavior for a new user. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit all the time with my IP address, but you have to have an account to list an Afd. Have someone change Wikimedia to allow IP editors to create Afd without an account. At any rate, there is nothing sinister about it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be seen as an SPA attack account, then not attacking would probably be a good start - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now about the notability of Mark Dominus. Motivations of nom are a distraction. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I see no justification at all for the accusation of attacking, unless you mean the very mild incivility of "vanity article", which would be best stricken. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of David's assertion, there were, at the time David wrote that, a couple of passages by Octoberwoodland that could be considered more aggressive. But to Octoberwoodland's credit, they subsequently deleted those passages. At this point, I am content to assume good faith regarding Octoberwoodland's intentions and put the SPA concern to rest. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a little distracting to be debating something other than the subject of this debate. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some basic searching shows lots of web presence (twitter, personal sites, YouTubes, etc), but nothing that would clinch GNG in terms of archival sources. Indeed, the bibliography seems mostly to be web stuff, biosketches, conference presentations (broken link), etc. Awards, like the "Larry Wall Award for Practical Utility" are not notable. As far as I can tell, Mr. Dominus is a peripheral actor within the larger Perl world, rather than a notable computer scientist or language developer per se. The main claim for the article seems to be his book Higher-Order Perl. Most languages have their "Bibles" (like Kernighan and Ritchie for "C"), but Higher-Order Perl does not seem to be one of these for Perl. Noticed nom's mention of redirecting, but the book's notability seems debatable. I think JPL's above assessment is correct: this is a legacy article from the early days of WP when notability considerations were much lower than they are now. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge selectively to Higher-Order Perl. MJD's main claim to notability is as the author of Higher order Perl and as a columnist of The Perl Journal. He was a prominent although not central figure in the Perl world. Based on the book, he seems to meet notability per WP:AUTHOR, but reasonable people could disagree on this. What is clear is that there is basic verifiable information out there on the man, and per our WP policies of WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, it is preferable to preserve verifiable information rather than delete it. Hence if consensus does not develop for keeping the article, merging basic facts relevant to the HOP article, his most notable achievement, would be the best policy-based course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to HOP would be fine, unless that article would be at risk too. From what I can tell, Programming Perl is the "Bible" here. Presuming that Perl is like other modern languages in that there are dozens, or probably hundreds of dedicated mass-market books and technical texts, it's not clear to me that HOP itself is even notable. FWIW, I don't think being a columnist at The Perl Journal carries any notability weight. As far as I can tell, that seems to have been a short-lived trade publication/newsletter that went defunct about 15 years ago (all 19 issues seem to be here). I wonder if the following would be better. The main article on Perl is certainly permanent. Many of the people in the "perl box" listed at the bottom of this article are mentioned prominently or cited in that article. Dominus is not (though the HOP book is post-scripted as "further reading"). Perhaps this content should be redirected there, which would certainly satisfy ATD and PRESERVE. Agricola44 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A book doesn't need to be a "bible" to be notable; it just needs to satisfy the notability thresholds of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. HOP seems to do that, although folks are welcome to to bring it to AfD if they disagree. The Perl Journal was the main and dominant journal in the Perl world at the time, and being a columnist for the journal definitely contributed to the notability of MJD in the field, if not WP. At any rate, I think we should get not distracted by what-if scenarios and just concentrate on the article at hand. If keep does not become the consensus, a merge or redirect to the Perl article would be OK by me. But from what I have seen of the biographical sources for MJD, every one of them mentions HOP. A merge or redirect to Higher-Order Perl would seem a better fit and it would be easier to manage due weight in the merge. --Mark viking (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HOP probably satisfies WP:NBOOK, though I'm not sure. The point is that, if it were of "Bible status", it might render Dominus himself notable per se. It's not, so it doesn't. In digging a little further, I think it's fair to say he was a very visible advocate/promoter/teacher of Perl and he contributed some important modules, but AUTHOR (probably the best guideline match) would require him to be "regarded as an important figure", which he is not, or for HOP to be "a significant or well-known work", which it is not. BTW: The Perl Journal was not a peer-reviewed archival journal. It was a newsletter/trade-periodical that published a whole 19 issues. I think we're trouble if we feel that being a columnist for this caliber of publication renders notability. Agricola44 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this discussion had been about a person whose only claim to fame was to have written a minor book about a pretty minor tool used in any other industry then the article would have been laughed out of court. Why do we persist in applying different standards to some topics, such as the software industry, than we do to other topics? Isn't it time for Wikipedia to grow up from its geeky past and take a broader view of what is notable in an encyclopedia about the whole world? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 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 close. Per the (unsigned) intervention below, the article has indeed been moved out of article space. The redirect should be taken to Rfd, if desired. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TTBeatz[edit]

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

This article was published by accident. It was intended to be a draft but I created an article by accident. Lil62Man (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for TTBeatz Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTBeatz[reply]

Comment - article now moved to Draft and AfD template removed. Redirect for speedy delete. No further action needed

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 22:48, 6 October 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) 05:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Anton[edit]

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

Saw this at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Chef Anton and thought I would take a look. It is easily self promotion and my first thought was to simply rewrite it, but as the IP points out everything is referenced to his own website.

A Google news search [1] revealed four sources (note Chef Anton by itself mainly goes to other Chefs with a first name of Anton[2]). The worldrecordacademy one looked interesting, but I am not sure that it is terribly reliable as it has "UNLIMITED categories. The rest are to the Friday Flyer[3], a small regional Newspaper. There are actually only two articles (one about the trick shot[4] and an article about his appearance on Penn and Teller[5] - the other two are brief mentions on a "looking back" segment[6][7]). The Penn and Teller appearance seems to be his only TV credit [8] to date and is probably his best claim to fame, but I don't think it is enough (especially if we want to write a proper BLP article about them).

~~Could potentially redirect to Penn & Teller: Fool Us as a plausible search term.~~ AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Actually there are two many other, probably more notable, chef Antons to target for this to be feasible --AIRcorn (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article on a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per TNT Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 10 October 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 as consensus once again shows there's no inherited notability simply because of what information there may be about the subject, and this is also another case where the character is unsurprisingly best known for that series. Anything essential to merge is now available in the history and it's the obligations of the users here to merge it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also merge to the Kraken article here. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is again a D&D instantiation of a prior mythological creature which has clearly influenced later fictional depictions of this element. 'Kraken' is used for so much, however, that a Google search is pretty daunting. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I'm open to being convinced that this has "influenced later fictional depictions of this element", but, first, we'd need some evidence of this, and, second, an explanation of why this warrants keeping a separate article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Pretty much every source included here is a primary source, published by the creators of D&D. The claims that this version of the creature has "clearly influenced later fictional depictions of this element" is rather ludicrous, as there is absolutely no evidence or sourced piece of information showing this to be the case. After some rather extensive searching, I can find nothing that shows why this particular version of a rather common fictional creature has any sort of notability that requires its own article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, no third-party sources apparent that would establish notability. Sandstein 09:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Given that almost all the sources are primary sources, there is precious little to go on to sustain the notion this beast is somehow independently notable. There are a considerable number of claims about the aspects of this beast that are not support by cites, and portions of it read thoroughly as MOS:INUNIVERSE. The sole external link which goes to....a forum. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, keep link to Kraken somewhere in the description. Artw (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leucrotta (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The top ten list is not enough on its own. TTN (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Geek.com list is a start of notability, or failing that merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep From what I can tell, D&D is the source of this term (I can't find a reference with this spelling that predates it, though Pliny the Elder's description is clearly the basis for this) and there are a lot of references. [9] for example among others. Hobit (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as most everything in Crocotta#Popular culture derives from this instantiation of the mythological beast. Furthermore, in addition to the Geek.com source, we have Geek Dad, and more importantly than that, we have a number of sources occurring after the publication of D&D stats for the monster which have clearly been influenced by this fictional portrayal of the mythological element: [10], [11], etc. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. I honestly don't know why people are claiming that this creature, or even the spelling they used, originated in D&D. It did not. This is a real mythological creature. Leucrotta is an actual spelling of said mythological creature that did not originate with D&D. Those books that Jclemens brought up are talking about the mythological creature as it existed in folklore, not the D&D creature. The fact that the books happened to be published after the monster's introduction in D&D does not somehow automatically mean that those books were basing their information from D&D. I actually own one of those two books (the one by Carol Rose), and I can assure you that there are no D&D sourcebooks listed as one of its citations, so unless there is some sort of evidence proving that these sources were "clearly influenced" by the D&D version, this is a non-argument. As for this article itself, there are no sources about the creature that are not official D&D publications outside of the one top ten list, which alone is not enough to establish notability. This particular creature is not even a particularly well known or notable monster within the D&D multiverse, let alone in a real world context.64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 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 WP:WITHDRAWN. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bram van Vlerken[edit]

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

Delete: I am not an expert on Dutch athletes but this individual does not appear to have accomplished anything that could push him over the threshold into notability. Quis separabit? 20:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: nomination withdrawn upon re-examination. Thanks, Quis separabit? 20:47, 6 October 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) 05:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payscout Inc.[edit]

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

Corporate Spam, Coverage are press release, non-notable. Only for Wikipedia as directory purposes. Light2021 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sole advertising and the past accounts focusing with only this account and heavily at it suggests that also, everything listed here is a veiled method of showing us what seems like an article but it is not since everything listed is simply what the company says about itself which goes from the information to sources, nothing here is guaranteed to be non-PR therefore no article (especially if the company was involved here). SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, all sources are press releases or reprints thereof - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 10 October 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. I believe that the article's creator is a sock of silverbridge, now blocked pending confirmation and speedying on that basis. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilverBridge (company)[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG and fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The only coverage I can find relates to anouncements relating to stock price and an article about one of their developers winning a hackathon. This is not enough to get it over the bar of WP:NORG. Jbh ^Talk 19:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 19:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not pass notability guidelines, as stated. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional section 'Impact on insurance market' to provide additional credible sources for notabilityIwanP (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the article's talk page [12]. Jbh ^Talk 21:39, 6 October 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. per SK1 - "SO CLEAN IT UP" springs to mind ....., Anyway no valid reason for deletion (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JayFrance[edit]

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

Musical artist did not create the songs listed under discography Robinhoodxxx (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Robinhoodxxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep - Invalid deletion criterion. Please see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. GAB^gab 19:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep France is listed as a producer in some of the song/album articles. If there is a problem with the content of this article or the other articles address it on those pages. Meters (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Robinhoodxxx is claiming that JayFrance should be deleted because the information in the article is fake and JayFrance is thus not notable then he or she will need to clarify. Meters (talk) 19:41, 6 October 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 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 19:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 10 October 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 deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salina Soto[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete and Salt please as this has been deleted in the past as it is, this current article is no better since searches are noticeably only finding mere mentions, and it's saying something alone if this was actually deleted in 2008, when articles were quite lenient. Current information and sources are not at all convincing and they're simply trivial. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to nominate this myself. I looked and the sum of reliable sources I could find was this single mention: http://www.vogue.com/13416990/madonna-beyonce-weddings-bride-style-mtv-music-videos/ Innisfree987 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hardly any coverage, no notability whatsoever. O, and yes, a pinch of salt might be a good idea too. Yintan 22:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as the obvious promotional copyvio it reads like. Cut-and-pasted from IMDB. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:24, 8 October 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. SNOW. Salting. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan Sahib[edit]

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

This page has been repeatedly created and speedy-deleted—see this thread on my talkpage for some background. Rather than keep playing whack-a-mole, bringing it here to either decide it's worth keeping, or decide once-and-for-all that it's not what we want and delete it (in which case I strongly recommend that the deleting admin salt it). For the duration of this discussion, I've restored the entire history of all the deleted versions (note that most of the claims of notability on previous versions, such as "first ambassador of India to the United States", are demonstrably untrue—this version of the article is the one from which every outright lie has been removed.) ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the latest version is no more encyclopaedic than any prior version. I'm guessing that the guy is a much-missed relative or local hero ("local" as in "village" etc) because there really do not seem to be any useful sources out there. I agree with the suggestion of salting if the thing is deleted. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep last version, I linked all document related to this article. Don't Delete this page. AltafProg (talk) 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete and bury deep in a pile of iodized salt per nom. This is a complete soapbox about someone who is clearly not notable. Much of it just makes no sense. It's been nuked before. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please don't accept delete request, Try to understand the feelings of person. AltafProg (talk) 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Altafprog (talk · contribs) / AltafProg (talk · contribs), you can only !vote once in the discussion, although you can add as many comments as you wish. You should also only use one account and the capitalisation of the account name matters - see WP:SOCK. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Never heard of this person. Tried looking into web and few archives, but found "nothing"; not even a passing mention. Repeated attempt to create this title is need to be dealt with. Anup [Talk] 10:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. You do not "reference" an article by uploading primary source private documents to Commons while claiming them as "CC/own work" — reliable sourcing for a Wikipedia article is coverage about him in newspapers, books and/or magazines, and nothing else. Wikipedia is not a place where a person gets an article just because "try to understand feelings of person" (which makes no sense, as the person in question is dead); it's a place where an article is earned on the basis of reliable source coverage which verifies passage of a specific notability criterion, but nothing here satisfies either of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per others – notability has not been demonstrated through coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — This page is the only source about this guy that comes up when you search his name, we can't even confirm if that's him in the photo. Page has been jumping between created and deleted, I say it should stay gone. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Also, if the guy was born in 1910 and died in 1987, he would be 77, not 98. Obvious evidence of a hoax? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it would be that the infobox coding was malformatted which I've now fixed. Be very careful throwing allegations like "hoax" around on Wikipedia, as unless you have actual evidence of an editor acting maliciously such an accusation is considered a personal attack; you've already come extremely close to being summarily banned from Wikipedia for your previous comment on this AFD. ‑ Iridescent 16:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was never informed about the problem with the first one (seems obvious that there was a problem but I kinda just posted and forgot). I'm not a racist or anything, I just assumed it was a hoax because many hoaxes have glaring problems with them. I'll be much more careful next time. Still learning the ropes here. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful about expressing personal value judgements regarding what someone does or doesn't look like. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 13 October 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) 05:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PoondiApp[edit]

