Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 April	10 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devonté[edit]

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

Only references are the subject's own social media websites and itunes. Nothing to corroborate any notability. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)A general web search reveals noth[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any real mention of (this) Devonté on any news database using various combinations of search terms. When examined closely, I don't believe he meets any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, and there is certainly not any kind of reliable secondary source to support this. There were not really any other sources out there to support meeting WP:GNG either... --Jack Frost (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find information about him either. Dean Esmay (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - social media posts seem to be the main sources here. There's not enough to suggest that external parties are writing about him or that he is presently a musician of note outside of his immediate fanbase. Clawsyclaw (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WVIY[edit]

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

This radio station does not appear to have come on the air yet (it claims that it will go on the air this year, but I have yet to see any indication that this is happened), and thus does not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations that have the requisite sources to verify operation — and there doesn't appear to be the sufficient coverage in reliable sources out there to meet the general notability guideline. PROD was removed by an IP user; while that was immediately reverted, out of an abundance of caution I have decided (speaking as the user who proposed it for deletion in the first place) that it is best to simply take this article to AfD instead. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Radio stations that have yet to actually launch do not get Wikipedia articles just because they've been licensed to launch, as one of the base requirements for a radio station to be considered notable per WP:NMEDIA is that it's actually on the air. WPRS used to be lax about actually enforcing this, but the thing is that it's entirely possible for a radio station to gain approval from the broadcast regulator but then fail for one reason or another to launch in time and have its license approval expire — this left us with dozens of articles to delete once we started cracking down on articles about "proposed" stations, because the stations had never launched and were permanently unexpandable. So no prejudice against recreation if and when it's properly sourceable as actually being on the air, but future radio stations don't get articles so long as they still only exist on paper. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WRLQ[edit]

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

This radio station does not appear to have come on the air yet (it claims that it will go on the air in 2018, which is when its construction permit expires), and thus does not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations that have the requisite sources to verify operation — and there doesn't appear to be the sufficient coverage in reliable sources out there to meet the general notability guideline. Contested PROD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last FCC communication between them and the station's owner was at the start of December 2015; either this was abandoned or they'll race to get things up by mid-June 2018. Untii then, we have nothing but spec and a wild guess that it'll air religious content. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Fatty wawa (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mrschimpf DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Radio stations that have yet to actually launch do not get Wikipedia articles just because they've been licensed to launch, as one of the base requirements for a radio station to be considered notable per WP:NMEDIA is that it's actually on the air. WPRS used to be lax about actually enforcing this, but the thing is that it's entirely possible for a radio station to gain approval from the broadcast regulator but then fail for one reason or another to launch in time and have its license approval expire — this left us with dozens of articles to delete once we started cracking down on articles about "proposed" stations, because the stations had never launched and were permanently unexpandable. So no prejudice against recreation if and when it's properly sourceable as actually being on the air, but future radio stations don't get articles so long as they still only exist on paper. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Toosoon and NMedia L3X1 (distant write) 23:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep !votes do not address the point that a sentence or two can easily be placed into mission statement and vision statement, explaining the difference, which anyone should feel free to do. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vision vs. Mission Statement[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. This article is a comparison and contrast essay of vision and mission statements mostly taken from those two articles. Nothing here that needs an independent article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY Exemplo347 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain I would like to give qualified support for retaining this article. Amongst students of marketing and management, there is a great deal of confusion about the distinction between visions and missions. So, a concise, well-written explanation of the two on a single page would be really beneficial. A vision is a very long term perspective of where a company hopes to be in 10- 25 years. It is very general in its scope and is often quite ambitious. A mission, on the other hand, is a medium term perspective of the company's aspiration, typically for 3- 5 years (although in some sectors 7-10 year missions can be found). Most mission statements contain information about the market to be served, the products to be offered and the unique benefits that the products offer to the market. That is, mission statements are written in a somewhat formulaic manner and should set out achievable goals and objectives, while visions are far more aspirational. The mission statement should provide guidance to internal and external stakeholders as to how corporate resources are to be allocated for the planning period. The current article needs some work in terms of tightening up the distinction. For this reason, I can only offer qualified support for retaining the article. If the article were to be improved, by making the comparisons clearer, it would be far more beneficial. BronHiggs (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, NOTESSAY. Anything worth keeping can be put into mission statement or vision statement. Combining the two here feels like OR given there are only two external references.South Nashua (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would like to give qualified support to the article as well. First of all, User: BronHiggs makes a lot of good points. I would like to add that I have noticed that non-profits tend to use vision statements more frequently than for profit firms. That is probably because non-profits tend to attract people who are fired up about their causes and want to change the world. It seems to me that it would be rather easy to incorporate Bronhiggs suggestions. I suggest contacting the author of the article and asking for the article to be updated using Bronhiggs suggestions. The upgraded article would be a very useful article. Dean Esmay (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an essay and a sentence contrasting the two can easily be placed in each article. No need for a separate article. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirella Arroyo[edit]

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

WP:N & WP:SPIP; Google returned no independent sources. gwendy (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no references and the subject is only a "semi professional soccer player". Fatty wawa (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, no search returns to even show a scrap of notability. L3X1 (distant write) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Prokopova[edit]

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

This is a biography of a businesswoman in Russia who, as far as I can tell, doesn't have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article has sources consist of: no mentions at all, brief single-paragraph coverage, primary source (interview), or trivial mentions. It's been deleted twice before as WP:G11 and WP:G12 (suggesting author COI), but the promotional and copyvio problems appear to have been corrected in the current version. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why do you doubt the importance of this woman? Very authoritative sources write about Olga Prokopova, she is in the circles of famous people and her person is no less famous. -- Marino Asler (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Marino Asler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Marino Asler: Do you know what "notable" means on Wikipedia? It doesn't mean "famous". See Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). If "authoritative sources" have written about her, then why don't you include examples of significant coverage by independent reliable sources? The two you just added to the article give her only a trivial mention. That doesn't count toward notability, and neither do interviews. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Watch-That-Label|MEET OLGA PROKOPOVA – interview, Braccialini, Italian fashion magazines, authoritative Russian fashion magazines - these are authoritative sources, and judging by them you are mistaken about Wikipedia:Notability of this persona Marino Asler (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Marino Asler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Did you even read my previous comment? Interviews are Wikipedia:Primary sources and don't count toward notability. An interview is the subject talking about herself. A magazine being "authoritative" is irrelevant. We need significant coverage that is independent of the subject. An interview isn't independent, and the other sources you have offered don't provide any significant in-depth coverage of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources. Reference #6 appears to be about an entirley different person and makes no mention of Olga Prokopova. SamsaK (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SamsaK: Incorrectly designed source is reason for editing the article, and not for deletion. Many secondary sources, and in different languages. For example Buro24/7 , Vogue and other Marino Asler (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that an article 10 lines in lengths constitutes as significant coverage. SamsaK (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SamsaK: Wikipedia was created so that everyone could contribute to the development of the article. If you value the length of the article, then why do you consider your articles to be more significant? Your statements are too one-sided. You do not think about people who live in the fashion world, just like these people may not be interested in the Kafka museum Marino Asler (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SamsaK was referring to the short length of the source, not the length of the Wikipedia article. And that's the trouble. No in-depth significant coverage of this person. As explained above, repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist:There are many sources, in different languages.Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marino Asler: Then why haven't you provided any examples of such sources? You haven't yet. Nothing with significant coverage of the person. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The career section reads like an infomercial, subject fails to meet the simplest of WP:GNG standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cllgbksr: Authoritative sources say the opposite.Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the "authoritative sources" don't actually say anything at all. All you have provided are interviews or trivial mentions. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 Non-notable person because it fail WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36D5:5690:A93D:AC0D:17F8:1EE0 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@2602:306:36D5:5690:A93D:AC0D:17F8:1EE0: If you make such a statement, then prove it. There are no advertising links in the article. The brand Volha Jewelry is known all over the world. Olga Prokopova is the founder of the brand, and a very famous and notability person in the fashion world. Many authoritative publications have written about she.
Valery Demure - Valerie de Moore from London, known on the international scene as a representative of the jewelry brands of the best in the fashion segment.
This review Braccialini
Here's what the Italian brands write
Many authoritative magazines in Russia also write about Olga. There are many people who are interested in fashion, and for which Olga Prokopova is a notability person. Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marino Asler: Please understand that of those three sources you linked, two are interviews and one is a trivial mention. Interviews are Wikipedia:Primary sources and don't qualify as coverage by an independent source, because an interview simply records the subject talking about herself. Please see Wikipedia:Golden Rule. We need significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: No, it's not. I understand what you're talking about. I also say that there are many authoritative sources, in different languages. Here is a list of authoritative printed journals, with pages. Another thing the article needs to be improved. But this is not the reason to delete it. Here a very famous journalist Evelina Khromtchenko writes about Olga Prokopova.Marino Asler (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I must ask, again, where is the significant coverage? Yes, that list of authoritative publications are good sources, but we need to see more than one of these sources that has given more than trivial mention to Olga Prokopova. The "very famous journalist" you linked merely wrote a paragraph about a piece of jewelry. The article has just one sentence about Olga Prokopova herself. That isn't what we call significant coverage. It's a trivial mention. We have a guideline about notability, being notability is not inherited. In Wikipedia's terms, it is common for a person's work to be notable while the person is not. A notable wine label can have a non-notable winemaker. A notable music composition can have a non-notable composer. A notable piece of jewelry can have a non-notable designer. A notable book can have a non-notable author. Again, where is the significant coverage? Being well known doesn't equal being notable by Wikipedia's definition. We need significant coverage in multiple independent sources — coverage about her not about her works or her business. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you not consider print publications? In my strange, that Olga Prokopova is not yet in Wikipedia. She is the owner of a well-known brand, a famous jeweler, an enviable bride, engaged in charity, published in well-known magazines, gave interviews on television, her decorations were recognized by the most famous brands of fashion Marino Asler (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with print publications. The problem is the meaning of Wikipedia:Notability and in particular Wikipedia:Significant coverage and Wikipedia:Primary sources. The coverage of Olga Prokopova does not constitute significant coverage, and therefore she is not notable in a Wikipedia context. Interviews count as primary sources, not independent coverage. And numerous mentions in many publications don't count either. There just doesn't seem to be any in-depth information written about this person. There are mentions, interviews, and write-ups about her products, but not about her. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew's Secondary School, Adikpo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and article lacks any references, like any at all, and lacks any credible claims of notability.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Secondary schools are typically considered notable if there is content for an article. I think, given how hard it is to find Nigerian sources, that these sources are enough - a reliable source calling the school prestigious, Gabriel Suswam is a notable alumni, and notable Nicholas Akise Ada is an alumni. I found that Ada is notable, but still needs an article. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to SL93 for conducting searches to establish notability. It now seems likely that the nom has failed to follow the criteria set out at WP:BEFORE, particularly Step D, which states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". I also question whether searches have been conducted in any of the 500+ Languages of Nigeria. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AusLondonder: Not up to me to establish notability, that should be left up to the article creator, I don't much care for your tone. Article lacks any references and lacks any credible claims of significance. If you want the article to be kept, you should clean it up.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't care much for your dismissive attitude towards our most basic of policies. As the nominator it absolutely is up to you to carry out the checks outlined at Step D of WP:BEFORE. We are here to build an encyclopedia not delete articles because of demarcation disputes. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @AusLondonder: You want the article to be kept, you clean it up.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please take the time to familiarise yourself with WP:BEFORE which is written for those nominating articles for deletion and states "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to....B. Carry out these checks...2.If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)...D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. 1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search" AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's all fine and good, but it doesn't say anything about the nominator having to be the one to add references and credible claims of notability to the article that's nominated ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discoveries by earlier editor. Beyond WP:BEFORE, the February 2017 RFC, while finding that "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," also found that "references to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD" (my emphasis). "Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media." This seems to put the responsibility on the AfD nominator to search for both online sources and offline sources prior to nominating. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above and GEOBIAS. The equivalent secondary school in North America would be kept. As such, I see no reason to delete this school. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like an advert for the school. Lacks references or any real notability of staff or students/alumni.Fatty wawa (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Its. A. School. Which is automatically notable. AfDs are not supposed to be used to bring attention to an article in need of cleanup. If that is what is wanted, it should be listed in the rationale. L3X1 (distant write) 01:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Secondary school, but remove anything that cannot be sourced. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Faruk Uğurcan[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate that Emir Faruk Uğurcan is notable by Wikipedia standards. Its only source is IMDB, which itself does not meet WP standards for being reliable. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, and the subject does not appear to have acted in many productions or in any notable roles. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails the GNG, cannot find anything except for social media and non RS. L3X1 (distant write) 17:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 15:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Taylor (second baseman)[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet the criteria for notability found in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Does not meet WP:NBASE, but does appear to meet WP:NCOLLATH. He was a first-team All-American for Baseball America, what appears to be one of only two recognized sources for that year (see 1989 College Baseball All-America Team). Admittedly, college baseball is well below football or basketball, but he was a first-team selection. Obviously would be nice if he were a unanimous selection, but since he made one of only two teams we could say he is a consensus selection, so I would say he meets the standard to presume notability. Considering the fact that they player's prime was 25-30 years ago, I think finding sources will be a challenge. In view of that, I give the presumption its due, presume sources are out there, and say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College baseball all-americans were intentionally admitted from WP:NSPORTS because of their lack of general coverage. Weak professional career.. lack of sourcing that would rise to GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you illustrate where that position reached a consensus? Reading the current baseball guideline, it talks about minor league players and major league players, but is silent on American college players. WP:NHOOPS is also silent on college players, but first-team All-Americans are given the presumption. WP:NGRIDIRON has similar negative language to what WP:NBASE states (addressing professionals only), yet first-team All-Americans have constructively been given the presumption. At worst we have a conflict: WP:NBASE says no to the presumption, WP:COLLATH says yes to the presumption. However, to me its more WP:NBASE is silent while WP:COLLATH says yes. Usually, if one guideline is met, then that is enough (look at Nico Siragusa and Evan Bradds). I would be willing to entertain your position if you can show where there was consensus to intentionally omit baseball All-Americans, but otherwise meeting WP:COLLATH leads for me. RonSigPi (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 11#College baseball All-Americans is where it was last specifically addressed and changing the language was not approved. College baseball receives far less national media attention than does college football or basketball. And WP:NCOLLATH does not refer to all-americans specifically.. it's not really an award the way the Golden Spikes Award is. Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the vote is split. Yes, there were more "option 3" than "option 2", but about half those seem to just say "the list is too long." Its not a vote and arguments of that, to me, are nor credible. That being said, some good points were raised on both sides. You are right baseball receives far less that football, but EFL Championship receives far less coverage than the Premier League and the presumption is still valid. College football and basketball receive A LOT of coverage, so its not really a fair comparison. That is why I am comfortable with a first team All-American. A football Honorable Mention is going to likely be more notable than in baseball. Here we have a 1st team guy. I think of it as an award - not a high as the Golden Spikes, but an award none the less (usually you do get some sort of certificate for what its worth). I understand your concern, but I am not seeing enough to go against WP:NCOLLATH. So I stay with weak keep (weak because I do think your side/the delete side make valid enough points that its not a sure fire keep by any means). RonSigPi (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. I don't think this meets WP:NCOLLATH either. All-American is not a full fledged "award" and the lack of coverage suggests we shouldn't extend notability to automatically cover it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Novikov[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of Boris Novikov. With no references, it does not meet Wikipedia's expectation that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Eddie Blick (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Novikov People's Artist of Russia. This is the highest acting title in the state. The person is popular. [1]--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He won a People's Artist of Russia award under the title People's Artist of the Russian Federation which is sourced. If this was for someone who won an equivalent award in the United States or the United Kingdom, I'm sure that this would have never made it to AfD. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. The corresponding article in Russian has more references. Jupitus Smart 06:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has notability across former Soviet sphere. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the WP:GEOBIAS concerns expressed. The individual clearly meets WP:ANYBIO namely "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour" AusLondonder (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for following reasons: 1) Novikov won the People's Artist of Russia. This is the highest acting title Russia as previously noted. 2) Concurr with the WP:GEOBIAS concerns expressed. The individual clearly meets WP:ANYBIO namely "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour" 3) Has won these awards also: Medal "For Valiant Labour in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" and Medal "In Commemoration of the 800th Anniversary of Moscow" Dean Esmay (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Tozyiakova[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate that Olga Tozyiakova meets Wikipedia's notability standards, specifically that she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The only reference provided is that of the subject, which does not meet Wikipedia standards. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a self-advertisement. Fatty wawa (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources available which satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChemEqual[edit]