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

Reason Reason is not enough time to write article properly.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 18:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but as a mobile application (i.e. a software product), it does not qualify under A7. The author of the article himself has brought it here to AFD, with the explanation that he does not have time to properly complete the article. That, in itself, qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD#G7, but I feel that the author was merely frustrated by the speedy deletion process. However, as the article author is also the author of the software, and the claims of significance are likely inflated (the app has not yet left beta stage, and has been removed from the Google Play Store due to its instabilities), I feel it is too soon to create a valid article about this application. Also, product's creator himself appears confused about whether or not it is a dating app (the first paragraph of the article says it is a social and dating app while later text says that it is not a dating app!), so until the app is cleaned up and the author figures out what he wants the app to be, we probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally a COI advertisement and nothing to suggest anything otherwise, the mere facts are only ones the company itself would care to mention and, as consensus has shown, are not what we accept here, it's quite contrary and that's because we're not a PR webhost. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author first created this article then nominated it for deletion. So be it! Pavlor (talk) 09:47, 10 October 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. All contributors in this discussion are in favour of this decision. (non-admin closure) TedEdwards (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rickon Stark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor Character in both the books and the series. This page is completely unnessecary because he is such a minor character. This page has even been deleted twice before, and his character hasn't developed that much (only two extra Game of Thrones' episodes he appeared in) since the last nomination.TedEdwards (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters per above. TedEdwards (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's Well written and sourced. He has been on the series from the pilot untill Season 6, episode 9, And he is still alive in the books. Plus nothing is wrong with the article. - AffeL (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appearing for the most of the time Game of Thrones has been airing does not mean he should have and article e.g Pycelle does not have an article, nor does Hodor. Despite all the sources, he is still a minor character and the article is almost about nothing. TedEdwards (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC) In fact, he doesn't even appear in over three quarters of the Game of Thrones episodes from seasons 1-6, his tenure on Game of Thrones. And why does him being still alive in the books mean anything, several characters are still alive in the books, doesn't mean they've all got articles. TedEdwards (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of information(Nothing is wrong with it and since he is still alive in the books, the article will continue to grow).. If you want to delete this. then you should also delete all the much much worst character articles from Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Doctor Who and The Walking Dead. This is well sourced and contains a lot of information. And the character and actor has recived a lot of coverage from this show/books. - AffeL (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved significantly since it got nominated for deletion by user TedEdwards, due to edits by myself, and it will keep improving. How come no one is deleting any of the characters from the franchises i mentioned above. Many character articles from those are barely even sourced at all and are also very short. - AffeL (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there a minor characters which barely affect the plot in a franchise, these articles are pointless and should be deleted, and maybe I will personally nominate them. Rickon is not a major character in any major plotlines in either the book or series. You are completely wrong that Rickon recieved a lot of coverage from Game of Thrones. I'm fairly sure he didn't have a single line in Season 6, and didn't have many other lines in any other seasons. And I've just noticed half the sources on Rickon's page are from tertiary sources and therefore will have to be removed as they are unreliable. TedEdwards (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, what makes you think Rickon will suddenly become a major character in the books? TedEdwards (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I fixed those so called "issues" you hade. The article is now more than perfect!.. I might even nominated it for a Good Article later when you are done trying(for some unknown reason) to delete this perfectly fine article. - AffeL (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Book chapters are pointless sources, it is implied that all the info in those sections comes from the books. Just saying. And the only reason why you're trying to save the article is because you've done so much work, in your view, to make the article "perfect" (which is impossible, there will always be faults). And I appreciate that, it is hard for someone who spent so much time working so hard on something to seen their work thrown away as such. But you have to realise that if Wikipedia has articles of such minor things such as this article, Wikipedia would be littered with pointless articles, and that's why I think the article, unfortunately, has to go. And why do I think that this character is minor? Well, if you removed Rickon's character from the storyline of ASoIaF or Got, the plot would change negliably, and therefore, the character is minor. And I do agree with you that there are some character articles in Star Wars and LotR at least that should be removed. And could you answer my question, why do you think Rickon will suddenly become a major character in the books? TedEdwards (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never said for a fact that he will become a, what you call "major" character in the books. Just that the article will get even bigger with time, being that he's still alive in the books. And don't lie. This article is perfect. no doubt about that. - AffeL (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AffeL Perfection is where the article can be improved no further, this article could always be improved more, as could every single other article on Wikipedia. However, if I fail in getting this page deleted, I see no reason for me to try to stop you nominating this page for a good article, I just don't think this page will meet the criteria. TedEdwards (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, not trying to rude or anything. But I will have to stop commenting here. For the reason that you clearly have some kind of grudge or hate against the character or the actor that plays him. And also for the hostile behavior towards me. For that I will say, "In case I don't see you... good afternoon, good evening, and good night". - AffeL (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent, non-trivial RS in the current article. The Wrap and International Business Times posted significant commentary just about Rickon. There are scads of other Battle of the Bastards reviews (Winning an Emmy is pretty strongly correlated with that, you know) which deal with his death, but those two are sufficient by themselves to establish that the GNG is met. Sure, he was merged or redirected twice before, but independent coverage and commentary of this fictional element fundamentally changed after he died in the show. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. I would add the following sources that exclusively cover Rickon Stark's storyline and some unintended irony in that storyline: (Spoilers obviously) [13], [14], [15], [16]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources already provided to prove the notability of Rickon Spiderone 14:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could I point out that most of the sources on this page point towards a single scene in the entire 60 episodes in Game of Thrones. Not really what makes a character major; major characters would have several sources refering to many different episodes, not just one scene. Rickon Stark is NOT a major character. TedEdwards (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC) By the way, you can't say this article will grow because there is no certainty he will appear in any future ASoIaF books, he might just be ignored or found dead. TedEdwards (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I listed my two sources above is because they do not. Your statement here, that Rickon Stark is not a major character, while arguably correct is irrelevant to whether the article is kept as a standalone or merged. Do multiple independent reliable sources cover Rickon Stark in a non-trivial manner? Yes, they do. As such, his status as a minor character or not is irrelevant. As fictional franchises grow in size and popularity, the minor characters get more coverage, sometimes more coverage than major characters in other fictional franchises. Rickon now has more coverage than Mortimer Folchart, for instance. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changed my mind, since I can trust the page will become very well sourced if suitable edits are made.-TedEdwards (talk) 09:38, 9 October 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) 05:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filipe Alves Viana[edit]

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

Never played for Lustenau, so he has never played in a professional league. --XaviYuahanda (talk) 17:40, 6 October 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 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 18:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played 1 game in Austrian Football First League, according to worldfootball.net, which is accounted as a widely used reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The worldfootball.net site is generally treated as reliable, but it looks like they've got themselves confused on this one.
Last season, SC Austria-Lustenau had two young Brazilian amateur players with Alves as part of their name: the club website speaks of "Verteidiger Filipe Alves Viana (22 Jahre), der auch schon in Testspielen der ersten Mannschaft von Cheftrainer Lassaad Chabbi eingesetzt wurde und der offensive Mittelfeldspieler Victor Alves (22 Jahre)." (Defender Filipe Alves Viana (22 years old), who has already played in first team friendlies under headcoach Lassaad Chabbi, and the attacking midfielder Victor Alves (22).)
As the Austrian Bundesliga page cited by the nominator shows, the #25 who made his debut against Kapfenberger SV on 22 April 2016 was Victor Alves. The match report on the club website confirms it explicitly: "Victor Alves gibt sein Debüt im Austria-Dress" (Victor Alves makes his debut in Austria colours). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Struway's reasoning. The sources cited appear to be mistaken, meaning the article does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per very good research done by Struway Spiderone 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; and per Struway. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Good research by Struway. Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Thomas Performing Arts Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable Performing Arts Center Uncletomwood (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to lie, I didn't look at this article (which I bet needs work!) nor did I do my own search for sources. But this has survived two previous AFDs, both with their nomination withdrawn after reliable sources were presented amidst unanimous keep !votes. Now, consensus can change, but given the deletion history of this article, it's going to take a somewhat more verbose nomination for me to consider it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous deletion debates have been unanimous in favor of keeping. The article has several good references. The New Indian Express published an article early this year about the theatre and its financial problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are some sources here which suggests GNG for this topic. This one needs improvement not deletion (added it to my to-do list). Anup [Talk] 11:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncletomwood: Can you please take a look at improved article and sources listed there-in? I believe notability-concern raised in nomination has been addressed; if so, you can withdraw and close this afd. Thank you. Anup [Talk] 18:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others, seems to be a sizable and notable venue. Citobun (talk) 13:42, 13 October 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) 05:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Medical Systems[edit]

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

Pure advertisement. Would have to be rewritten from scratch--I don't think there is a single usable sentence. And very dubious notability. The only good refs re about health records in general, not this company specifically. Otherwise, refs are notices , or trivial awards. "Fastest growing" is usually a good synonym for "not yet notable"(The local refs are unacceptable because they are not discriminating--they'll cover any local company) DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find some passing mentions in local press. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, no reliable sources. Yintan 22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I still confirm my PROD, we cannot improve an advertisement if those are the sole intentions and if it cannot be convincingly fixed, this is the case, since everything here is trivial and unconvincing and not the substance we would need for an actual article. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be failing WP:CORPDEPTH. + doesn't adhere to WP:NOTADVERT. Anup [Talk] 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 13:44, 13 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeroEdge[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. This is only one of very many software packages approved by USDA and there is no evidence it has any notability. Fails WP:GNG. I and Mean as custard have made this a redirect to its parent company, but a concerted effort by one editor(COI?) has necessitated this AfD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- To the COI issue with the creator of the article; yes, this is a serious issue. The author has yet to respond, but has not been active since a notice was placed on their user talk page. Given their editing history, their sole interest on the project has been Cybersoft and its products. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the new edits have added evidence of notability. The USDA approval is applicable to only one of the modules in an extensive suite that is unique and widely used.--Vkoripalli (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning Delete the two RSes are better than nothing, but an article sourced to them would be two sentences - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cybersoft. Ok, it exists and is in use by about 11% of school children in the U.S., but there's little in the way of independent coverage. We have 7 references in the article. The first is basically just a listing of approved packages. Not particularly revealing. The second is a press release from the company itself, thus a primary source, not what we really need. The third is virtually identical to the first. The fourth and fifth references are the same article from two different news outlets. I.e., it's really just one reference to a secondary source. Ok, that's one. The sixth isn't a secondary source; it's a customer. The seventh is, once again, a press release, thus a primary source. So in the shake out of all this we have.... ONE, reliable secondary source. That's precious little to support a stand alone article. Recommend to merge useful content back to Cybersoft and leave this as a redirect to same. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it would be a good idea to merge into Cybersoft as I think that article is also suitable for deletion. This particualr program in any case has `no demonstrable notability DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the concerns here are clear, advertising intents and information and then also nothing for actual convincing notability; as is expected with these, the history shows noticeable SPAs focusing with this one article and these accounts consist of restoring then-removed advertising (therefore suggesting the uncompromising and unequivocal concerns especially in that this is being manipulated as an advertisement, and it's enough to also then say it's a company involving itself with schools, therefore it's not a school itself. As such, that also affects the sensibility of "merging" therefore it shows the concerns outweigh any generous considerations of keeping this, article or in history. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 18 October 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) 05:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles Nest Outfitters[edit]

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

Plain advert of a nn business Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are trivial/marginal, article is nothing but CorpSpeak, company isn't notable. Yintan 23:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cut a lot of the article earlier today per WP:NOTADVERT, and after doing that, there's not much left. Research didn't lead to the discovery of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Company does not appear notable at this time. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – run of the mill article spam for non-notable company. Citobun (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena[edit]