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

Appears to lack notability and independent reliable sources. Please see exchange on Talk:ChemEqual. Tóraí (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam, which was my declined rationale--I just read through it again, and there isn't a neutral, acceptable sentence in the article. Barring that, notability hasn't been established. So, delete. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see the reliable and independent sources needed to establish notability. If kept, the ChemEqual talk page discussion points to promotional issues which also need to be addressed. EdChem (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small, non-notable company/website. No reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Marks[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not the same person as the previous AfD nomination and deletion. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An appointment as chair of Surrey County Council does not appear sufficient for WP:POLITICIAN criterion 2 in its own right, and I am not seeing the coverage which could satisfy that condition by rising above the routine. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surrey County Council could be enough to get her into Wikipedia if she could be shown to have satisfied the "who have received significant press coverage" part of WP:NPOL #2, but it is not enough to get her an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing. But the only references here are two primary sources (documents on the websites of the local government bodies she served on, which do exactly nothing in terms of demonstrating notability) and one piece of purely WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election results themselves. This is not what it takes to make a county councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN since this person is not a city mayor or an MP at least. A city councillor is a lower level position as a city can have numerous city councillors. --Artene50 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reddcoin[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources show that it exists and gets passing mentions as an example of a cryptocurrency, but nothing to show that anyone has written about it in any way that might convey notability. Not only fails WP:CORPDEPTH but can't get close to the WP:GNG bar Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand that Reddcoin is not a major cryptocurrency but I find it strange that Potcoin, blackcoin, vertcoin which are also small and barely known cryptocurrencies may be on wikipedia and not Reddcoin. I also tried to detail much thoroughly the blockchain process and the cryptocurrency caracteristics than the articles regarding those other cryptocurrencies. And I added the article from "cryptocoinsnews" which is quite a reference website in the cryptocurrencies business to support the fact that there is indeed a public knowledge about this currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcharig (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a topic deleted twice previously at AfD. While Google Books shows brief discussions in publications on cryptocurrencies, I am not seeing anything in the sources provided or found through searches to indicate that the previous consensus should be overturned. AllyD (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG just, and the promotional pressure pushes it solid into "not worth the community's effort to maintain" territory. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I quote the article : "But this steady enrichment [12] relies deeply on the stability of the currency, which is not very common for cryptocurrencies, Reddcoin included, whether on the long term[13] or short term[14]" Do you really think that this is "promotional pressure" ? Please give me some feedback about which sentences are qualified as promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcharig (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure on time frames for deletion, but taking the points made above and in the prior AfD's I believe this time round the page can be crafted into a valid wiki.Cryptognasher (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (due to a GNG failure) and Salt - 3rd time's a charm. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find mentions in trade publications, but they are only mentions and the publications not reliable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

The topic does not seem notable under the WP:GNG as it is unreferenced and searching for "Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire" (WP:BEFORE) returned no reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article User:DragonTiger23 was indefinitely blocked for evading a topic ban (which was that they could not edit any Greece related articles). The article also fails WP:LISTPEOPLE as reliable sources have not established any of people's membership on this list and most of the people on the list are not notable (as the list contains mostly WP:REDLINKS). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:35, 9 April 2017 (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/2017 April 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting because the topic ban seems to cover 'terrible things done to Turks by Greeks,' but not Turkish topics itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that the nominator is aware of the move request on the talk page... I find this proposed deletion perplexing. The term in question can be written in any number of ways in the Latin alphabet and sources do not agree on how to pluralize it in English. There is an article on the şeyḫülislām in Facts on File's Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire. The list should be checked against Esra Yakut's Şeyhülislamlık: yenileşme döneminde devlet ve din (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2005), pp. 242–47. Srnec (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just click the blue link to the article that this is a list about. Its clearly a notable topic. I get the OR concerns, but that just requires looking for the sources, not deleting the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I will, as I have so many times with this nominator, point to WP:CLN. If we have Category:Sheikh-ul-Islams of the Ottoman Empire, it's reasonable to have a corresponding list. The list already demonstrates some of the WP:AOAL, listing these individuals in chronological order, and with time spans. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The topic is clearly notable as the supreme religious authority in a major world empire. The transliteration issue is not reasons for deletion. Constantine ✍ 09:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment KAP03, would you consider withdrawing this AfD per the above comments? There is also a move discussion going on (which, for full disclosure, I have relisted but have no real opinion in the outcomes of). In my past experience, RMs rarely get that much comment if they are also at AfD at the same time, and this appears to be on a way to a keep, and the transliteration issues in the title appear to be the larger concern than the notability, which everyone so far is pretty confident exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well where are the sources to prove the items in the list are notable. Right now it seems like the keep votes are saying that there must be sources (but have not shown any examples) See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to withdraw my !vote as I'm now unsure. It's described as an "honorific title for outstanding scholars of the Islamic sciences," with 131 named during the Ottoman reign, with the shortest tenure being "Memikzade Mustafa Efendi for 13 hours." A case can be made that truly notable examples be linked to in the main article, with no need for a list of 131 names, most of whom may not ever independently notable. As for the category, that's not an issue for here anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Items in a list don't have to be individually notable. That's basic.
  As for sources, did you miss the part where I cited them with page numbers? Srnec (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh for sure, WP:LISTN does advise us of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Shawn, 131 over ~500 years amounts to about one every four years (3.8 if you're a stickler). Over half of the Prime Ministers of Australia, didn't make it that long. I think the question here is if the office is notable, and if so, whether it makes sense to have a list. To me, the office appears to be notable, and I don't see any reason against having a list. Also, @KAP03:, there are sources. They're at the bottom of the article. In print and/or not in English is not the same as not being in existence. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that is further reading, not actual inline citations which are not the same thing. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:GNG does not require that there be footnotes, nor does it require that the sources be in the article at all. It requires that they exist and that someone who has access to them would be able to verify the information. The second entry in the further reading section also lists the exact pages you could go to in that book to find the list, which is more than enough for verifiability concerns. This list is certainly as important as List of Archbishops of Vancouver or List of Patriarchs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. I understand that their is a difference in Islam and Christianity about clerical offices, but this is clearly a notable position, and it makes sense to have a list for it like we would for other religious offices, even if the individual holders were not necessarily notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        For what it is worth, I've switched the "external links" to "references", and made the references inline. Also, some editors edit with little distinction between the two, and it is implicit in WP:BEFORE that the sources in external links be searched. I'm not sure if they were found in this case, but I found them on google books without a problem. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My understanding is that the title went to a/the leading cleric of the empire, the Grand Mufti of Constantinople. So most/all of these individuals are likely to be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia, if/when sources can be found. In the meantime, a list of redlinks should be fine. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator is going to be arguing deletion because they're not actual inline citations, then it only reinforces my longstanding feeling that this is someone who should be topic banned from Afd for persistent, ongoing cluelessness. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randamoozham (upcoming film)[edit]

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

A big budget movie that has not yet commenced principal photography. Rumors about the movie have been doing the rounds for many years, and Mohanlal's good run at the box office recently has prompted him to consider restarting talks for his dream venture. Still in planning stages, and therefore fails WP:NFILM. Article can be created when filming commences but till then its WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Jupitus Smart 18:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with deleting as per WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 10:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kitesurfing locations[edit]

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

This is looking a lot like a WP:LINKFARM list of kitesurfing companies, and without those links as references it's just an unsourced list of "any [water] location with consistent, steady side-onshore winds" around the world. A few secondary-sourced paragraphs in Kitesurfing#Locations about significant locations would seem enough. McGeddon (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or trim per nom. Some countries have many hundreds of locations that meet this list's criteria, which is why it can never be comprehensive. The ones mentioned (and the few refs) tend to be driven by WP:PROMOTION. -- IsaacSt (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is written in a way that it appears to be a travel guide rather than an encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