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

Also nominating-
Muhammad Ali vs. Al Lewis
Muhammad Ali vs. Bob Foster
Muhammad Ali vs. Jürgen Blin
Muhammad Ali vs. Rudie Lubbers
Not notable non-title fights. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concerted effort by an editor to create stubs for every single Ali fight but really the ones listed above can make no claim to notability t justify their own article. They are already listed in the main article.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all articles on Muhammed Ali fights. Most of Ali's fights were major news and major box-office at the time whether or not they were title fights. Those few fights that were not considered especially important at the time have grown to be so with the immensity of Ali's reputation. Ali is now considered by many not just the greatest sportsman of the 20th century, but one of its most prominent world figures. Is there policy against non-title fights? It shouldn't apply to Ali.
The articles are stubs but are well sourced and well edited and should be given a chance to grow. Spicemix (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles seem to be well-sourced, and I don't think you can judge notability only on whether a fight involves a title. Ali's fights were generally well-covered, at the time and later on. I don't think the AfD submitter has made a thorough and thus convincing argument. I'm going to put the burden more on the AfD submitter to prove his case on each individual match. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Spicemix and Stevietheman, and the fact that the editor working on these pages, Soham321, has given a much-needed and much appreciated expansion to Wikipedia's collection on this legendary fighters career. Each article can and should be expanded, yet there is plenty of material to add to each page thanks to Soham321's extensive list of sourced material. Ali, who died recently, is one of the most honored men of his lifetime, not only in his home nation but throughout the world, and is honored for many reasons. I've been following the creation of this collection of pages on the Ali template, and have continued to be impressed by the dedication of the initial editor and the extent that Wikipedia's Ali collection has now grown. Instead of deleting these starter articles maybe we should all be designing those star-thank you templates to give to Soham321 for the work and research involved. And this nomination gives me another chance to thank him (Thanks!). Floatin' like a butterfly, Randy Kryn 19:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Just as every book by a historically very significant author is considered notable per WP:NBOOK, so should every fight by the boxer almost universally agreed to be the greatest of all time and to be one of the greatest sportspeople of all time be considered notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every fight is The Rumble in the Jungle, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper, The Ring or Boxing News. Lesser bouts are covered adequately in Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't decide notability by degree of reverence/importance. These are events well-covered by reliable sources. Not every subject has the same degree of greatness per our own or even the whole of culture's perspective. If we decide your way, then half (maybe more) of the Wikipedia would be up for deletion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I repeat, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Football games are also "well-covered by reliable sources". By your line of reasoning, we should have an article on every Cleveland Browns game, which would be a crime against humanity. This fight lacks WP:PERSISTENCE. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I would like Clarityfiend and others who voted to delete the Ali fight articles to take a look at the WP articles about boxing fights featuring Mike Tyson: {{Mike Tyson}}. I would suggest that even the least notable of the Ali fights are more notable than most of the Tyson fights which have their own WP pages, at least with respect to the coverage of these fights in RS including books and articles. To give an example, the Ali vs Blin fight is being nominated for deletion, but an entire chapter is dedicated to Blin and the Ali-Blin fight in the book "Facing Ali". The Ali-Blin fight is also covered in a RS like the New York Times. In the Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena article, the proding editor deleted three separate references i had given to articles from the New York Times pertaining to this fight. For two of these references he claimed in the edit history that they were irrelevant since they were published before the fight took place. (The third NY Times article, which actually reviewed the fight, was deleted by him on the ground of citation overkill.) But in my opinion the basic structure of a boxing fight article necessarily includes sections like "Background" and/or "Buildup" for the purpose of completeness.For the Ali fight articles, my vote is for Keep. Soham321 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's difficult to argue against the "crimes against humanity" of having articles on these well-covered one-off events involving one of the most well known individuals ever. Sheesh. The reality is that well-covered one-off events are covered normally in the Wikipedia despite any wikilawyerly thing you might bring up. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I admit I'm wavering a bit, but I don't like the precedent that would be set. This would open the floodgates to Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Mike Tyson, etc. Where do you draw the line? Then, you'd have to include grand slam finals for Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, and so on and so on. What about Seabiscuit's match race with War Admiral? Après nous le déluge. It smacks of WP:INHERIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        As i mentioned in my earlier reply to you the Mike Tyson fight articles have already been created on WP: {{Mike Tyson}} . Soham321 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all all of the article more reliable with the reference and should have been chance for the editor to improve the article. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 04:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I think boxing is utterly rubbish and should be banned, and every mention of it deleted. Nevertheless the media world - especially at that time - thinks differently and that makes it notable in a wikisense. Agathoclea (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record all these fights are quite well covered in the Muhammad Ali#Professional boxing record and add very little additional to the reader's knowledge of the topic. If these were serious significant fights in Ali's career, they would be more than one or two line stubs. ww2censor (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of all the stubs for these Ali fights. Now as you can see i have actually expanded on the stubs for some of the fights. For example, Muhammad Ali vs. Henry Cooper and Muhammad Ali vs. Chuck Wepner. This shows that the stubs can be expanded into full articles. I started creating stubs for the fights while giving sufficient RS (from books and articles) because i hoped to arouse sufficient interest in others to expand on the stubs and save myself the trouble of writing up all the articles.Soham321 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After putting up five of the Ali fights for deletion in this page, the prodding editor WilliamJE has now started nominating other Ali fight for deletion through separate (individual) AfD pages. I would suggest that for efficiency each Ali fight which the prodding editor would like to nominate for deletion should be put up in this page so that this issue can be resolved in a holistic and efficient manner. I would also suggest that the prodding editor risks exhausting the community's patience if he goes around nominating individual Ali fights for deletion on separate pages instead of on a single page (this page). If an Admin is reading this, i would like them to intervene at this juncture. We are here to create an encyclopedia, and any argument about whether a WP article(s) is suitable for deletion or not must be settled as efficiently as possible. I suggest that the AfD notices on the other Ali fights which the prodding editor has made be deleted immediately and those fights be included in this page. I am aware of WP:BLUDGEON, but the prodding editor's behavior necessitates that i remind everyone that WP articles on Mike Tyson's boxing fights already exist. See {{Mike Tyson}}.Soham321 (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 1- Get an administrator if you want. I've broken no Wikipedia policy
- 2- You don't know what PROD means at Wikipedia. You have used it incorrectly six times just on this page alone.
- 3- As for Tyson articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  I do know the difference between a PROD and an AfD. I accept my mistake in calling you the prodding editor.WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an unofficial user essay, and not official WP policy. The official WP policy which is applicable here is WP:IGNORE in my opinion for reasons given by other editors on this page. Soham321 (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding further articles to AfDs that have existed for a few days is problematic for a number of reasons especially if there have been a number of comments offered. In the past when I did that in the name of efficiency I was rightly called on it. It would not have been a problem if Soham321 had suspended his blanket inclusion of all fights to see how this AfD turned out.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary i am now going to finish writing up the stubs for all the remaining Ali fights by today itself. Since this issue must be resolved as efficiently as possible. We are here to create an encyclopedia and not to keep arguing endlessly about whether certain WP pages need to be preserved or deleted. Soham321 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP pages have now been created for all the Ali fights. So any proposed deletions can be discussed in an efficient and holistic manner on this page itself, rather than conducting this exercise over multiple AfD pages (discussing AfDs for individual Ali fights on separate AfD pages). Soham321 (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The scope and breadth of the sources provided establish notability. These stubs should be expanded, with the sources already in the article as well as the extensive additional material available. Alansohn (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The sources all seem to pass WP:RS and significant coverage has been met per WP:NOTABILITY. ReusGang (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The fundamental point of WP's array of inclusion guidelines is to ask the question, "Can an encyclopedic article be written about this subject?" When the subject is a fight that includes Muhammad Ali, one of the most written-about figures of the 20th century, the answer to that question will invariably be "Yes". A Train^talk 16:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and object to this bundling - I'm sure that there are some fights involving Ali that aren't really historical in the grand scheme of things. However, right now, we have a bunch of different fights bundled together. It seems that at least a few of them have received notable news coverage, particularly in terms of changes in boxing culture being noticed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:08, 25 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanolic extract of mango peel[edit]

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

Not notable. I tried to redirect this to mango previously, but it was reverted on the ground that ethanolic peel extract wasn't mentioned there. Trying deletion now. There's no good way to mention ethanolic peel extract in the mango article, as the sources that talk about it aren't WP:MEDRS compliant. There are also non MEDRS sources that talk about acetone extracts ([17]) and 7 different solvent systems ([18]). There are may well be studies on mango seed/leaf/bark/pulp extracts with water/hexane/acetone/ethanol/methanol as solvents.

Aside from the now removed medical claims, we're left with a indiscriminate list of secondary compounds in mango peel ethanol extracts. Mango#Phytochemicals does mention some secondary compounds, but there's no reason to think that an extract of a particular part of the plant with a particular solvent is notable. Plantdrew (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just any random part. The peel and perhaps also the seed are parts most likely to contain agents of interest. As far as medicinal extracts are concerned, an ethanolic extract is probably the most common type. It may be okay to delete the article, but not on the basis of faulty assertions. --Hyperforin (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork of Mango#Phytochemicals. This really doesn't say anything significant that the parent article doesn't cover, and there's no indication whatsoever that this specific focus has independent notability separate from the broader topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research of an industrial process. I don't get it. Is this somebody's term paper? Bearian (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearian. One could write a similar (and similarly pointless) article for every type of vegetable matter on the planet. This is (albeit slightly tarted up now) a classic "how fruits cure cancer" content fork. Blythwood (talk) 10:43, 12 October 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) 05:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kaywise[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. I strongly suspect the article creator, User:Jamzy4, has undeclared conflict of interest as he/she has primarily contributed highly promotional articles about Nigerian musical artists, including this article as well as:

Korrekt (musician) (already deleted)
Dremo (deletion nomination)
Black Magic (musician) (deletion nomination)

The fact that all these articles have professional-grade photos with a claim to self-authorship is also very strong evidence of undeclared COI. Citobun (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all well spotted Citobun. Nominated articles are non-notable with unencyclopedic, conflict of interest and promotional contents all over them. @Jamzy4:, judging by your recently created articles, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not for advertisment. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment editors should also be aware that the article creator has been temporarily blocked for a campaign of revenge Afds against the nominator, something that could conceivably be directed at other participants at this Afd, once the 7-day ban expires. As stated at the ANI, he has "nominated at least one article for deletion because it's author !voted delete on an AFD"! Participants should be aware of this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all blatantly promotional, non-notable, poor excuses for articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they are advertorial, trivial and contain nothing for the substance we would need for a fully confirmed and believable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 9 October 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 09:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Chance Act (2009)[edit]

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

Article about a bill which didn't pass and isn't an act. Not notable. Richard75 (talk) 13:23, 6 October 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 October 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 13:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many, many failed bills. Not notable. agtx 15:35, 11 October 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 per A7. Giant Snowman 08:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mead[edit]

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

probably another fake article. No actual (!) reference in the article, no reference for any of his numerous and impressive jobs traceable anywhere in the entirety of WWW. → «« Man77 »» 12:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probable hoax Spiderone 18:30, 7 October 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.

Benedikt Prosenikov[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fear The Living Dead (TV series)[edit]

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

this shows should be able the speculate to the article, which does not confirm the shows has verify the sourced is written. unreliable sourced should written those words each network into upcoming shows does not sign or brand new shows. Oripaypaykim (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am discovered a recreated article User:Unknown1dasa punctuation evidence is another one

if he/she created the sandbox is moved to the article. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't say I understand a word of the nomination, but yes, this article should be deleted. No evidence that a TV series of this name exists in the Philippines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this is a hoax. I couldn't find any source other than the Wikipedia article for this show, which apparently features a man who starts a zombie outbreak by having "sex on a monkey with intense virus." Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a hoax. I also couldn't find anything online about this supposed series or any of the contents in the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Signs point to hoax. Consider: The article states that the show stars "Gabby, Maria and Kyle" which is typical of A7 articles. More than that, the article states that this show will replace Another World, and that the director is one Daryl D Matucenio. When I searched for sources using these, I came across Special:Contributions/DARYLMATMAT who was blocked for creating non-notable stories surrounding Another World which were written by one Daryl D Matucenio. Lastly, I can find no source for the existence of "DGDM Entertainment TV Group", at least in English. All of the above suggest hoax and possible socking. Crow^Caw 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [19] where Daryl Matucenio was added as a castmember of the Walking Dead, so another connection. Crow^Caw 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as made up. See the comment here. I have tagged it WP:A11. -- GB fan 14:56, 7 October 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. But subject to editorial consensus she can be mentioned in the Karna article. Sandstein 09:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya[edit]

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

Delete:- This page should be deleted because in the original epic this character was never mentioned. Karna have only one wife. This character is a later edition. It is created by novelist Shivaji Sawant in his book Mirtunjaya. Before this book her character was never mentioned not even in the folkfore. At 7th century Sudra was allowed to marry once that is why it was impossible for Karna to marry twice. In the article we can see a quoto by queen Gandhari where she mention at the frst sentence that Behold, the wife of Karna and mother of Vrishasena look carefully in the sentence it mention wife of Karna not wive of Karna this is another prove that Karna have only one wife. In this view this character is a pure later edition thus this article should be deleted. Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- I agree with Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC). At the original epic there was no Supriya. Karna have only one wife whose name never mentioned in the epic. As Karna's birth name was Vrisha for that his wife would be called Vrishali or Vrushali. For more information check the wikipedia page of Vrushali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividha22 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable character. I know absolutely nothing about this subject, but I found this article because of this edit to another article, which appeared to me to be promoting a novelist called Siwaji Savant. I then went to investigate and undid a similar edit to Supriya, which also seemed fishy to me, so it's been on my watchlist ever since. I have no reason not to trust the opinions above, so I'm voting delete. I've also standardised the format of this AFD and am about to link it in today's log, so more people can find it. Graham87 11:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not see any proof that Shivaji Sawant was the first person to introduce "Supriya" as wife of Karna. Even if he made it up, the thing is discussed by various other publications (click on urls).

Kotru, Umesh; Zutshi, Ashutosh. Karna The Unsung Hero of the Mahabharata. Leadstart Publishing PvtLtd. ISBN 9789352013043.
Nicolson, Mac. Loved by the Sun. Notion Press. ISBN 9789352067114.
Deepa Prabhu (13 November 2013). "Book Review: Karna's Wife, The Outcast's Queen". iDiva.com.

We must not discuss whether the character did exist or not (that is not our work, we don't do original research), but whether it is notable or not. Anup [Talk] 07:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all these fictional works, including Sawant's? Vrushali herself finds little mention in the original Mahabharata. So how do you gauge extended fictional characters of mythology? I would say that if they find significant mentions in historic texts then they should be considered notable. Supriya doesn't seem to get to that level yet. Maybe more and more fanfiction would churn around her and then few centuries ahead she could be notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: What about "merge" with Karna article? I do not mean to corrupt historical beliefs held by followers of the religion based on epic Mahabharata. I'm just saying that this thing has received some coverage in multiple publications and we should summarize those information in our encyclopedia article. We will make it explicit in there that, Supriya has no mention in ancient texts and found only in works of A, B, C, ..D writers. Anup [Talk] 09:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a discussion is already started by you for merge of Vrushali article to Karna. Include this one in on-going discussion? There are many versions of Mahabharata, and I've read none of them (minutes before downloaded Vyas's one translated by K. M. Ganguly, ctrl+f found no mention of both wives). Anup [Talk] 09:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am against mentioning anything in Karna based on fanfictions. Do we have any historic book mentioning Supriya anywhere? What are you going to write? That Karna who is a mythological character of a 400 BCE text has a wife who is mentioned in 21st century AD fictional books? That will be a joke!
I myself have no knowledge of where else has Supriya been mentioned. Pining @Redtigerxyz: for that.§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are writing here a replica of historical epic (that we will consider only epic and contents within discussed by others). I want it to be "sum of all available knowledge" including all prevalent major view-points. And that will not be a "joke" but "knowledge" on a topic from 400 B.C up to present. Anup [Talk] 10:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your way of handling mythological characters. Notable and academic view-points should be mentioned. Rest all should stay out of an encyclopaedia. For example, recent depictions of Shiva in soap operas show him to be a six-packed hunky figure. Until that becomes a standard depictions few centuries ahead I don't think it should find mention in his attributes. A lot of mythological characters on WP get edited based on these soap operas, what screenplay is added to such shows to get TRP and get female audiences weeping eventually finds it way on WP. You may check out histories of some minor characters of Ramayana, wives of Laxman, Bharata and Shatrughna for such editing trends. These wives have not been getting any attention historically in literature from academics. But maybe they are being played by hot chicks on some tv show and hence their narratives on WP have changed from "is a character from Ramayana" to "is an important character from Ramayana". Cheers to the PR strategies of media houses. I won't be surprised if Supriya also has started just like that based on some melodrama that’s being aired somewhere on some channel. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your disagreement. I disagree with your analogy of "Supriya" subject of multiple publications with characters appearing in TV soap-operas. Wikipedia is based on published reliable sources (not any other kinds).