No indication of character notability. Was a redirect, which was undone, with the following rationales: "The redirected page was already in use" (which makes no sense), and "Articles migration banned in the new look of the page. Cannot redirect to the characters list". Not every fictional character is notable, and this one doesn't pass WP:GNG, as coverage appears to all be in the WP:ROUTINE range. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to List of Mortal Kombat characters. She is a relatively minor character in the franchise, and doesn't have enough reliable sources discussing her in any in depth way. Searches just bring up the standard results for a fighting game character: announcements of her appearance in a game, move lists, videos showcasing her attacks, etc. There has been nothing that I've found that actually talks about her much beyond this. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talk:Mortal Kombat contained a merge-from tag that was misplaced (causing a Category error) so I moved it to the article. I was going to add a merge-to tag to Tanya (Mortal Kombat) but I see it's under discussion here. I have therefore removed the merge-from tag from Talk:Mortal Kombat without prejudice. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information and redirect per IP editor. Tanya's still a bit too new as a character. She might be one of the more popular ones, but as far as I'm aware, she's one of the few new ones people didn't hate from MK4. For fictional character articles, all notability stems from a section describing the mainstream's reaction to the character's existence, which of course all the classic MK characters have but Tanya currently does not. It could happen, but I don't know that anyone in the gaming press have offered enough commentary on Tanya - say, by ranking her on lists of characters very often - to warrant an article that is not just about her as a character but as a pop culture phenomenon. Everyone knows who Scorpion, Sub-Zero, Kitana, and Mileena are, and that's because people have cared long enough to keep them visible. Tanya might not be hated, she might even have a huge fanbase, but I don't know that she has made an impression the way the others have. Ask anyone who the most iconic characters from this franchise are and I guarantee you Tanya isn't going to be one of them. Ask a random guy on the street, ask a hardcore fan. Maybe she can have that, someday, but I do not believe it is this day. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back; yep, no sudden increase in notability to justify an article being created now. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 06:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roko Bujas[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, does not appear to meet WP:GNG standards. GAB^gab 16:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Rusholme[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a broadcaster, notable primarily as a single-market radio and television host and voice-over narrator of television documentary shows. This is not referenced to the degree of reliable source coverage needed to get her over WP:GNG for it, however; while there is one reliable source present, it's coverage from the Automobiles section, in the context of having a parallel parking beep guide in her car rather than in the context of any actual career accomplishment that might actually count as a notability claim -- and even if we did accept it as counting toward GNG just because it's in The Globe and Mail, it still takes more than just one reliable source to pass GNG. And the whole thing reads like a thinly veiled rewrite of her staff profile from an employer's website rather than an actual encyclopedia article, to boot. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but nothing present here is good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Crouse[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced and advertorially toned WP:BLP of a broadcaster, notable only as a single-market radio personality. As always, radio personalities are not entitled to articles just because they exist, or even because they've been nominated for (but not won) local awards -- they get an article when they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent sources, fails to meet simplest of WP standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill, local broadcaster. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Lalit[edit]

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

Non-notable director lacking non-trivial or independent support. Has created a minor short- film. The feature film appears to not have started filming - IMDB shows it is in pre-production. A Google search fails to show support for Wikipedia inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've carried out some quick edits to try to improve the readability of the article, but I'll leave it to someone who's more familiar with the Indian film scene to improve the actual content relating to that area. I think we should wait a month or so to see if any editors with an interest in that area will take up work on this article, before we consider whether to delete it or not. One thing I will note though is that there seems to be ongoing confusion on Wikipedia and possibly elsewhere online between this individual and the murdered social activist Lalit Mehta. Not necessarily notable in itself but I thought I should mention it. I may mention that factoid in a future edit, assuming that the deletion doesn't go through. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reviewed the changes you made and see nothing of a substantive nature. What would be the purpose of extending the AfD if the article clearly fails to meet inclusion criteria? If the subject at sometime meets the criteria, it can be recreated. reddogsix (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Resume of non-notable film director. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not establish notability as written. Delete unless expanded before closing the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now a newly created page at Indian four phase which could be included in this AfD. Lectonar (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Air Peru[edit]

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

See WP:TOOSOON. Nothing in the article or found by Google search indicates corporate notability for this airline that is scheduled to start service. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose airline has received a license and started to sell tickets, it has also been assigned a code and callsign by the International Civil Aviation Authority, a lot more advanced then some proposed airlines. Article needs improvement but no need to delete it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep due to all the reasons stated by User:MilborneOne, I could not have said it better myself...Antonio The Great Runner Martin (dimelo) 03, 00, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Keep -- per prior outcomes, non-charter airlines are generally kept. This one appears notable: "Viva Air, the country’s first low-cost airline, offers 11 routes of domestic flights within Peru for only S/. 60" (from Gnews: link). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stardog[edit]

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

Was tagged for notability over a year and a half ago. Zero improvement since then. Searches do not turn up the type of in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. Non-notable product from non-notable company. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, based on invalid citation. Of the 6 footnotes, 4 point to the company itself and the other two point to a small (1-10 employees according to LinkedIn) private company instead of a valid secondary source. This appears to be an article created to show notability by having a Wikipedia article, because it can't demonstrate such otherwise. -Markeer 13:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page to link from Graph_database as most of the software listed there is included in wikipedia. I'm happy to include more content on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhgrove (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the two third-party sources cited, one is an interview that simply reports the company's claims without verifying them in any way – which makes it hardly different from a republished press release – and the other is a blog post that simply summarises the company's claimed optimisations without verifying them in any way.--greenrd (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BloodRockz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND.Almost no mentions in WP:RS. Even, if notable WP:TNT will be a good option.Winged Blades^Godric 12:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 12:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NBAND Spiderone 11:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately they do not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia at present. No sources to confirm that they meet the criteria, namely WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. We cannot have an article on a group of living people without reliable sources. MartinJones (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Szűts - Nowsky[edit]

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

Current sourcing consists of a non-independent source, and a listing for her book, which does show she's published. However, searches turned up virtually nothing about her. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:BEFORE search brings up precisely zip coverage in RS, and even a general search indicates only directories, people guides and social media . Fails WP:ANYBIO. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 13:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability: just a commercial ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon (2017 film)[edit]

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

Filming has not yet begun, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 11:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Film's shooting will begin in May 2017. See. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 14:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - movie has not even started filming yet. And while some may say "but it will start in a month", we've heard that line before. It was to begin shooting in 2016, and keeps getting delayed. Even if it does start shooting "next month", it will still be at least a year before it is released. And that means a year of unsourced edits, rumors, and vandals. Just get rid of it. Kellymoat (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete--Fails WP:NFF.The article creator has an habit of creating all these articles on future films--(prob. to feature as an article creator after years when the film has released or it has indeed become notable get converted to an article) and then !votes for an redirect at AfD.Put an end to this!Winged Blades^Godric 13:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City Calm Down[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails the notability criteria for bands and musicians. - TheMagnificentist 10:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The band meets several of the notability standards stated at WP:BAND ZiggyCross 11:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiggyCross (talk • contribs) — ZiggyCross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Such as? - TheMagnificentist 11:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*delete fails WP:BAND. No notable awards, notable band members nor notable albums. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep based on additional sourcing found. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Below is coverage I found.

Young, Kane (25 August 2016), "Calm down, it's fixed", Hobart Mercury

Ross, Annabel (22 January 2016), "Drummer delay led to City limits", The Age

Cahill, Mikey (12 November 2015), "In A Restless House", Courier Mail

Collins, Simon (12 November 2015), "The Calm and the restless", The West Australian

Collins, Simon (5 November 2015), "In A Restless House review", The West Australian

"New single the 'first taste'", The Daily Mercury, 21 November 2013

"Great depth of musical thought shows in song", The Daily Mercury, 8 November 2012

Reviewed by Rolling Stone [2]

They appear to have also been covered in NME, Stereogum, Consequence of Sound. Enough for GNG. Plus they charted, In A Restless House November 2015 debut and peak 25, 88 next week later April 2016 #83 and August 2016 #82. (Movements was #8 on Hitseekers). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their album In a Restless House charted at #25 in Australia. Meets WP:BAND.Boneymau (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I apologize in advance for this lengthy post, but it needs the length to explain my (so far) minority opinion. I have worked in music management and both ends of promotion. I wonder if editors voting “keep” are looking at these references with a similar analytical eye. I checked all the references I could (a few lead to dead links) that were provided in the article and by user duffbeerforme (talk) above (thank you for your effort) They are of the WP:RUNOFTHEMILL variety: announcements of releases, appearances, first person interviews of members talking about the same, local and small time reviews, etc. All the standard stuff any professional band would (and should) have, but lacks evidence of non-promotionally-tinged, third party coverage in any significant number. This kind of coverage reveals a band that has been paying their dues for a while, building a following, gradually inching upward towards their first significant release. But I don’t see signs of having “made it” yet at an encyclopedic important level. For a Melbourne band with a fanbase and a label’s promotional backing to enter the Australian-only chart at #25 is what one would expect, reflective of pre-orders. To fall nearly 50 places a week later once genuine sales are tallied is also normal. To hover in these lower reaches for the next year or so is also typical of a hard working band, generally peaking upward with a particular appearance of some sort (often times a radio or TV interview), but not an encyclopedic worthy achievement. Please note for those unfamiliar with a “hitseeker” or “heatseeker” type chart: they chronicle positions of music not in a noteworthy chart, but rather tracking where it is positioned to making the chart. In other words, the example cited here as being #8” translates to really being 8 positions away, or #108 if one included it among records that comprise the Top 100. Not sure what numbers were are talking here for this Australian chart, could be Top 40 or Top 200; regardless, a “hitseeker” entry is hardly an indicator of an important achievement in record sales; it’s simply valuable knowledge for retail professionals)