If you believe all these publications are a work of fiction; it still need to be summarized in our article. Will you agree for a "In popular culture" section? Where we could summarize these knowledge from various publications.

I do not intend to invoke 'otherstuffsexist', but your stand here and at Vrushali article is complete opposite to each-other. Both are a similar topic and not mentioned by name in Mahabharata, and quality of sources for them are almost equivalent. Anup [Talk] 14:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on the content related to Supriya when the exact content is proposed. Karna is always subject to fans and the article keeps fluctuating a lot. I have given up keeping that article clean as it never happens. So I will most probably not object to any kind of crappy stuff also written on that article.
I accept the contradiction in both stands. But that has been because Vrushali's emergence as karna's wife predates that of Supriya or Urvi. Frankly I have never read anything about Urvi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I never heard of any of the wives of Karna. As far as the topic of Hindu religion goes, my knowledge is very much limited to the glorious DD National's Mahabharata and Ramayana. My comments in here are totally based on what I get out of our policies and guidelines.

I think, we at the very least are able to write that the name of Vrushali, Supriya and Urvi emerged as wives of Karna only in XX century (or X,Y,Z year respectively) in works of XXX, YYY, and ZZZ. If sources are not 'academic' research, we can push all these stuffs in popular culture where I believe we can write more than any other character of Mahabharata. Anup [Talk] 15:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Karna: The epic Mahabharata does not name Karna's wives; though his sons are named. The Stri Parva does record her sorrow, she is unnamed. Even the name Vrushali is a recent invention; like Supriya or Urvi. We can state these three names in the Karna article. I am not against having articles on recent mythological inventions. We do have an article on a recent Hindu goddess who emerged in the last century, but developed cult status and notability. However, IMO Supriya does not have that notability currently to have a standalone article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Karna: There are not enough verifiable contents to justify a standalone piece for subject under discussion. There are some coverage in multiple publications listed above (should be some more what I was unable to find), but they provide the almost identical contents in them for this topic which doesn't go beyond 4-5 sentences. It should better be merged with the related existing article, Karna per MERGEREASON#3. Anup [Talk] 06:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- I completely agree with the nominator. There is no reason to merge this article to Karna because she was not wife of Karna. As Mahabharata clearly state Karna have only one wife.For verification we can take Gandhari's lamentation as a prove. In Stri parva Queen Gandhari must record his wife's sorrow without mentioning her name.

Behold, the wife of Karna and mother of Vrishasena, is indulging in piteous lamentations and crying and weeping and falling upon the ground! Even now she exclaims, "Without doubt, thy preceptor’s curse hath pursued thee! When the wheel of thy car was swallowed up by the Earth, the cruel Dhananjaya cut off thy head with an arrow! Alas, fie (on the heroism and skill)!" That lady, the mother of Sushena, exceedingly afflicted and uttering cries of woe, is falling down, deprived of her senses, at the sight of the mighty-armed and brave Karna prostrated on the earth, with his waist still encircled with a belt of gold. Carnivorous creatures, feeding on the body of that illustrious hero, have reduced it to very small dimensions. The sight is not gladdening, like that of the moon on the fourteenth night of the dark fortnight. Falling down on the earth, the cheerless dame is rising up again. Burning with grief on account of the death of her son also, she cometh and smelleth the face of her lord!

-Stri parva: chapter 21. (For more information check this: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m11/m11020.htm.)

Queen Gandhari's statement is a clear prove that Karna has only one wife. As Mahabharata did not mention her name scholar called her as Vrishali . The name Vrishali makes sense because Karna's original name of was Vrisha or Brisha as per original epic, hence his wife would be called as Vrishali also called as Brishali or Vrushali. At this point we can say that whatever mention in this article of being Supriya mentioned in Mahabharata as second wife of Karna is completely wrong. Now we should think why we can not call Karna's wife as Supriya. Now we have to anlyse what Mahabharat sate about Karna's wife ( the original wife). The Mahabharata state that the wife of Karna was from suta clan and their marriage was arranged by Karna's father. But this article state that she was friend of Bhanumati. She expressed her desire to marry Karna on seeing him at Bhanumati's swayamvara ( self choice ceremony). But at the time of self choice ceremony of Bhanumati there is no reference of her any friend. Let alone her that friend who want to marry Karna.

Now at last we can say that this article provide only wrong information about the largest poem of the world that's why it should be deleted.Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care whether Supriya or Vrushali or Blah-blah-blah did exist or not. And we are not discussing here the question of existence (because WP:NOR); but whether the subject of article meets Wikipedia's notability standard for inclusion or not. Your deletion rationale therefore is not pertinent to matter under discussion. Anup [Talk] 15:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article even did not meet notability. This character have no importance not in folk not even in any soap opera. For your kind information [Talk]. We can not give any wrong information through wikipedia. Thus whatever is written in the page are right or not that even matter here. Thank for your contribution and disagreement. But you should not be rude to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should open and read WP:Notability guideline (it'd help you to formulate more convincing arguments). The "wrong information" in your comment is open multiple interpretations. Do you think Wikipedia should not have an article on Flat Earth (because it is proven to be untrue)? Wikipedia doesn't write anything new. It only summarize key contents from multiple reliable publications. "Wrong information" in context of Wikipedia would be something what has not already been published by any reliable source.

When you write messages on talk/discussion pages, sign it by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of message. Anup [Talk] 17:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome your argument Anup [Talk] 17:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC). But Flat Earth have its own notability. But the character called Supriya not have any importance in the original epic not in any folkfore. Original epic have no mention about her in folkfore she is only wife of Karna. She have not any importance in anywhere. This character just don't deserve a article. Thus I suggest to delete this article. The chacter is completely unnoticed. Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated assertion on the 'original epic' and 'folklore' suggests that you still have absolute zero idea of Wikipedia's notability guideline. "Completely unnoticed" argument is totally flawed since there already has been listed in beginning of this discussion few sources which mention the subject of article. Unfortunately, talking to you doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and I will most probably stop posting any further reply to you. Anup [Talk] 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you still find I have zero idea of Wikipedia's notability guideline. But for you kind information I know about this before signing in to wikipedia. According to wikipedia's notablity guidence If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Did you find any significianc coverage in any reliable source for this article. I am repeatedly mention original epic and folkfore just because we can find source only from there. I don't know except this from when you are going to find any significianc coverage for this article. If you find anything like this that please provide it except don't argue aboout it anymore. Thank u for replying and voice your own opinion about this matter. Anup [Talk] 04:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC). Tupur16 (talk)[reply]

Delete:- I have very little knowledge about this matter. But when I found this matter after the moment I browse the character's name in internet. After some research I come to the conclusion that this page should be deleted. Because the character is completely non notable and unverified. Ominictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominictionary (talk • contribs) 13:41, 10 October 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. Speedy deleted per WP:G11 and WP:G12, copied from [20]. BethNaught (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EverGreenAgriculture[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:SOAPBOX. Unreferenced article written in a promotional way. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:29, 6 October 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 St Kilda Football Club players. MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McNabb[edit]

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

Recent research has revealed that it was Jerry McGrath that played instead of McNabb in the opening round of the 1900 season. This means that McNabb never played a senior game and fails WP:NAFL. See April 2016 entry here and note that his statistics have now been removed from the other external link on the article. Jevansen (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what about the book which is used as a source in the article? I don't have access to it, but would like to hear from somebody who does. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have the 2013 version of the book which is the latest edition and he is still listed there, but it's an issue which has only been picked up this year, so I don't know if it's something where we may have to wait until the next edition of the book as I can't find anything else on him apart from those two external links. Flickerd (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, re nom's link, i note someone called Robh is thanked for the research(?), who is he? is this reliable? will this McNabb still meet WP:GNG as a football aberration ie. "recorded as having played for x years that has only recently been corrected"? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good questions. I think this discussion should be put on ice until the next edition of the book comes out. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst the AFL Tables and AustralianFootball sites aren't official, they are very reliable. and the people who run them don't change anything unless he gets official notice from the AFL or other reliable evidence. He's been deleted from the official records, so we should update our records too. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: This is an interesting discussion. The older printed versions of AFL stat books will remain reliable sources despite being superseded by new versions, no? So is there an argument for updating the Wikipedia article with a mention of the errata? What if the article is recreated in the future by someone using an older stat book as the reference? A Train^talk 09:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 09:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we redirect Bill McNabb to List of St Kilda Football Club players, with a note in the latter mentioning this discrepancy? (that article is referenced from afltables.com so as it stands he's not listed). As User:Coolabahapple said he may hold notability as a historical aberration and that may solve the issue raised by User:A Train of someone recreating the article using an older source. Jevansen (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – I support this as a redirect to List of St Kilda Football Club players as AFL tables is generally pretty reliable, but completely deleting it does not sit comfortable with me until there is an update from an official source, which will most likely be the next edition of the book. Flickerd (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per rationale by Francis, aka @The-Pope. Quis separabit? 15:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and The-Pope. A note (sourced to AFL Tables) should probably be made at the Jerry McGrath article, along the lines of "until 2016 it was believed blah blah blah". A similar note could be added to the main list of St Kilda players. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:58, 20 October 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. Seems like there is no evidence either WP:PROF or WP:GNG are met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Riccardo Campagnolo[edit]

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

Article has been without sources since it was created in 2005. Even if sourced, I can't see anything here that meets the notability criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. John of Reading (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Although citations (under E R Campagnolo) not quite as high as desired, but WP:GNG may be attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete instead as none of this amounts to a convincing article with applicable notability, WP:GNG is not heavily taken with this specific subject as it's not the important applicable notability, he's not notable as an author either, so there's simply nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has one well-cited publication in Google scholar ("Antimicrobial residues in animal waste and water resources proximal to large-scale swine and poultry feeding operations") but it's not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and no other notability is evident in this unsourced BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
deletefails GNG. thanks for picking this up. so much to clean up... Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments lack support in Wikipedia policy DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sietse Bakker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails WP:NBIO - as an earlier AfD concluded anyway. This is just a media industry person doing his job, which occasionally involves appearing on TV, but being in the big box does not make one notable - not unless one is discussed by other independent sources, and this person is not. The best source here is an interview related to "In 2009 he was chosen as one of the 25 most successful young entrepreneurs of the Netherlands." This not a major award, not enough to estabilish him notable, and the interview is not a quality source (see WP:INTERVIEW). This nomination follows up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive), where his predecessor's bio was deleted, with closing admin concluding "Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant in comparison to someone holding an important office within the industry.that another article about a similar topic is deleted is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is invalid - WP:ITSNOTABLE - this is not a vote. I explained that his position is not a criteria to keep it, and cited an example of a similar bio that got deleted. This has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFFEXIST, rather - SIMILARSTUFFGOTDELETED :) I also noted that the sources present do not seem sufficient for WP:BIO requirement, neither does the award. You do not address any of those points. In essence, your vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't even make sense. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person is not just a former executive supervisor, but was actually an entrepreneur who created the website ESCToday before his role as an exec. Internet searches verify that Bakker quit his role as exec supervisor for the EBU earlier this year. He is also an author of 2 books, How To Live Wow!? (2011) and The Sparkle (2016). So if we are going to delete an author, then will the nominator start AfDing other authors such as Stephen King, Beatrix Potter, and many thousands of authors? The nom's rationale that the "subject fails WP:NBIO" can also be debunked, per WP:AUTHOR which is permissible. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 12:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NAUTHOR does not state that being an author is notable. His works need to be significant. Care to show that they are? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realise that we had to play "show and tell" in these kind of debates. The WP:BURDEN is not with me, Piotrus, it is with you to demonstrate the works are not significant. This person is not a TV Executive, to which you are using as a claim for deletion. In fact Bakker was an entrepreneur first, just like Richard Branson. He was then recruited by a broadcasting organisation, and quit that job to become an author and recently the CEO of Scrn - a digital agency. All of which is detailed and verified in his official website. And let's just remind you of something too. You should stop with the discouraging towards others comments for the reasons to keep. You are turning things into a WP:BATTLEGROUND which is suppose to be avoidable, and it is not helpful that your actions come across as intimidation. People are entitled to voice their opinion to keep, just like you are to voice your opinion in your nomination. But to intimidate other's by basically knocking down their reasons is unacceptable. Read their comments, yes. Attack them, no. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 13:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, Wesley, there was no overt hostility from Piotrus. Attack the argument, not the person. I fail to see how one rebuttal is enough to make this discussion a "battleground."

Also, on the contrary, the burden of proof of your argument, that Bakker is notable because his books are notable, lies on you.

Documentation about Bakker's life taken from his own website is NOT an acceptable argument, and it certainly does not constitute proof of notability. Anybody can write about their own life on their own website.