Note the review in Rolling Stone: at a glance this had me thinking, “oh..okay..THAT certainly convey’s notability…” until I pursued the link and recognized this is not the esteemed version of Rolling Stone, but rather one of the many licensed international editions, not produced under the editorial stewardship of the mother company. In essence, the content here is the additional “local interest” unique to the market where a particular edition is sold. For notability purposes, it carries a clout similar to being reviewed in one of the other local coverage sources evidenced here. Of course local coverage in itself doesn’t minimize a claim to notability, but—again—everything coming up in these sources simply re-affirms existence rather than notability. If someone can add some genuine “meaty” evidence of notability, I’ll gladly change my ivote. Even if the only thing that can be proved is they are a top band in Melbourne and nothing else. But I’m not seeing any such claim.

The only thing that might indicate importance is an Allmusic profile. But its easy to misread why a band may have a profile. Although an AllMusic listing at one time was a reasonable indicator of importance, that changed a few years back when the company was sold and they turned over their content management to the TiVo/Rovi databse. Now the only criteria for an AllMusic listing is to have produced a product available for retail distribution. AllMusic’s primary purpose is to no longer catalog music acts of distinction; rather, it is to aid a retailer’s marketing efforts. This results in entries for bands that simply released an album: they may otherwise fail to meet every single criteria for wikipedia notably. Considering every other reference to this band is coming up short in the notability argument, I get the feeling that their Allmusic profile is among the beneficiaries of this low standard. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Album charted at #25 in Australia. It doesn't matter if it didn't sell a single copy the following week, they meet WP:BAND comfortably because having a charting album is a core qualifier. This is one of a number of recent AFD nominations that seems to be forgetting that AFD is for judging notability based on established policy, not personal criteria that work outside of that, like how far an album fell in the second week. KaisaL (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t ague your points about following policy, which is why this up and coming band will likely have it’s wikipage saved before they’ve truly earned it. I just needed to air some real world knowledge on this topic to hopefully affect change to this policy. As long as I’ve been here I still don’t know where and how these policies are decided. Is there a special place for me to give this input? I’d be grateful for direction if you have it, KaisaL (talk). Are wikipedia policies set by people who have experience or learned knowledge in respective fields? Sometimes it seems not. The notable bands criteria needs a serious re-evaluation. The chart criteria is especially flawed. We once represented a band whose debut album logged in the lower reaches of the old Cashbox magazine charts based on preorders. The album was pulled from release at the 11th hour for legal reasons—yet it still charted! It never came out—never earned a dime, never heard by the public—yet there is was at #one hundred and something. We always laughed about that one. There are more stories I could tell. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the talk page of the specific policy would be a good starting place, but removing chart placings won't get much support, I don't think. I remember you nominated Jorja Smith too which was a strange nomination, I don't know, maybe you just hold musicians to much stricter criteria than the community as a whole. I agree that general press release spam like streams and new video shouldn't count for as much as it should, though. KaisaL (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, KaisaL (talk). One thing, though: I believe you are mistaking me for someone else. I have never nominated anyone. I’m not even sure how to do that. My expertise on the ins and outs of wikipedia is limited, and I’m still learning my way around after a couple of years. But as for musicians, you are correct. Check out my brief statement on my user page. I have a special interest because I’ve promoted performers and I recognize how the game is played (or was, since my experience pre-dates the online digital era, though much is still the same.) I am amazed that wikipedia editors often vote keep without realizing how much smoke and mirrors are involved in the game. Regarding charts, an artist’s release can debut on the charts in the 100’s based on sales to a retailer, not a consumer. These are speculative purchases made by retailers based on the kind of sales hype that I used to do. The release can wind up sitting unwanted, never purchased, and eventually returned or "cut out". A flop, in other words. A tell-tale sign is when a chart shows a release in a high position that falls off the chart the next week (or drops about 50 spots, like these guys). It’s a shame wikipedia policy doesn’t understand that nuance of the game. As result, way too many truly unsuccessful, non notable artists are being given encyclopedic importance. It cheapens the integrity of wikipedia, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShelbyMarion (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme; coverage in reliable sources (e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). These (along with the top 25 chart placement) are sufficient in my view to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 01:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BAND on multiple criteria per duffbeerforme and Gongshow.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies the requirements of WP:BAND. I think that this is on a completely different level to the example cited by ShelbyMarion above. Dan arndt (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. for these reasons: 1) Band has been covered by: The Age, The West Australian, Rolling Stone and the The Daily Mercury 2) The band's album In a Restless House charted at #25 in Australia. I do recognize the concerns though of the person who gave the lengthy objection. Their Twitter following is about 1,800 followers which is not a lot. On the other hand, they do have 17,000 likes on their Facebook page. Google trends shows they did have a previous spike in interest for a period of time, but that has fallen.[9] There are over 60,000 Google search results for the band.[10] Dean Esmay (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltown DJs[edit]

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

Non-notable musicians. The article survived deletion in the first nomination because the editors concluded that two of the sources met the criteria. But now (most of) the sources aren't functioning and the webpages can't be found. The other sources like Myspace aren't reliable. - TheMagnificentist 10:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two sources wouldn't qualify as significant today. One is Beatroute, which is a regional publication, and the other is FFWD, which is an even smaller regional publication. Even if you say that Beatroute, a publication with a circulation of 10,000, should be giving a band an article, one source isn't enough for a band around since the 1990s. The fact that one of their claims is playing SXSW, a festival for new bands of which many never go anywhere, is also telling. The other bits are a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. In short, a regional or local level act with lots of coverage around Calgary (including this recent one) but precious little beyond that. KaisaL (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has an advertorial slant to it as written, and there's no genuinely strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC: the closest thing they really have to a notability claim, the fact that they collaborated with Mandeep "Wax Romeo" Ubhi in an offshoot band called Smalltown Romeo, who are notable primarily as the backing band on one Shad single which didn't really accomplish anything that would get it over WP:NSONGS, is (a) not even reflected in this article apart from a glancing mention of Shad (but not Wax Romeo) in the list of collaborators, and (b) not all that strong an NMUSIC claim even if it were. There's no evidence of substantive coverage outside of their own local media market, and nothing strong enough to grant them a presumption of notability in the absence of substantive coverage outside of their own local media market. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClearSQL for Oracle[edit]

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

Article doesn't cite any sources except for the vendor's own web site. I have searched for reliable sources independent of the vendor and I cannot find any. SJK (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had no luck finding significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Rwanda in Exile[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation: presumably recognised by no official bodies (as shown by the sources here- self-published press-releases). This is the news resul for "Government of Rwanda in Exile" and this is the result for ["Exiled Government of Rwanda"; a few more hits, but they are mostly regarding the individuals themselves, as individual exiles. Calling them a 'government in exile' is efectively WP:SOAPBOX, certainly WP:OR and by it's very nature WP:PARTISAN. Non-notable subject article, but an object-lesson in what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--They have typically managed to bypass WP:CSD but it will not be prudent to accord them anything more than their their deserved(??) 7 days of WP fame!Winged Blades^Godric 13:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ishema Party, the parent organization and tag the resultant redirect as {{R from non-neutral}}. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or if you insist, merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure that the suggestion that the Ishema Party is synonymous with the Rwandan govt in exile isn't misplaced- third party, independent sources rarely support the view, and they appear to have no international recognition. It would, I think, be pushing a WP:POV to equate the concept with the body. — O Fortuna^{velut luna} 09:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G3 by Nick-D. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Brosnahan[edit]

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

This article appears to be part of an elaborate hoax by the creator, using the infobox to state that he was preceded by an Australian official, and listing the individual as an official in a fictional micro-state. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aireon[edit]

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

makes a communication service used by notable companies. That does not make them notable. The refs are notices &press releases DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanakathidam[edit]

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

Another of the vanity pages about Malayali families. Fails WP:GNG and has not provided any references. Full of puffery singing paeans about the greatness of the family. Created by a single purpose account. Searching also does not provide any relevant hits. Jupitus Smart 05:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 15:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably WP:VANITY, no evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalavalapalli family[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Vanity page created by a single purpose account. No references, and talks about the glories of some family, and specifically one member who supposedly introduced a wonder plant to Andhra Pradesh. Jupitus Smart 05:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure original research with no evidence of notability Spiderone 10:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably WP:VANITY, no evidence of notability under WP:GNG or any applicable SNG in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Biggest Loser Australia (season 11). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 15:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Babet[edit]

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

She is just an unnotable reality-television contestant. Grahame (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ENTERTAINER Libby Babet is the trainer/host of The Biggest Loser Australia, replacing well-known fitness expert and TV personality Michelle Bridges. The Biggest Loser is one of Australia's top rating TV shows. There are 98,000 results when searching for "Libby Babet" of which, having checked the first 10 pages, I suspect most if not all are related to this Libby Babet.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18] - Tyrone28 (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Libby+Babet%22
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Biggest_Loser_(Australian_TV_series)
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Biggest_Loser_Australia_(season_11)
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bridges
^ http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/weight-loss/the-biggest-loser-trainer-libby-babet-responds-to-criticism-that-at-78kg-nikki-isnt-heavy-enough-to-be-on-the-weight-loss-show/news-story/be2f6d579e5ccfc3ac0a366a7bd99053
^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4312050/Biggest-Loser-s-Libby-Babet-train-without-tough-love.html
^ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/television/new-the-biggest-loser-trainer-libby-babet-says-she-is-a-different-trainer-than-michelle-bridges/news-story/8ddc671f8824d40b99855c30f1db0b9a
^ http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-ratings/channel-10-backs-the-biggest-loser-transformed-despite-dismal-ratings-for-launch-episode/news-story/6d760899a88d29f40641f965f371e5a6
^ https://www.byronnews.com.au/news/whats-small-screen-week/3153493/
^ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/television/first-review-of-the-new-series-of-the-biggest-loser-on-channel-ten/news-story/b90c86d2f74edb9b047e0b731a5f16de
^ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-biggest-loser-transformed-nikkis-partner-hasnt-seen-her-naked-in-three-years/news-story/cb20641ae8597ef871711eea3579a62a
^ http://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/mind-body/wellbeing/libby-babets-letter-to-the-biggest-loser-transformed-contestants/news-story/981bb91c62ae2ba0ae47f75a655858a9
^ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/macarthur/biggest-loser-winner-sam-rouen-motivates-new-camden-contestant-simon-cummins/news-story/fd4bde2ba1425cf6edf2f27ab7e165bd
^ http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/weight-loss/the-biggest-losers-new-trainer-libby-babet-is-no-strict-paleo-pete/news-story/47b50d189f3633930a561261fcac6e74
^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/tvshowbiz/video-1429159/Biggest-Loser-trainer-distances-methods-Michelle-Bridges.html
^ http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/penrith-press/boxer-fights-bulge-on-biggest-loser/news-story/8b1d4ddff523ea24155af849d0aeffcc
^ http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/weight-loss/sydney-personal-trainer-libby-babet-to-replace-michelle-bridges-on-new-season-of-the-biggest-loser/news-story/dbb68399dcf6c3ce04f8f90c476b551d
^ http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/the-biggest-loser-will-return-in-2017-on-ten-but-with-a-new-look-and-weightloss-focus/news-story/85abf20094f39e615b984fba61b0c7e2

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a contestant, but still not notable. I have not been able to find anything on Babet that is independent and substantial, although this job is made difficult by the enormous amount of marketing fluff that has been generated about and around her, and printed in the TV pages. Would not object to a redirect to The Biggest Loser Australia (season 11) as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

~~Keep~~User already !voted. I'm new here so apologies if I'm off track but here are some more references. Can we also cite printed references? Libby will be on the cover of Women's Fitness Magazine (115K readership) in April with a feature story about her. If this isn't what you mean by independent and substantial could you please clarify?

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

References

^ Australian Institute of Fitness - Top 16 Influencers: http://fitness.edu.au/top-16-influencers-of-fitness-and-nutrition/
^ Brisbane News Feature: http://creative.news.com.au/WEB_QLD/BN_Flipbook/latest-issue/#page/8
^ Morrissey Management: http://www.morrissey.com.au/portfolio_page/libby-babet/
^ Lifestyle YOU: https://www.lifestyle.com.au/libbybabet/>
^ Wired For Wonder by Commonwealth Bank: http://www.wiredforwonder.com/archive/2015/libby-babet-1/
^ Channel 7 - Sunrise: https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/30587463/this-years-top-fitness-fads/#page1

Tyrone28 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, lets go through these one by one:
- http://fitness.edu.au/top-16-influencers-of-fitness-and-nutrition/ - Brief mention and not independent (Babet is on the AIF payroll)
- http://creative.news.com.au/WEB_QLD/BN_Flipbook/latest-issue/#page/8 - Promotional piece for The Biggest Loser. I live in Brisbane and I've never heard of this "Brisbane News" so I'm not sure it's a reliable source either.
- http://www.morrissey.com.au/portfolio_page/libby-babet/ - no content, not independent
- https://www.lifestyle.com.au/libbybabet/ - not substantial, looks promotional
- http://www.wiredforwonder.com/archive/2015/libby-babet-1 - Word for word identical to the marketing fluff in the above link
- https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/30587463/this-years-top-fitness-fads/#page1 - Babet appears but the segment is not about her

Demonstrating notability isn't about the quantity of sources, it's about their quality, and I'm just not seeing the quality needed here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the feedback, here's some more information:

http://fitness.edu.au/top-16-influencers-of-fitness-and-nutrition/ - I can confirm Libby has not been and is not on the payroll for AIF which is Australia's largest fitness educator which I thought would qualify it as a significant and reliable source.
http://creative.news.com.au/WEB_QLD/BN_Flipbook/latest-issue/#page/8 - Brisbane News is owned by News.com.au and has a readership of 100K in Brisbane.
https://www.lifestyle.com.au/libbybabet/ - Lifestyle is part of Foxtel and Libby is an independent writer for this online channel as she is for numerous online channels such as Yahoo!7, Scoopla, the HIT Network / Austereo and News.com.au. Lifestyle is one of the top ranked sites in Australia receiving around 500K hits per month.
http://www.wiredforwonder.com/archive/2015/libby-babet-1 - Wired for Wonder is a Commonwealth Bank event that invites speakers of note from around the world. This link shows Libby as one of their speakers.

Here's another link I found:

http://nationalachieverscongress.com.au/speakers.html?ls= - Libby is speaking alongside Anthony Robbins at a major event in Sydney and Melbourne

I assume printed sources are just as valid as online? For example, how can I reference various profiles in major magazines such as Who, OK! and Women's Fitness Magazine? Would being profiled in significant print publications qualify as independent and quality references?

Tyrone28 (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's heaps of speaking engagements here, but you're not showing me anything that amounts of substantial coverage of Babet herself that hasn't been paid for. She's got a good publicist obviously, but an advertorial piece in a "lifestyle magazine" is not reliable coverage. I have to ask, what is your connection (if any) with Babet or The Biggest Loser? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will relist this. The reference lists make this AFD a mess to look at yet there's only been 2 contributions beyond the nominator, which are split. Lots of links and evidence but no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2017 (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/2017 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Zero participation since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Lankiveil's 19 March suggestion. I don't see anything establishing independent notability just yet, and given the performance of the show there's a possibility there never will be any, but for now it seems to make sense to include a brief background in the article on the series in question. If/when her career takes off, there's no prejudice towards re-creating an independent article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (cleaning out the Relisted 3 times or more cat) Would not object to a redirect per Lankiveil L3X1 (distant write) 14:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Lankiveil none of the coverage is paid coverage, Libby does not have a publicist and I am part of Libby's team. As I said, there are numerous magazine articles in print, including covers of major magazines which are independent (not about Biggest Loser) that I cannot reference here as they are not available online. Surely offline references are just as valid as online? Tyrone28 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Biggest Loser Australia (season 11); not independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - (to The Biggest Loser Australia (season 11)) As above, I cannot find sufficient sources to justify independent notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Hamano filmography[edit]

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

A collection of non-notable titles. The article has been deprodded with the rationale that this was a filmography for a noted female director of pink films. However, I do not believe this is a valid reason to keep this article. For example, I randomly searched for Roman Polanski filmography and was directed to a section in the main Polanski article. All the movies listed are blue-linked.