Your arguments regarding other authors and entrepreneurs are also invalid, as there are tons of authors and entrepreneurs who are not notable. It's not exactly convincing to compare Bakker to Stephen King or Richard Branson. They are household names with a long list of third-party, independent sources that discuss their work and life in detail. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Mr. Gerbear, for being a voice of reason - and for being familiar with the policies. You said everything I would have said, so I can just second your post in its entirety. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Bakker is important in the Eurovision world, his notability cannot be established by independent sources, as is required by Wikipedia. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 01:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admins: There is a bit of canvassing going on here, which is rather unfair and needs to be taken into consideration, specially the way "votes" are being cast. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note to admins: Piotrus went to my talk page AFTER I had made the comments above. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 09:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also false statement by Mr Gerbear. There are plenty of reliable independet sources. A simple search and you find hundreds of them. Also in the article they are present. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, could someone please enumerate the sources which show this person is notable, the ones present in the article at this time do not, they show what he has done only, not his significance. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly I don't see enough sources and secondly this is a BIO1E. Notability cannot be inherited. The coverage of the subject is specifically about the Eurovision context. In fact the quality of coverage is like the one a spokesperson gets - covered in context of the company, not in context of themself. There is nothing to show that the subject is independently notable. (The references in the article consist of 1 source to the Eurovision site which is not independent, second - link to an interview on a potentially unreliable site, third - which doesn't work and fourth - to a directory listing of a book. None of this is significant coverage and doesn't justify a separate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Svante Stockselius[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NBIO. This is just a media industry person doing his job, which occasionally involves appearing on TV, but being in the big box does not make one notable - not unless one is discussed by other independent sources, and this person is not. He had been interviewed twice, but per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are not high-quality sources as they are significantly self-published (subject talks about himself). I cannot comment on the 404 Swedish interview, but I looked at the English one in the Internet Archive and I am not impressed: it is short, it focuses not on him but on the EuroVision, and I do not believe such a short piece that's almost off-topic on him in a minor outlet approaches anywhere near making him notable. This nomination follows up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive), where his predecessor's bio was deleted, with closing admin concluding "Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. This person has been the executive supervisor. Article can certainly be improved but that is not a reason for deletion. that another article about a similar topic is deleted is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is invalid - WP:ITSNOTABLE - this is not a vote. I explained that his position is not a criteria to keep it (and your claim to the contrary has no backing in WP:NBIO), and cited an example of a similar bio that got deleted. This has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFFEXIST, rather - SIMILARSTUFFGOTDELETED :) I also noted that the sources present do not seem sufficient for WP:BIO requirement. You do not address any of those points. In essence, your vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable through multiple independent sources. And nomination is clearly a vindictive response and follow-up to this from same nominator and ironically this article is mentioned within that nom. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean vindictive. We deleted one article about a non-notable subject, it stands to reason that this should open more scrutiny on other articles from the same series whose main claim to notability is having the same job - an argument that was deemed not sufficient in said AfD. Also, vindictiveness assumes I would be unhappy about something - why should I? The AfD concluded as I hoped it would. Lastly, how about you WP:AGF? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins: There is a bit of canvassing going on here, which is rather unfair and needs to be taken into consideration, specially the way "votes" are being cast. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admins: I did not intend to comment on this AfD. For the record, as I said on my talk page from which I was "canvassed," my vote would have been to keep. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Wesley Mouse, being supervisor of Eurovision is indeed notable. He is mentioned in third-party sources in English, with references noting his was critical of the UK's participation [21], appears to have been invovled in major changes connected with the contest [22], gave interviews or was quoted in press [23] and in a Swedish article discusses his thoughts on a possible successor [24]. The article as written may be under-developed, but should be tagged with {{ref-improve}} not deleted all together. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:29, 14 October 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) 05:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Third World; Country or People?[edit]

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

Non WP:notable book. I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any reviews in Google Scholar, nor on the wider web for that matter. Publisher seems fishy, I can't find much about them - and they are not Titan Books, I think. Seems like advert of sorts, i.e. spam. No encyclopedic value. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no reliable sources reviewing, or even mentioning, this book. WorldCat shows zero library holdings. Amazon has no listing for it. The publisher does not appear to exist; the only Google hits are false positives, and a reverse image search for the logo provided at the Google Books entry returns no hits. I was able to locate what I believe to be a pdf of the first few pages of the book (front cover to table of contents) and the colophon included no actual information about the publisher whatsoever. I strongly suspect this was self-published. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like there's an undisclosed COI here, given that there are multiple places that link the author and editor names as the same person. There was even a Lulu author page that stated this as well. The article had a mild promotional tone to it (not enough to warrant speedying it, but enough to notice) but this makes it seem that much more promotional. It's why editing with an undisclosed COI is such a bad idea because even if the lack of disclosure is unintentional, it can cast a bad light on edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And it's almost as good as self published, as this states that he's also the founder of Titan, Inc. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. There's nothing out there to show that this book is notable enough for an entry. A search in my university's academic databases produced nothing, nor did a Google search. I did, however, find evidence that shows that there is an undisclosed COI here and that the book was published through a company that the author founded himself. Neither of these two things are issues that would necessarily make a book non-notable, but in this case it does seem to make it less likely that coverage does not exist, as it's never really a heartening sign when an author has to not only publish their own book, but write their own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79's findings. Self-published, non-notable work, totally fails WP:NBOOK. - Brianhe (talk) 06:40, 12 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Ridder[edit]

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

I came across this page as an A7 speedy, but it doesn't cleanly apply here since he does have a minor role in a notable upcoming film.

That said, the role is "Hong Kong Office Worker" so it's not the type that would make him notable enough to keep on that basis alone or even mention in the main article for the film. A search brings up nothing that would establish notability, as he doesn't seem to have gained any sort of coverage for his work as a whole. The guy exists, but existing and working in a specific career is not in itself inherently notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did another search for sources and still didn't find anything, but it looks like the name "Blake Ridder" is a pen name for Sean Lu, per his Linkedin account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a self-publishing author who has what looks to be minor parts in as-yet unreleased films. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about his 100K twitter followers? Surely that's a notable amount of fans. Also in August 2014, his current published book was the #1 bestseller Seanismuk (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fan counts do not count for notability on Wikipedia, partially due to sites where you can purchase a substantial amount of followers. I'm not saying that this is what happened with Ridder, but it's common enough to where popularity does not make someone notable. Also, Amazon sales rankings do not count towards notability on Wikipedia. This is for a number of reasons such as it being difficult to track rankings and because there are so many different "lists" on there - after a while the categories grow so specific that achieving a good sales rank isn't a hugely monumental task, especially if the work is given out for free - which is the case here. Additional reasons for this stem from the same issue as buying Twitter followers - people can and have found ways to artificially alter their sales rankings on Amazon. Again, not saying that he's doing it, just that people have and it's a pretty visible and well known issue on there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to ask: are you Ridder or someone affiliated or associated with him? Any conflict of interest must be disclosed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, with absolutely no substantial, independent coverage from reliable sources. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS. GAB^gab 19:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could we not edit and mention he is an upcoming author with some notability? Plenty of self publishing authors who are not all that notable. I just think maybe the article can be edited in a way. Seanismuk (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be established by sourcing in the here and now and there just isn't anything out there to show that he's notable as an actor or an author. As far as the existence of articles on other self-published authors goes, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS pointing out these other articles is not an argument for inclusion. Some of those authors might fail notability guidelines and should have their articles deleted while others would pass. The existence of those articles doesn't mean that an article on someone who fails WP:NAUTHOR or other criteria should remain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get ridder him. His book is a "#1 bestseller" ... according to him, and him alone. (On the other hand, Goodreads says it was downloaded "over 5000 times". Must be #1 in Lower Slobbovia or Elbonia.) He's "played" a role in a film that hasn't been released yet. Oy veh. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete His one work to date, a short story, is not enough to pass notability as a writer. I agree there are lots of other articles on non-notable writers, but this is not a reason to keep this one. His upcoming novel may at some point be key to his notability, but not at this point. For that matter, since it is upcoming, we do not know it will be published. That he has some role in a film with a 2018 release date may be verifiable, but the role does not look to be significant, and even if it was he would need two such roles to count as notable as an actor, but they need to be significant, and his role in the 2018 film does not look to be. In fat, even if he has clearly been filmed, it is possible it will be cut from the final film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found no reliable sources to indicate notability. Prowp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Further research shows subject is of relatively younger year- is probably going to get more roles in the future. Past that, I think a role in a speilburg is enough for a pass, no matter how trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any huge issue with drafting the content, but the problem with this is that there's no way to predict that he will gain future roles. Sometimes people can and do go on to bigger and better things, but in most cases a creative professional will never gain that foothold and will never have the ability to sink into obscurity because they never became all that well known. Ridder has apparently only had one role, a background character without a name (and likely non-speaking), and has self-published books that has never received any sort of coverage in independent RS. My concern is that cultivating a draftspace article will just result in an article that will likely remain in the draftspace for years, if not forever. As far as the Spielberg role goes, notability is not automatically inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) by Spielberg directing the film. The average blockbuster film will have dozens, possibly even hundreds of extras that are named things like "Office Worker #5" or "Girl in coffeeshop". Even the role being on IMDb isn't an indication of the size or importance of the role, since roles of this nature are typically added by the extra rather than the production company, as the company has nothing to gain by adding them while the extra can use it to bolster their resume. Now what would make the role notable is if news outlets or other independent RS were to cover the actor and their role, which doesn't seem to have happened here. To put this in perspective, my father was an extra in the Emmy award nominated Delbert Mann film Ironsides and he was even visible in one scene (my sisters and I were uncredited extras only visible in the distance during a later scene), but he is not automatically notable because he was part of the movie. Notability simply isn't inherited by any association with notable films or people. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – does not meet notability criteria, lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 13:46, 13 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipinos and people of Filipino descent in international fame[edit]

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

This appears to be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of people who are Filipino, with no real inclusion criteria. I don't know what "in international fame" actually means in the real world. The whole list is a BLP nightmare, supported by one "source". And I don't know what to make of the random picture gallery that takes up the last part of the article. I'm amazed this page has existed for more than 13 years too! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list seems to be an indiscriminate list of Filipino people with Wikipedia articles. "international fame" is subjective and many people in the list just happened to have a career outside the Philippines but may not be famous internationally. Manny Pacquiao may be one of the people who achieved international fame but players in the national team may not be internationally famous except the star players (but even this is not a guarantee). There is no just clear guideline.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT; not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:LISTCRUFT and should be deleted per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#OR. There is no way to determine who is "in international fame" here. This is purely un-encyclopaedic information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 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) 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thai university ranking[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Only contains lists of university ranks. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing like a dictionary entry. Lists of university ranks are encyclopedic, see category:University and college rankings Thincat (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Article is simply an aggregation information found online on Thai universities. What does this tell us about Thai universities and about university ranking in general?
- Comment @Thincat: That is a category page, not an article. It was automatically-created to list pages related to universities/university ranks because the individual pages were tagged with that category. It's part of how Wikipedia works. It simply lists the articles of that category, and is fine. However, this article is a list of every university rank, which goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it doesn't add extra to our understanding of anything related to universities or university rankings, is just information that was aggregated and pasted from various sites online, and is frankly a waste of Wikipedia server space. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This seems to be just a list of international rankings filtered to show only Thai universities. If it had been about dedicated national rankings by reputable organisations I might consider otherwise. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:NOTDIR. As paul says above. Simply filtering international rankings is hardly encyclopedic for an article. LibStar (talk) 17:13, 15 October 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 10:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Garcia Jr. (FBI agent)[edit]

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

questionable notability, only passing mentions in a few sources--Prisencolin (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG with only passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Held the second highest rank (at the time) in one of the most notable law enforcement agencies in the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - held the second highest rank. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What GNG? It's all passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He didn't really hold the second-highest rank on his own. There were three other "executive assistant directors" at the time. Absent significant coverage of this individual in particular (which I can't find), he's not notable. agtx 15:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure it's relevant that there were three others at the same rank. So he was one of the five most senior people in the FBI. Still makes him look pretty notable! After all, we don't delete articles on four-star generals (or three-star, two-star or one-star generals for that matter!) because there are more than one of them at that rank! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WHYN. The reason why we have our notability guidelines is that we are able to write an NPOV article based on third party sources. Over here the coverage is sorely missing. Except for a bunch of passing mentions, there is nothing much about the subject himself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~leaning delete~~, although his is a pretty common name. An editor who finds persuasive sourcing should feel free to flag me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) to revisit after I posted sources below. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Garza, Sonja (2001-12-09). "Former FBI leader here gets a top bureau post - Garcia given No. 2 slot in Washington". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  
  When Ruben Garcia Jr. was a young FBI agent in Miami in the 1980s, he chased down Colombian drug traffickers and organized crime thugs.
  ...
  Today, the 23-year FBI veteran continues to distinguish himself in Washington, D.C., as the bureau's newly appointed executive assistant director for criminal investigations.
  ...
  A native of Brownfield, Garcia was born to Mexican immigrant parents who worked in the cotton fields. Ortiz characterizes Garcia's modest roots as "poor but always honorable."
  A natural athlete, Garcia attended Texas Tech University where he "helped put the Red Raiders in the spotlight with a legendary 1971 pitching duel" against University of Texas' famed pitcher Burt Hooton, according to a 1996 Express-News article.
  ...
  He joined the FBI in 1978 and first was assigned to the San Diego Division, where he investigated bank robberies, kidnappings and other violent crimes. In Miami, Garcia would eventually head up the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, but Ortiz - now the assistant special agent in charge of the San Antonio Division - remembered their days there as "regular gumshoe investigators" on the trail of drug dealers.
2. Lipman, Larry (2001-10-12). "FBI's Anthrax Point Man No Stranger to Spotlight". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Ruben Garcia Jr., named Wednesday to head the FBI's investigation of anthrax exposure in Palm Beach County, has been the agency's out-front figure on some of its highest-profile cases in recent years.
  ...
  As the FBI's assistant director in charge of the criminal investigative division, Garcia is the agency's third highest ranking officer and its highest ranking Hispanic.
  ...
  A graduate of Texas Tech University with a bachelor's degree in business administration, Garcia joined the FBI in 1978 and spent his first assignment in the San Diego division.
  In October 1982, he joined the FBI office in Miami, where he worked for six years, primarily on drug-related investigations.
  He returned to San Diego in 1988 as supervisor of that office. Three years later, he was assigned to the FBI headquarters in Washington, where as a supervisor he managed national investigations into organized crime, drugs and violent crimes.
  In 1994, he transferred to the FBI's San Antonio division, first as assistant special agent in charge and then as special agent in charge. His duties included oversight of investigations involving white-collar crimes, national security, domestic terrorism and civil rights.
  ...
  He once wanted to be a professional baseball player. As a pitcher, he posted the second-best earned run average at Texas Tech and signed a contract with the Kansas City Royals organization. His career peaked in Class AAA, one step below the majors.
3. Crouse, Jacque (1998-05-01). "Top local FBI agent Washington bound". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  
  As he readied to leave San Antonio, the first Hispanic to lead the local FBI office said his most noteworthy accomplishments here have been to promote communication within the office and partnerships with other law enforcement groups.
  In about two weeks, FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Ruben Garcia will leave the Alamo City for Washington, D.C., where he will take over as the FBI's assistant director for the personnel division, which oversees the agency's 25,000 employees.
  ...
  Garcia was assistant special agent-in-charge in San Antonio from June 1994 until he was named to the top management slot July 26, 1996.
  ...
  One of Garcia's priorities when he took charge was to boost morale in the San Antonio office, which in the early 1990s was rocked by a lawsuit local Hispanic agents filed claiming discrimination and retaliation.
  ...
  The native of Brownfield said he is looking forward to a new challenge at FBI headquarters, but added it is hard to leave San Antonio.
4. Lash, Steve (1999-11-24). "Agent from Texas to lead FBI's Criminal Investigative Division". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Garcia, a Brownfield native, served as assistant and then as special agent in charge of FBI's San Antonio field office from June 1994 until June 1998. He was responsible for combating domestic terrorism, national-security threats, civil-rights violations and white-collar crimes.
  During his 21 years with the FBI, Garcia has also worked in the agency's San Diego and Miami field offices, where he primarily investigated drug crimes. In addition, he served at FBI headquarters from 1991 to 1994 as a supervisor in the Organized Crime/Drug Section and the Violent Crimes and Major Offenders Section in the Criminal Investigative Division.
  Garcia, 48, has a bachelor's degree in business administration from Texas Tech University.
5. Jackson, David (2000-01-01). "FBI official, native Texan says controversy part of the job". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  
  Mr. Garcia's road to the FBI's upper echelon began on Aug. 15, 1951, in Brownfield, Texas. He describes his hometown as a place "where the wind blows and the dust is everywhere. A great spot. I love it."
  He grew up wanting to play major league baseball and he was a good enough pitcher to win a scholarship to nearby Texas Tech University.
  After posting a 21-10 record with an earned run average of 2.06 - second best in Red Raider history - Mr. Garcia signed a contract with the Kansas City Royals organization. He made it all the way to AAA ball, one step away from the major leagues.
  "As I say, I went from a prospect to a suspect in baseball," Mr. Garcia said. "I looked toward other things."
  A relative worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so he applied. The bureau hired Mr. Garcia in 1978, assigning him first to its San Diego office.
6. Crouse, Jacque (1999-08-16). "First Hispanic to get keys to local FBI office". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  
  With little fanfare, Ruben Garcia on Monday is to become the first Hispanic special agent-in-charge of the local FBI office.
  ...
  Born in Brownfield, he is a former Texas Tech Hall of Fame baseball player who spent four years in the Kansas City Royals minor league organization.
  A 1971 All-American left-handed pitcher who has been described as having a buggy-whip delivery, Garcia spent a couple of years in retail management before moving on to the FBI in 1978.
  He was a street agent for 10 years handling violent crimes in California and drug cases in Florida.
  ...
  He and his wife, Virginia, have been married 13 years.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ruben Garcia Jr. to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as the listed sources are simply show what's clearly publishing his own words from the man's own biography and then republishing them elsewhere also (literally going to specificd about his job locations and what events followed because of them), the position itself is then actually not even a important one despite the numerous words and overall "serious form" of it", because it's clearly simply a position meaning he's part of a team involved in itself with the importsnt positions, not that the position itself is largely important or of inheritance for independent notability. Because the article sinply goes to such specifics about hin, it's clear he was the one supplying it. Therefore there's then no other actual information listed suggesting his career and achievements have been convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my ivote to Keep Profiles in multiple major Texas dailies persuade me. This is not merely local coverage since Texas is larger than some planets and because of coverage in a large Florida daily. Also note the "first Hispanic" angle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 21 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buria clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The only potentially reliable source is vague - it refers to a lineage of chiefs at Buria but says that they were Bhangi (ie: Chuhra) Sikhs, not Jats. Sitush (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Source mentioned in nomination refers to a jagir named "Buria". I found another source that says the term "Buria clan", but that is different one. Anup [Talk] 09:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcomes of other similar AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya, etc. Another completely unreferenced one, setting a record at being under 6 words. The nom might want to list several at one time if there are more of these. Or could they perhaps be PRODed? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't PROD this one because there are mentions of Buria in sources and just maybe I have misread them in determining the things to be unrelated. I do PROD quite a lot but there was a spate of PRODs on articles like this that DGG overturned a couple of years ago, so any in that group would have to come to AfD anyway (this isn't one of them, and those that have been brought here have all been deleted). - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:54, 11 October 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.