I thus believe WP:NOTCATALOG applies, and the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was me who deprodded it -- not because I thought it should be retained, but because I wasn't convinced by the reason given for deletion and I thought there could be reasonable objection to deletion. This had/has ambitions of being rather more than some random list. WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't obviously apply: if Hamano is indeed notable (and there's not yet any proposal to delete the article about her), then I suppose her oeuvre has some notability. And if it does, then listing it doesn't seem unreasonable or inappropriate. I'd rush to agree that Polanski's output is greatly more notable (in either a normal sense or in Wikipedia's slightly odd sense), but the fact that a notable subject is dealt with in one section of an article is not a valid reason why a less notable subject should not be given its own article, especially when, as here, it requires some bulk. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sachi Hamano is quite well known for having directed about 300+ adult films. All of these wouldn't fit in the same article, so a separate article per WP:SPLIT is justified. While I agree with WP:NOTCATALOG, we do keep a list of all movies by famous directors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942 could you please indicate the consensus / guidance where the full listing of (non notable) titles would be encouraged? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants since last relist and contrasting views of two participants/voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect I belive those are the standard op procedures for porn lists. We don't need a complete and total list of all 300+ smut reels directed by her. #NotPornipedia L3X1 (distant write) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect -- Virtually none of these "films" are notable in any way, if any are, they can be covered in the main article. Montanabw^(talk) 08:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sajith Raj[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Has not provided any WP:RS references (even the ones present are about the movies and not the actor). Searching on Google also does not return any WP:RS sources which talk about the actor. Jupitus Smart 04:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be no coverage to pass NACTOR; roles are just minor ones in minor films Spiderone 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beach hut. No valid arguments for deletion have been presented and there appears to be no agreement on where to send this content if it's merged. That said, the article is almost entirely unsourced OR, so it can't stay as it is. I'll arbitrarily redirect the page for now based on the reasonable suggestion of one participant; if any editor disagrees on the target or method of integration, they can feel free to boldly change it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holhuashi[edit]

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

Unsourced. ~~Seems like a hoax.~~ (Withdrew statement after provision of sources) RoCo^(talk) 15:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I'm also concerned about the notability of the subject in the article. RoCo^(talk) 23:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search that doesn't exceed the search you should have done WP:BEFORE shows that enough sources exist to confirm that this is definitely no hoax.Burning Pillar (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burning Pillar: With all due respect, may I ask you to provide some reliable sources that I couldn't find upon searching? RoCo^(talk) 20:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see these results(just look at the first 8 pages) and you really suspect that this is a WP:HOAX? This is not a hoax. That doesn't make it worthy for inclusion... but even passing mentions in many sources of sufficient reliability establish the existance(but not the notability) of the subject.Burning Pillar (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burning Pillar:Could you please cite some sources here? Maybe I'll withdraw this nomination (and confirm notability could be established) if you're able to give some sources that ensure it is not a hoax. RoCo^(talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely unlikely that a book, a website by surfers,

a hotel, this site(in German) and this site are all contributing to a hoax.Burning Pillar (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burning Pillar: Affirmative, not a hoax. However, I'm concerned about the notability of the subject. RoCo^(talk) 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for the following reasons: firstly, no valid deletion rationale has been provided - see the first entry under WP:SKCRIT. Secondly however, I do not feel able to evaluate the notability of this subject as I suspect most of the sources that cover this subject in detail will not be in english. Of course, Wikipedia does not exclude sources in other languages, I'm just not able to speak them with any fluency. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Gazebo. Not sufficiently notable as a stand-alone article. Can be mentioned in Gazebo as a local variation in the Maldives. MB 03:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to beach hut. This is a type of beach hut in the Maldives. Some sources exist, but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge and redirect where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Mojica[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. –CaroleHenson (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added more sources, including that of Latin Beat Magazine and Diario Noticias Web. MegastarLV (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure. There's enough material now to prove his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.183.175 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, even though I'm pretty sure he's not a RSO or coach. L3X1 (distant write) 14:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It clearly makes no sense to have just one redlinked year in this century. Merging is a more viable option, but I don't see a clear consensus for this, either. Taking off my admin cap for a moment and just speaking as an editor, I would have to guess that there are probably plenty of noteworthy predicted or fictional events during 2098 that simply haven't been added yet. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2098[edit]

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

No sourced events at all, and WP:CRYSTAL. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does not go against WP:CRYSTAL as it does not yet predict any events. RoCo^(talk) 16:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2090s, but only if all of 2090 through 2099 are merged. Deletion is completely inappropriate, even if there is (or was) nothing that should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject Years has been notified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NotJustYet. TheDracologist (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge Per WP:TOOSOON. Nothing to say yet nor will there be for some time. AusLondonder (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete/Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a reference to the article.Wayne Elgin (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not even worth merging. Ifnord (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per User: Arthur Rubin. Deleting would be totally inappropriate. RoCo^(talk) 17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prior to merge. It seems to me that for the most part merging seems to be the favoured option. I will blank and redirect Student government political party and Student government party to Students' union for now. Anybody is then free to merge in the material from the Student government political party to any article(s) that they think is suitable. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student government party[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Currently it is simply an editor's definition of a topic. Delete as per WP:NOTDIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article creator has redirected Student government party to Student government political party, so I'm including the usual AfD search tags for that title too, for what it's worth. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom (I would have tried an WP:A7 but no matter). Main article students' union makes no mention of them, except in the India section which mentions links to real political parties there. Created and de-prodded by a problematic editor, too, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- An impressive amount of work has been done and the potential is much greater than I had thought. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a concept made up by the article creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This happens only in Hollywood films as painful satire, not real life. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 1 April 2017 (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/2017 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep as the article is greatly expanded from when it was nominated for deletion.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You've expanded it what you've decided are examples of the concept, but the sources don't use the term "student government political party", so I think we're drifting into original research. It's still a delete for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then we should rename it to the most appropriate title, and that solves the problem.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (including the Redirect) None of the sources refer to "Student government party" as a notable, separate entity. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not voting yet to see how a few more days expansion looks. (This should have been a WP:DRAFT to avoid being judged in such an early state). So far, I think it's demonstrated the phenomenon exists, but not whether it's independently notable enough for a dedicated article. A section or integrated mention of it on Student governments in the United States would be a sensible alternative approach to consider. Mortee (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching "campus political party" finds other mentions. I listed a few (not necessarily reliable) sources on the talk page in case they help anyone. Mortee (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