Alex Heineman[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NOQUORUM Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Weeps[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. All sources appear to be either their own website or other promotional sources. Smartyllama (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Criteria for musicians and ensembles states that the "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", where the criteria number 11 ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.") is applicable to the band in question. They are in rotation of the Slovak National Radio (RTVS) alternative nation wide broadcast (Radio_FM). Also the article was expanded with more non promotional citations. I hope, that the commission will take this fact in consideration. Erikputz (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC criteria are not passed just by asserting that they're passed — you can't just claim that they've been placed in rotation by RTVS and have the article get kept just because that claim was made. You have to reliably source that the claim is true before the criterion is passed. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment sourcing is not great, too many user-generated sources ... anyone able to go through and sort out the RSes from the blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The citation number 15 is from a band independent magazine. Also they were available in the the print version, however I did not wanted to link their Facebook page and could not upload the image itself for copyright reasons. Here is the article scanned: https://www.facebook.com/AprilWeeps/photos/a.148684108508746.26791.107185332658624/792156417494842/?type=3&theater .

The magazine Valhalla (citation number 13 and 17) is also independently generated. Erikputz (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't go with two independent sources and 17 primary ones, and say that WP:GNG has been met. While primary sources can be used sparingly for additional confirmation of stray facts not covered by an RS — e.g. in a BLP you can cite the subject's own primary website for basic biographical details, like where they were born or what university they attended, that might not make it into the media coverage — but the reliable, independent sources have to be more than half, ideally as close as possible to 80 or 90 per cent, of all the sourcing.

That said, we actually don't have any rule that the sources have to be web-published, such that it would be necessary to directly upload a scanned image of a newspaper or magazine article anywhere — while we certainly like to provide a convenience link to a web-published copy of the content when possible, you can cite print-only sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles or books, without linking to a web copy. I don't know whether there's enough print-only coverage out there to make the difference between an NMUSIC pass or fail here, but if some more print-only coverage does exist you are allowed to cite it. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New reference added from independent magazine. Erikputz (talk) 20:23, 10 October 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) 05:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hunter (writer)[edit]

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

could not find any independent, reliable sources with significant coverage. No important awards. Fails WP:GNG. Article was created by COI editor from a management company. Rayman60 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unreliably sourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 8 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hirokazu Hiramatsu[edit]

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

Main leads are nil. News coverage and strong references are also nil. I fail to see how the subject is considered notable in any way possible. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a source that talks about this person's life, and on Ja:wiki there are references to books. [25][26]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviewing roles from ANN: 1) Kenji in Burn Up - supporting 2) Karyuudo Tsukishima in Future Diary - 10th diary user among the 12, supporting 3) Kohara in Ga Rei Zero - supporting 4) Daba in Heavy Metal L-Gaim - main, lead char 5) Sojiro Izumi in Lucky Star - supporting, Konata's father 6) Mr. Nakanojo in Nichijo - minor, guest 7) Casey in Tokyo ESP - not listed SUMMARY) Only Daba is a main role and the Heavy Metal L-Gaim isn't terribly notable. Not enough to justify keeping and developing the article. If other sources show more prominent roles then revisit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 7 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Fernandez[edit]

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

not notable Mohann Jasturba (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Warren Fernandez is merely performing his job at the Straits Times.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable, with quite extensive coverage of his books and journalistic activities available at the click of a mouse. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that there are no independent sources. The subject works at SPH and all sources are SPH published or affiliated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources indepdent from his employer to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he's apparently only best known for being that one newspaper's employee, and then there's nothing else for any actual independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 9 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kartika Affandi-Koberl[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. From what I've found, most RS only mention subject in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Sources exist~~ Sufficient sources exist to base an article on. I don't have access to all the sources, but AGF, I take it that Wright96, for example, is about the subject, and provides more than a passing mention. Mduvekot (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are included in the article, the claim that they exist is not enough to keep the article. Especially since "sources exist" in no way gaurantees that they are reliable, 3rd party secondary sources that give substantive coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, sources never need to be included in the article if we are evaluating it for notability standards at AfD. We need only show that they exist at all, see WP:NEXIST. Best practice would be to add found sources to the article, or lacking the time/inclination to do so, link them in the AfD discussion. If we haven't found any sources when doing WP:BEFORE, then absolutely, we can say the article should be deleted since no RS have turned up. Am I misreading that you are assuming there are no RS or are you sure there are none? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not sure where anyone else was looking. Travels in the US and Australia produced interviews and other sources about her. JarrahTree 08:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources (which I added to the article). In addition, searching under "Kartika Affandi" reveals more results than her full name. There are several sources in Indonesian. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sufficient sources for notability as an artist. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 18 October 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. Michig (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lovette (actress)[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks significant coverage in RS to sustain an article. The awards listed are scene related or fan-based. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No qualifying awards, so fails PORNBIO. No independent reliable sourcing, negligible biographical content, no pertinent GBooks hits, fails GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor individual and scene-related award wins don't satisfy PORNBIO. Lacks reliable source coverage to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 9 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Ishii[edit]

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

Google search turns up nothing; no news coverage, no particular role the subject is clearly notable for. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did you miss Kazuki Makabe, the main character in Fafner? Arthur in Tears to Tiara is also a main as is Shinichirō Nakagami in True Tears. Roland is supporting in Nodame Cantabile: Paris. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did not look him up on ANN. Yeah, I really should do that in the future. Now, let's see... Kazuki (Group 1), Arthur (Group 1), and Shinichiro (Group 1). HOWEVER, I'd argue that True Tears is a niche anime, so there's really only two things that the subject is known for. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person passes WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:AngusWOOF, passes WP:NACTOR due to him having voiced multiple major/main characters. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:54, 8 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard[edit]

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

According to the Danish Wikipedia article on Mayor, da:Borgmester in Copenhagen a mayor is the head of a specific management area , not necessarily the head of the city government. In his case, the succession of positions indicates he is just the director of various city departments, and therefore there is no presumption of notability. Nor do the references here or in the Danish equivalent article sufficient to show notability. He did not win the European Solar Prize, according to the reference, he won one of the 7 such prizes awarded in Denmark alone in 2001. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of breadth of sources to pass GNG. The nature of the office of mayor in Copenhagen is not such to give default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per DGG. Administrators of cities do not have the presumption of notability and must meet WP:GNG - Enos733 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a badly written WP:PROMO article with ext links to the subject's current company (Greenovation). Off with it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 14 October 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. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Eliason[edit]

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

Delete. While consensus formerly allowed city councillors in Winnipeg to be considered notable per WP:NPOL #3, that consensus has now been deprecated as no longer applicable. Nothing here constitutes a substantive claim that he's notable for anything else, however; the article is based entirely on a single source, and has significant WP:POV overtones ("Magnus was a man of great personal courage, strength, wisdom, friendliness and generosity.") Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable member of a city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and the newly established consensus of councilmembers from Winnipeg. - Enos733 (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:MEMORIAL on a non-notable politician. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 14 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Havixbeck[edit]

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

Delete. While consensus formerly allowed city councillors in Winnipeg to be considered notable per WP:NPOL #3, that consensus has now been deprecated as no longer applicable. Nothing here constitutes a strong claim that she's more notable than the norm for a city councillor, however; there are just two sources here, and they're both WP:ROUTINE coverage of her election results. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator here, back when consensus permitted them — but as I'm not the only substantive editor since then, I can't just speedy it as "creator requests deletion". Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have had a look at her coverage in media and there seems to be more that adequate coverage other than her winning . Quite a bit of coverage on a range of issues and events. Karl Twist (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say that coverage exists; you have to show your work. Firstly, city councillors always generate coverage in their local media, by virtue of the fact that covering local politics is what local media is for — so local coverage of a city councillor is WP:ROUTINE, with GNG not met until the coverage is expanding beyond the local media into nationalized sources like The Globe and Mail. And secondly, people often just count up the raw text-string matches on a person's name, without adequately assessing which ones constitute substantive coverage about her and which ones just constitute glancing namechecks of her existence — we have to evaluate the quality of the references, not just the number of text matches.

And no, the new sources you've added to the article aren't cutting the mustard. "ChrisD.ca" is a blog, not a reliable source — and The Uniter is a student newspaper at one of Winnipeg's universities, which is a class of sourcing that's deprecated as not able to carry notability. And even if we discount those facts and take all of the sources at face value, they're all still local media where coverage of a city councillor is routinely expected to exist, when city councillors only get articles if and when their coverage nationalizes well beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable city council member, coverage is just routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and the newly established consensus of councilmembers from Winnipeg. - Enos733 (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per outcomes of similar AfDs on Winnipeg City Councillors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 14 October 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) 06:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Nordman[edit]

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

Delete. While consensus formerly allowed city councillors in Winnipeg to be considered notable per WP:NPOL #3, that consensus has now been deprecated as no longer applicable. There's no substantive evidence here that he's more notable than the norm for a city councillor, however; the referencing is actually entirely to primary sources with the exception of a single news article about him being sad about an accident. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete city councilor in a city too insignificant to grant a notability pass to holders of such a position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per outcomes of similar AfDs on Winnipeg City Councillors. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 14 October 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) 06:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lazarenko[edit]

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

Delete. While consensus formerly allowed city councillors in Winnipeg to be considered notable per WP:NPOL #3, that consensus has now been deprecated as no longer applicable. There's no substantive evidence here that he's more notable than the norm for a city councillor, however; there are just two pieces of reliable source coverage being cited, and they're (a) both in local media outlets where coverage of municipal councillors is routinely expected, and (b) about him having an aneurysm and announcing his retirement from council rather than substantive coverage of anything political he did on the council. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per new consensus at related AfDs. The article, taken individually, is not convincing and additional sources to build a non-WP:PSEUDO BLP are unlikely to manifest themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of the Winnipeg City Council are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 7 October 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 Seventh-day Adventist periodicals. Sandstein 09:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Union Recorder[edit]

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

Non-notable church newsletter. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 06:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was proded twice recently. I removed the second prod. I think this is notable, but I'm curious to see the consensus. If the consensus is weak delete and I have time, I might try to expand it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I doubt that a denominational newsletter is notable, though I am willing to be convinced. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't find any scholarly sources that are about the paper, just sources that quote from the paper. So I don't, myself, see a great GNG argument here, which I would prefer. It does seem to meet WP:BOOKCRIT 3, 4, and 5. 3 because White's and to some extent Loughborough's writings in the paper are of some influence. Also, looking at some google books mentions, the paper played a role more recently in discussions within Adventism about female ordination. 4 and 5 again based in part on White's, Loughborough's, and Jaeger's writings in the journal, the study of which would entail reading the journal. I'm not an expert on Adventism, but White was a key founder (according to her wikipedia page, the Smithsonian magazine named her among the 100 Most Significant Americans) and I think the Recorder seems to be a key publication for her and thus is notable in its historic period. WP:OLDBOOK does mention taking into account a book's value as a historical source. More recently, it is a paper for the Pacific Union Conference of the church and has a very large circulation (admittedly, this is currently cited to an old link on the paper's website). Sorry I couldn't add more to the page, we'll see how the discussion goes. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a periodical, so BOOK does not apply. Without sources specifically stating that the writings in the periodical are of influence, this is just NOTINHERITED. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a periodical specific guideline and I think the spirit of WP:BOOK applies. I guess it is up to community consensus and the closing admin to decide if my thoughts are valid in this case. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, as the article itself states, the circulation numbers are artifically inflated, since every church member in the denominational region is counted as a "subscriber". Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 23:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Seventh-day Adventist periodicals Clearly not independently notable enough to deserve its own page. The lack of secondary sources about the periodical is problematic. I would actually have gone for a delete, but the redirect is a compromise here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kairine[edit]

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

Chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is simply not a notable chemical compound. Although there a couple of passing mentions in the scientific literature and apparently a listing in a book about the etymology of some chemical names, none of these sources are about the subject of this article. The only report that I can find where kairine gets even moderate attention (Antipyretics of the tetrahydroquinoline series, Bockmuhl, M.; Dorzbach, E. Med. u. Chem. (1942), 4, 179-212) is 75 years old and claims kairine has a different chemical structure than what is described in the article (ethylhydroxytetrahydroquinoline rather than methylhydroxytetrahydroquinoline). None of the references I could find have an author named Fischer, the supposed discoverer of this chemical according to our article. Overall, the subject of this article fails WP:Notability and the content fails WP:Verifiability and therefore this article should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per ChemNerd; neither useful nor interesting. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on "once notable, always notable" grounds. In the late 19th century, kairine say use as an antipyretic. In the literature of the day, the methyl derivative was referred to as kainine m and the ethyl form as kairine a or kainine e; the latter apparently the more widely used in pharmacology. It has substantial side effects, and evidently was primarily used to treat typhoid fever, before being largely supplanted by antipyrine (phenazone) and then, of course, aspirin. Nevertheless, it was discussed fairly widely in the medical literature of the time:

Likely the best of the references, clarifying the methyl/ethyl issue and detailing side effects: Fruitnight, J. Henry (1886). "Kairine and Antipyrine". Medical Record. 29 (23): 646–648.
Providing details of its development, including the scientist responsible (Otto Fischer at the University of Munich): Fischer, Wilhelm (1883). "On Kairine and Kairoline". New Remedies. 12 (2): 41.
And, although it's a relatively trivial mention, one modern source describing kairine as "one of the first planned synthesis of a drug": Slater, Leo Barney (2009). War and Disease: Biomedical Research on Malaria in the Twentieth Century. Rutgers University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-8135-4438-0.

Considerable other options from 19th century literature are available, as well as a few mentions in the literature of the past, say, 30 years. The stub needs cleaned up, clarified, and improved, but I think there's adequate material to warrant retention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: That's great! I guess my literature search failed to extend back to the 1800s. I think this certainly addresses the notability issue. Can you please update the article with what you have found to address the verifiability issues and possible confusion over the identity of the chemical structure? ChemNerd (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plan to. I'm going to take another spin through searches to see if I can find anything else before jumping into a rewrite, but it's on my to-do list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Squeamish Ossifrage. Worth noting that many drugs considered outdated and obsolete in rich western countries often continue to be used in parts of the third world, so if this has validated medical use as an antipyretic it is certainly notable. Meodipt (talk) 09:27, 9 October 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) 06:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doualy Xaykaothao[edit]

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

Fails ANYBIO John from Idegon (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely sourced to employer biographies, we need more to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lacks references to in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, and hence fails to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. I don't object to re-creation if reliable secondary sources can be found but a Google search didn't come up with anything obvious. Citobun (talk) 13:57, 13 October 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) 06:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sling Slang Records[edit]

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

Obscure label that briefly released music by unknown Connecticut performers. The company appears to have been defunct for years, and the very little coverage it received while it was operational was strictly from local newspapers. It certainly fails WP:CORP. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-noteable record company - unable to locate reliable sources for notability. Per WP:CORP delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe CORP is a horrible notability guideline for record labels, but this isn't a notable label.... yet. Quite a bit of internet chatter, but nothing in reliable sources, and it hasn't yet developed a roster of "many" notable artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:PROMO article on a minor label. WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 9 October 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:NOQUORUM Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elwen Rowlands[edit]

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

BLP stub since 2005, hardly edited since 2006. Refs in article little more than passing mentions; search reveals few possible sources, mainly again passing mentions, nothing demonstrating notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably fair enough. I created the article back in 2005, when I was keen to add details about various TV writers and production staff, but she probably hasn't become as notable as she seemed she might do back then. Angmering (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 6 October 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:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Tielli[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician whose only discernible notability claim is that he's been a supporting member of several bands of varying notability. But that's not an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass for a person who isn't himself the subject of enough reliable source coverage to have attained independent notability as an individual -- and the referencing here is entirely to primary sources like the (deadlinked) sales page for an album on an online music store, his (deadlinked) bio on the webpage of an organization he's a member of, and his band's (deadlinked) profile in CBC Music's "artist streaming" section (which does not represent coverage being conferred on him by the CBC, as it's a section of that site where all qualifying artists get to put themselves on the site, and write self-published EPK bios of themselves.) So nothing here demonstrates that he's notable enough to have a standalone BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of support roles in not supper major bands does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 6 October 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:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IClub48[edit]

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

Unsourced and in places incoherent article on a subject of no evident notability, created by an editor with a strong whiff of vested interest. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Created by WP:SPA seemingly for promotional purposes. No references. Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 13:59, 13 October 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:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite the two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intonarumori (band)[edit]

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

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any independent, reliable sources in any language offering more than a trivial mention. —swpb^T 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I can't find anything either, including in places I'd expect to (including book searches). The only thing I've found is what appears to be a review in The Wire, though I can't tell from the visible excerpt. I'm having trouble finding even unreliable sources. If anyone can do a better BEFORE, I'd be most pleased to be wrong ... - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 6 October 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Podar World School[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this school provider. References are very weak and from un-reliable sources. A previous version of the same article was speedily deleted on 7 September 2016 and immediately re-created. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Velella,

We will try and source out references from other reliable sources.

Regards, Snehal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brand.Snehal (talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 6 October 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 Russian Futurism. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Futurist cinema[edit]

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

Non-notable as standalone topic - propose either merging into Russian Futurism or deletion. Mike1901 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first blush it appears best to merge into Russian Futurism (which is a pretty small article and could do with a bit of extra content), while keeping the title as a redirect tagged with {{R to subtopic}} and possibly {{R with possibilities}}. Uanfala (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, merging the article into Russian Futurism is the better option. -Mohanbhan (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 6 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CelebrityNetWorth[edit]

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

No opinion - unfinished nomination by an IP. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete for lack of notability. Previously noted and it does not meet notability criteria. Appears to be self promotion. Accurate194534 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: New account, obviously the IP which started this nomination, but could not create the AfD page anonymously. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Quartz is what tips it to keep for me. The Fox article NYDN articles are borderline trivial mentions, but combined with Quartz I think it scrapes by GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid the Quartz article doesn't really do it for me, as it's more of a profile piece on the guy who runs it. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Didn't see any blogs or so, its encyclopedic and mentioned by papers I recognize. 79.67.71.223 (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 6 October 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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Mitchell[edit]

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

Notability absent. The subject is no more than the nephew of the author of a single famous work. He did no more than leave money from his estate to a couple of donees. If WP recognises this subject as notable, then anyone with a few bucks to give away becomes worthy of notice, notwithstanding having done nothing whatsoever of particular note during their lifetime. sirlanz 23:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have given this AfD the standard formatting. No opinion at this time. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nephews of notable writers are not notable for such alone, even if they were estate administrators. Just nothing at all notable here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Abbott (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person whose strongest claims of notability are being chief of staff to a U.S. senator and being a non-winning candidate in a party primary. Neither of these constitutes an WP:NPOL pass, so it's "pass WP:GNG on the sourcing or bust" -- but what we have for sourcing here is two local news articles about the primary race, two local news articles about non-notable distinctions like being named to his high school's alumni hall of fame or serving as interim athletic director of a university, a raw table of primary election results, a deadlink on a blog, and his own primary source website about himself. This is not a WP:GNG pass. First discussion was far too strongly influenced by the "notable because the campaign is currently underway" argument, which consensus has much more unequivocally quashed in the 2010s. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The strongest claim to notability here may be that Abbott was the athletic director (not just with an interim status) of an NCAA Division I school. I see plenty of news coverage about Abbott to establish notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the nom is talking about, hes a notable AD and politician. Enough sources for GNG pass. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per EDDY. I just counted 14 inline citations, all retrieved in 2010, so this hardly constitutes a "poorly sourced WP:BLP". Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jweiss11 and Eddy, above, as a WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 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) 06:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tōko Aoyama[edit]

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

ANN search results:

1) Minarai (Zenryoku Usagi - main)

2) Kenta Kitagawa (Digimon Tamers - supporting)

3) Principal (Hanamaru Kindergarten - minor supporting)

4) Nasubi (Hozuki no Reitetsu - supporting)

With only Minarai as the subject's main role, adding to the fact that Zenryoku Usagi is niche to begin with, I do not think the subject in question is notable enough. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nasubi would be main, one of two subordinates of the title character. Don't see much else as a main. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 9 October 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) 06:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word Whizzle[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Pichpich (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Pichpich (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There's nothing to suggest this particular game is more notable than any of the other countless nearly identical word games. Thegreatluigi (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Finding no significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 13 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haruka Yamazaki[edit]

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

ANN search results:

1) Tomoyo Kanzaki (When Supernatural Battles Became Commonplace - main)

2) Ruka Suirenji (Hayate the Combat Butler - supporting, also singing role)

3) Lilith Bristol (Absolute Duo - supporting)

4) Aika Kiryu (Highschool DXD - supporting)

5) Melo (Monster Musume - supporting)

6) Mizuha Amagi (Vividred Operation - supporting)

Subject only has one main role; rest are supporting. One of two singles of the subject scored only at 34 on the Oricon chart. It's hard to assert the subject's notability with only one main role. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lilith is main for Absolute Duo. Melo is main for Monster Musume. She also charted a single on Oricon. This is a case where the new voice artist is getting some main roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Angus, looks like she passes WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ann Whitney[edit]

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

Her husband is perhaps notable, but I do not see how she is. No third party published sources of any sort, and in fact no secondary sources at all, just her autobiography and her papers in an archive. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney was the second counselor in two different Relief Society presidencies. The Women of Character reference is a secondary reference, and I added another (the book In Their Own Words). Would you consider these two sources enough to establish notability? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a chapter on Whitney in Women of Faith vol. 1, and I added some information from that book as well. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a line about how a residence hall at BYU was named after her. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

undecided I created this article 12 years ago, but I'm on the fence about whether or not she meets the current standard of notability. The Woman of Character book might not be enough, because she is apparently just one of 100 featured Mormon women. I don't have access to In Their Own Words, but from its description on Amazon, it seems that the book uses statements by at least 10 women, including Whitney, as primary source material to convey a female perspective on the story of Mormons in Nauvoo. So the book doesn't necessarily establish Whitney's notability in her own right. It seems like the author is mainly interested in what she has to say about an otherwise male-centric story. We need more articles featuring women, so I dislike the idea of merging this material into her husband's article unless we have to, but we're fighting against the hard reality that women like Whitney are from highly patriarchal cultures where they, and their contributions, have tended to fade into the background of male stories. COGDEN 22:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whitney was one of the initial leaders of the Relief Society. There are enough secondary sources to establish her notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not normally vote on LDS matters, but observe that several other founders of the Relief Society have articles; accordingly so should she. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 10 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cruse[edit]

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

A filmmaker who falls under too soon-if ever. Only film that has been released so far is a rather small and obscure film. Although he was a finalist at a festival, not sure how notable though. Wgolf (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note-this upcoming film by this guy Dead Mould is one I'm not sure if it falls under wiki guidelines at the moment. Wgolf (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BASIC. Note that according to the only reference in the article for his only released film The Watcher Self, there were 17 finalists at the 2015 London Film Awards for independent film and screenwriting, so this alone is clearly not enough to meet WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 (or for that film to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films), for that matter). Qwfp (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't find any reliable sources aside from the one reference noted above. Prowp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 9 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia top 3 disease burden[edit]

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

WP:TNT. I don't even know where to begin. Several parts of WP:NOT seem applicable. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke it from orbit (Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Thought about this a while; the presentation is so different from anything else in WP that I had a kneejerk reaction to delete. Then I thought about it. I have concerns about copyvio from UptoDate (I don't have access to the subscription so cannot tell). Figures are unsourced, a problem in itself, and are maybe (?) copyvio from the university of washington copyrighted vizhub site. There appears to pure WP:OR like " Despite stroke being the leading cause of death (and increasing with time), there are few references specific to stroke prevention or treatment efforts. Generally speaking, focus on non-communicable disease does not appear at the top of priority lists. One reason for this may be the quality of health services".... Not to mention stuff like "Indonesia 1 is the largest economy in Southeast Asia with nearly 260 million people, but like so many other countries, it has passed into the third stage of the Epidemiological Transition[Transition]: The Age of Man-made Diseases. Indonesians must recognize non-communicable diseases as their largest health burden and ensure their health infrastructure can meet the unique and increasing demands resulting from these types of diseases." which is WP:SOAPBOX.

The whole thing appears to be OR/SOAPBOX with some refs lightly tacked on. So yes, this is not a Wikipedia article as the community defines that, and this needs WP:TNT. Delete. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Several of the images uploaded by the editor that created this page are blatant copyright violations. There is already an article on Health in Indonesia which hasn't been mentioned yet. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: please see discussion here at creator's talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I would not even consider user/draftifying it, considering the copyvio images (and content?) which are now part of the page history. WP:TNT implies that a better version can be created, but would I like to see a wikified article under the same title? No, because there are no reliable sources that specifically describe the concept of a "top 3 disease burden" in Indonesia. The page creator is advised to add his/her knowledge to Health in Indonesia or separate [add your disease of interest here] in Indonesia articles instead. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:52, 7 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Christian[edit]

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

Ignoring the blatant promotional language and unsourced BLP violations of this article, it seems to fail notability. They certainly don't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Majora (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I googled him, didn't find anything (other than his blog). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apart from being obvious spam, I can't find sourcing for him either. But lots of stuff for other people called "Samuel Christian" - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I've been watching this article and no one single time has it been attempted to improve it, and this is clearly because it's only existing for PR, from the photos to the entirely trivial and unconvincing sources, let alone they would be for substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 9 October 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. unencyclopaedic, obvious copyright violation Jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanna Island Kastom Law[edit]

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

I don't know what this is, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Can't think of an easily applicable CSD criteria, or I'd speedy delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. While I don't have access to this source, based on the structure and wording of the article, I think it's overwhelmingly likely that this is a copyvio of this work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Squeamish Ossifrage: I had tried looking for a source, cause I got the same feeling from the wording/structure, but I couldn't find an original that this was a copyvio of to G12 with. I will take a look and see if I can see that source (or find another) with my university account when I get home. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 6 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hesham Nazih[edit]

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

There are external links but no actual footnotes in the article. Created by user with known WP:COI and no indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hisham Abdel Khalek. User is purely promotional. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and please include in any decisions made at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hisham_Abdel_Khalek Jergling (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 7 October 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. Nobody (without a COI) supports keeping. Sandstein 11:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony C. Miller (cinematographer)[edit]

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

This AFD was requested via OTRS ticket:2016092010011869, by a person who wishes to remain anonymous. I am not taking any position in this AFD, merely posting this on his or her behalf. The nominator's statement follows:

Tony C Miller has been working as a cinematographer for at best 6 -7 years. In the film industry, (especially as a cinematographer) that is a very very short time to garner the notability and professional acumen that your site insists on as a requirement.
His Wiki page states he has been active since 1998 which is inaccurate and misleading. He worked previously at a different job, as a gaffer. He did his first job as a cinematographer in 2009 and did not start working full time in that profession until 2012. All his credits/references are post 2009.
Typically, cinematographers start by shooting music videos, commercials and short films and move on to drama and fiction as their skill base grows.
He has not won any awards in his own name. The ones he sites are awards for the productions he has worked on. Awards and ratings for music videos are usually based on the music artist. The success of the music track is down to the band and the publicity associated with it and the videos creative director. It is not associated with the 20 technicians (including the cinematographer) who worked on the video. This is self evidently misleading in his Wiki bio.
To illustrate my point, “The Great British Bake Off” is viewed by 14 million people and has won awards as a reality show. Its success is not associated with its cinematography. To claim so as a cinematographer would be in accurate.
In category ‘Notable’ – his work is misleading. As previously stated, the success of these videos was largely due to the artist/band involved.
He is not a member of the British Society of Cinematographers. This, like the Royal Society and is by invitation only. It indicates a level of professional skill. All the top UK cinematographers are members and it is consequently an international bench mark of professional acumen as a cinematographer.
He has not personally been nominated or won an award from Bafta, (British Academy of Film and Television), RTS (Royal Television Society) or any respected body in the film industry in the UK. In fact, he has won no awards at all for his cinematography.
I understand from Wikipedia, that a Rwandan volunteer editor has admitted to being paid to submit this Wikipedia page about Tony C Miller.

Someguy1221 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the nominator's arguments are cogent, and the article appears nothing but an attempt to WP:INHERIT notability from much better known entities. The awards listed are for these projects, not for the subject's cinematography. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was probably asking for a rewrite, not an AFD. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he actually specifically requested an AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cinematographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have a WP:COI in this article I've tried to avoid providing input in this debate, but the subject of the article (Tony C. Miller) has asked me to post the following message to the nominator on here:

In regards to the illustrated points, to disregard this cinematographers work: "To illustrate my point, “The Great British Bake Off” is viewed by 14 million people and has won awards as a reality show. Its success is not associated with its cinematography. To claim so as a cinematographer would be in accurate."
“The Great British Bake Off” is a reality entertainment television show, the show's point is to entertain with people meeting the challenges of baking. Music videos on the other hand, (which this cinematographer has worked on many that have won awards), are not a show to entertain on the challenges of doing anything, their sole purpose is a vehicle of creative visuals to work in conjunction with the music, therefore the appearance of said videos is their main criteria. The music itself wins awards unassociated with the videos (the billboard awards – American music awards) therefore trying to discredit the input of the cinematographers work on notable music videos by comparing it to a reality entertainment television show isn't valid.
The point raised that the cinematographer is tying to mislead with time in the industry: "His Wiki page states he has been active since 1998 which is inaccurate and misleading. He worked previously at a different job, as a gaffer. He did his first job as a cinematographer in 2009 and did not start working full time in that profession until 2012. All his credits/references are post 2009."
This is also inaccurate being posed as “misleading” as the websites and information sited on Wikipedia clearly states that his rise in the industry was through the ranks and dates are clearly stated to that fact.
Trying to group the Cinematographer with the 20 other “technicians” on a music video set: "The success of the music track is down to the band and the publicity associated with it and the videos creative director. It is not associated with the 20 technicians (including the cinematographer) who worked on the video."
This is also inaccurate, as the cinematographer’s artistic input on a majority solely visual based art form (music videos) is important more so than other “technicians” or crew members, you can't belittle the cinematography role as the input to the look of the video is his by definition – Director of photography.
Also due to another cinematographer going by a similar name, clarification between the two cinematographers is a useful function for both parties.

— Tony C. Miller

Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematography for music videos (essentially very short films) do not appear to rise to the level of WP:NARTIST or WP:NFILM. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 14 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Family[edit]

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

Non-notable characters and possible original research like S. E. Hinton's continuity. TTN (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mass Effect Trilogy. What? Wrong Shepard? Oops, then to Stargate Atlantis, perhaps? Still not right? Well, then I guess we just have to delete it as OR and leave it as a redlink since there's truly no place I can think of that needs this as a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mirroring my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. E. Hinton's continuity. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 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) 06:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Diver[edit]

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

The article is basically written detailing the journalist's places where he worked. Primarily his author sections on websites such as Vice, Edge, Kotaku, Rock Sound. There isn't much secondary sources to back up the person's notability here so I don't think there should be a page about him. GamerPro64 02:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe he's provably notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 9 October 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 Slaad. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chourst[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Slaad. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Slaad. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 6 October 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 Yugoloth. Both outcomes here aren't entirely compelling/convincing however I would more or less say the merges had the strongest arguement here, I have no objections to the merge target being changed however it should probably be discussed on the tp first, Anyway consensus is to merge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charon (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Yugoloth. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a mythology-derivative fictional element, there are already two independent RS's in the article discussing Charon. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, being one of hundreds or possibly even thousands of characters directly imported under an open license is not a measure of notability. You're pretty much trying to say every generic D&D monster is notable. I'd also hesitate to truly call them independent due to that liscense anyway. TTN (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know who Charon (mythology) is, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that has to do with what? If you have sources discussing how the D&D rendition has influenced the mythological figure in recent pop culture, great, you'll have brought something useful to the discussion for once. If not, the mythology is irrelevant. TTN (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Facepalm Other way 'round, TTN. Other way 'round. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You keep conflating the character with the mythology. Fictional characters, no matter how directly or loosely based on a real world topic, are their own entities within the fiction from which they originate. Discussion of those topics belongs solely in articles based upon that fiction. What belongs in the real world topic's article is a section including examples of such fictionalized versions in a properly weighted manner. If there is no discussion on the fictional renditions impact on the real world topic, the status of the real world topic is entirely irrelevant. TTN (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These keep arguments are not very convincing. Are there actual reliable sources that discuss this creature outside of in-universe game manuals? If not, I'm thinking it should be merged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments have been made elsewhere, more thoroughly, but when you have a 'borrowed' fictional element that clearly existed before D&D adopted/borrowed/instantiated/adapted it, then you have a complex relationship: When the fictional element is then re-re-used after D&D has, and is influenced by the D&D descriptions thereof, what does that affect? The notability of the original mythological element, or that of the derivative fictional element? Does it need to mention D&D in order for it to count? I contend not.
- Further, there is a further element akin to WP:MUSICBIO point 6: we often keep NN things because there are two merge targets--do we upmerge what's here to a D&D page, or to the page for Charon the fictional boatman? Either is unsatisfactory. Thus, a separate article remains a good idea even if it does not currently demonstrate meeting the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NinjaRobotPirate. I am puzzled by these keep arguments; they do not seem to have much to do with any Wikipedia policy/guideline. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NinjaRobotPirate. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yugoloth. Keep arguments seem to boil down to WP:ITEXISTS, and I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources – ie, not game manuals. We would need out-of-universe details about the creation of the character, discussion of its place in popular culture, and how it influenced the creation of spinoff monsters/characters. Stuff like this is very easy to find for Vecna, Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons), and Beholder (Dungeons & Dragons), for example. You could probably write an entire GA about how D&D influenced the portrayal of elves, dwarves, and orcs in every work of high fantasy since 1980. If all we've got for this are the fact that this character appeared in a few game manuals, it's not notable enough for its own article. D&D is a popular subject in the press, and the truly notable characters don't need to strain to establish notability. All I see on Google Books are novels and game manuals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you completely miss the fact that, unlike all three of the things you've cited, Charon existed in Greek mythology millennia before D&D? Why would you choose to merge to Yugoloth rather than Charon (mythology)#In popular culture? Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 12 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender history (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:DISAMBIG, the article about the Transgender history is clearly the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A hatnote on the top about the book will do. There is no need for a separate dab page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unnecessary disambiguation page as a hatnote is sufficient for navigational purposes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This type of disambiguation page is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No preference. I can see the arguments on both sides, and neither resolution will bother, or excite me much. 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete: unnecessary and provides potential for confusion (eg if someone adds a 3rd sense of the topic to the hatnote at the primary topic but the orphan dab page doesn't get updated) PamD 09:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above. Very unnecessary as it is the topic itself. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really want to get into the broader WP:TWODABS argument, but this case seems pretty clear-cut. There's an unquestioned primary topic, exactly one secondary topic, and unlikely to be additional senses of the phrase added in the near future. That means a hatnote can handle it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:55, 6 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutahar Anas[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTuber, fails WP:GNG. Cited sources are not reliable. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree there is no basis for any credible notability. Uploading a bunch of videos to YouTube does not make somebody notable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this page! I am still editing it and creating it! I'm not done with it yet! I beg you! I need your help with creating this page! Please don't delete it! All of you help me continue creating it!!!! --Some Creep 06 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete As per above, YouTuber is not notable. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:51, 9 October 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 procedural close. The article was speedy deleted by Sphilbrick per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Manfredi[edit]

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

Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be presumed notable under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing helpful. Msnicki (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:A7. I see no WP:CCS. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per MRD2014. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 10:48, 6 October 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 09:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lymonnyk[edit]

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

No WP:RS to attest to its origin. Both of the links are to recipes for lemon pie and happen to be written in Ukrainian, and neither lay claim to the origin. In fact, 'limon' is the Russian word for lemon; 'tsytryna' is the Ukrainian word. The recipe could have originated anywhere, and probably did. It's WP:OR. The only half-way reliable mention is through Google books in Classic Russian Cooking: Elena Molokhovets' a Gift to Young Housewives first printed in the mid-19th century, but the work actually notes that there were non-Russian borrowings in the cuisine, plus the entry for 'Lymonnyk' is not available in the online version. Two other pieces found via Google scholar (here) are unclear. The one in English is an interview with a woman of Russian descent born in America in 1925 who mentions making lymonnyk: her parents were Russians from Ukraine. The other lists English loan words from Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish. 'Lymonka' is listed as a loan word from Ukrainian. It's as clear as mud, and there's no way of establishing that it's an old recipe, nor where it came from. It's lemon pie. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Lemon tart. I too find no reliable sources. Perhaps there is an issue of translated articles from Russian or Ukranian sources, but even those that did turn up did not appear to be significant - mere word lists, mostly, to my (admittedly) limited ability to read those languages. At best, merge the one line article and its image to the lemon tart article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge elsewhere. I checked a couple of books on Ukrainian cuisine. This dish is mentioned in one book as "lemon pie" in section "Modern Ukrainian pastries" between "apple pie" and "chocolate pie". It seems to be nothing special/historical. If good reasons are found to keep this article, a reference would be: Л. М. Безусенко, Українська національна кухня. Сталкер, 2002. p. 219, ISBN 966-596-462-3 (in Ukrainian). The recipe in this book looks like what is shown in the pictures on the page (two layers of dough, and a lemon layer in between): Замішують тісто і розділяють його на дві частини. Лимони ошпарюють окропом, охолоджують і разом зі шкіркою натирають на тертці з великими вічками. Одну частину тіста розкачують і кладуть на лист, змащений маслом. На тісто рівним шаром розкладають натерті лимони, посипають цукром і накривають другим шаром тіста, проколюють у чотирьох місцях, змащують яйцем і випікають. BTW, Irina, the Ukrainian cookery books use the word "лимон". --Off-shell (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apologies for not clarifying this further, Off-shell. The word "limon" was brought into the Ukrainian language officially sometime in the mid-20th century. Ukrainian dictionaries replaced "цитрина" during the Russification/standardisation of the Ukrainian language during the Soviet period (interchangeability was eliminated prior 1974 [per Podvezko & Balla; "Radyanska shkola", Kiev, 1974). Naturally, dialects nearer Russia may have adopted or used 'limon' far earlier (but as 'lymon' rather 'limon'?), but it was essentially a loan word in both languages (as with all European languages), with Ukrainian using the same loan word as the Polish "cytryna". "Tsytryna" is still used in my Ukrainian cookery books, plus can be found online at Ukrainian cookery sites (i.e., "цитринова цедра" for 'lemon zest'; "цитринова есенція" for 'lemon essence', +++). If anything, that makes the issue even more confusing. If it has truly been around for a long time, did the Russian name become the favoured name and usurp the Ukrainian naming convention within Ukrainian/Ruthenian regions at some point? If we don't have reasonably reliable sources, we could speculate until the cows come home, but it would still be OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable dish. Ru.wiki has an entry for "лимо́нник" but it's about a shrub (Schisandra). Add to that the funky name, and it appears that there's nothing there, or highly dubious. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 13 October 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.