If none of those sources explicitly reference "Student government party" or "Student government political party" then they're no good. We can't keep moving the goalposts here. You can't say "use this, it sounds like what the article might be about." Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So rename it "campus political party".--I'm on day 4 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not how Wikipedia works. You can't say "My article is wrong, let's keep changing titles until someone finds references that fit that title." My suggestion to you is to work on a draft in your sandbox and submit it through the Article for Creation process. This current article (and please don't move it again) has no place on Wikipedia because its subject matter does not meet the notability guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Insisting that the exact phrase be used is odd. Talking about "parties" in the context of "student government" e.g. here should be relevant. In any case, some do say "student government party": [11], [12], [13]. Again, I'm not saying these establish notability - none are treating the topic of these parties separate from particular examples. This might be best served by folding it in to another article and I'm witholding judgement for now. I do say though that these sources show this isn't "a concept made up by the article creator" as a previous commentor said. Mortee (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd to insist that an article should be about what it claims it's meant to be about. If it's the general concept of student government in the US, which is all it contains at the moment, then we have Student governments in the United States. If it's about student activism in general, we already have Student activism. We also have Students' union which includes sections on student bodies. So, tell me, what is this article going to add? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be about the phenomenon of political parties formed within student bodies for election to student governments, separate from student activism in general. It's possible for those to be referred to in sources without the specific substring "student government political parties". I haven't yet taken a view on whether this article should stand alone or be folded into Student governments in the United States Mortee (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia's view is that there shouldn't be two articles covering the same subject matter. It's really simple, not something that requires "taking a view" - it's a straightforward policy - see WP:A10. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with any subtopic, the question is whether there's enough to be said about this (parties in particular) that it can't be reasonably folded into the supertopic (student government). That's what I'm waiting to see as the article expands. I'll disengage from this for now and see how things stand in a few days. Mortee (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case the article doesn't change in those few days, it's worth noting that Student governments in the United States doesn't use "party" or "parties" at all, so A10 doesn't apply and a merge (to some degree) would be better than a pure delete if the article itself doesn't stand, to cover the fact of these student government political parties existing. Mortee (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree merging would be better than deleting.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or userfy - right now it's a total mess yet there appears to be a kernel worth saving. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does userfy mean?--I'm on day 4 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are evidence that such a thing exists. In addition, Hong Kong's universities have a vibrant student government political party scene as well. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they were involved in the umbrella revolution, and some may have been in the high schools also.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but very carefully as it's a mess but has some potential merit (per Bearian, above). The subject exists - we call them "Factions" in Australia - although I doubt this is the best possible name for it, and most of the info probably belongs in articles about the individual student unions themselves. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this is treated as a synthetic concept in any meaningful way in reliable sources, beyond discussion of individual student government parties. Or better yet move into Draft if author wants to try to find such sources. Martinp (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of this material can be used in Student governments in the United States, and some in articles about the individual student bodies mentioned, but I don't see any evidence that this is treated by sources as an independent topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elyor Karimov[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. I'm unable to find substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO, nor any coverage to show that WP:PROF can be met. SmartSE (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If no reliable third-party sources can be found, this article can go.TH1980 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete. No possibility of passing WP:Prof. Can WP:Music help? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Applies WP:Prof n. 3: fellow status in Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which is a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. Also, the Woodrow Wilson website says that he is a former chair of Uzbek Academy of Sciences, which makes him notable by n. 5. --Lingveno (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note although we are still waiting for disclosures Lingveno is a paid editor, and was presumably paid to create this article.

Regarding PROF the Wilson Centre list him as a "Former Short-Term Scholar", not an elected fellow. I also fail to understand how that verifies that he was the chair of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, which would be a pretty strange position for a historian. SmartSE (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmartSE and I would like to remind you that we all do assume good faith. I have been born in Uzbekistan and I write article about it time to time. I tag my contributions once those are the paid once and I assure you that I have not been payed in order to write this article though have written it as assumed that he is notable. --Lingveno (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article content certainly has several hallmarks of paid editing regardless. Can you refute my points though? SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I find that significant scholars in UN research arms are likely to have "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (PROF 1) ~~and being a Fellow of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan seems to pass Prof 3~~. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy We need reliable sources that demonstrate a significant impact, not you own opinion as to what is likely. Likewise to pass prof 3 we'd need evidence that he has an elected position. SmartSE (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smartse here (although I have not yet formulated an opinion on Karimov's notability). Likelihood of impact is not evidence of impact, and working for an academy is not being honored by election to an academy. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he isn't clearly a fellow (or academician, as they seem to call it), and have stricken that point. I do think that if someone is likely to have a significant impact in a discipline and is located in a non-English speaking country and works on a subject which isn't of primary interest to an English speaking audience, then it is not a simple matter to say that they have or have not actually had significant impact. I don't know how to search Uzbekistani government, archeological/historical, and news sources online, so I can't comment on actual impact. In particular, many aspects of his role at the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan and at UNESCO pass V and suggest national and international impact. I don't think OR is a big problem here, although the last two paragraphs in the article should probably be cut. I understand NPOV is an issue, as the page is overtly POVE/promotional of the subject's career, but a NPOV version of the page could exist, I think, especially given the national- and international-level work he has done. Of course, this is just my opinion - consensus of the opinions of editors is what we are after, I think. If you think opinions are not what is needed, feel free to ignore mine. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- possible pass under WP:AUTHOR; Worldcat lists 6 publications: Identities. The holdings are not high, but this could be the case of them being in a foreign languages (Uzbek and Russian). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Head of an institute sounds like the equivalent of a European professor, who would certainly be notable. He also has a substantial body of published work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Institute of History of The Academy of Sciences of The Republic of Uzbekistan lists him at the Department of Medieval History as "Leader Research Fellow", not as Head of Department, as stated in the article. The Department Head is Azimkhuja Atakhodjaev. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for following reasons: 1) Applies WP:Prof n. fellow status in Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor). Also, the Woodrow Wilson website says that he is a former chair of Uzbek Academy of Sciences 2) Scholars in UN research arms are likely to have "had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (PROF 1). 3) possible pass under WP:AUTHOR; Worldcat lists 6 publications: Identities. The holdings are not high, but this could be the case of them being in a foreign languages (Uzbek and Russian) 4) He is the head of an institute sounds like the equivalent of a European professor, who would certainly be notable. 5) He also has a substantial body of published work. Dean Esmay (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the claims above satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notability is obvious with or without the notability guidelines. Passes under both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. Search for his name at Google scholar to see sources that either attest to his contributions or verify the seniority of his positions. Zero^talk 03:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelumbo (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILM and more importantly WP:GNG. Non notable cast and crew with the possible exception of Madhu. No references mentioned except the IMDB link and a link to a Chinese Mining Company which has no relation to the movie. The last AfD was closed as having No Consensus WP:NPASR due to lack of participation. Jupitus Smart 04:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM. No coverage in reliable sources. My searching found nothing beyond those currently in the article. Interesting that in March 2014 the article was redirected with the comment that the film had not been released. Perhaps it never was. Gab4gab (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Methven[edit]

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

A credit for Playmation in stashmedia and an IMDB page. Some info is unsourced, like his date of birth and current employment. Possible COI or autobio. Fails WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage, lack of critical attention. Searches yield nothing significant. IMDb, Facebook, LinkedIn. Mduvekot (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, CREATIVE, per above. South Nashua (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High Ridge Centre[edit]

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

Article about a mall. Mentions size, but nothing else, not even where it is. Mduvekot (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't believe it meets WP:ORG. Dolotta (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill shopping center. Reliable source coverage of any depth is routine in nature. Aside from store openings and closings, the local paper only mentions the mall as part of the surrounding retail district. Not enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL big-box center with 11 stores. MB 01:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G12, taken from https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.21.2992 -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limit of zero mass[edit]

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

Unsourced, incomprehensible. Mduvekot (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as garbage. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom - has no refs, makes no sense. Agricolae (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and lacking in context. —Lowellian (reply) 09:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It is a copy of the abstract of this old Physical Review D article. As such, it is a copyright violation, and shorn of any context, it makes no sense. The article from which it was copied has never been cited in peer-reviewed literature, that I can tell, which makes me suspect it is either wrong, boring or both. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, OK. And here I was going to suggest it was written by one of those scientific jargon-bots that just strings together random sciency phrases. Let me add a third option to your conclusion - if the abstract is so impenetrable, maybe the whole paper was. Anyhow, now that I can wrap my mind around the context, I don't think there is any there there. The abstract seems to be talking about what would happen as the mass approaches zero. This page is like one based on a paper positing what would happen to helium as the temperature approaches the Limit of zero Kelvin. This namespace definitely approaches the Limit of zero notability. Agricolae (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Habeas Corpus (band)[edit]

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

Band that does not meet GNG. I found one Allmusic source. Also the book provided in the article also briefly mentions them, but those two references alone are not enough to distinguish notability for a group that never had a charting hit. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be written to promote the band, one which doesn't really seem to be notable. If there are more sources to establish notability, the creator of the article should update the article to reflect that. 2600:1009:B049:9D4A:0:48:29B:B901 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all prongs of WP:NMUSIC and also WP:GNG. No evidence of significant coverage in sources or searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No policy-based reasons for keeping the article have been presented. The onus falls on those arguing for its retention to prove the subject is notable by way of significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources, and this has not been established. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISO Master[edit]

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

PRODed over a year ago and was restored. Referenced only by primary sources and I could find none in WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what you just said in language a regular human being can understand? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mig21 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be working on updating the page over the next few days. Mig21 (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, and the way I understand the rules the article should no longer have the problems that caused the PROD. Are there any objections to removing the notice now? Mig21 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mig21 is a WP:SPA who has admitted to being the product's author. Just putting this on the table. It does not mean that the product is not notable. I am only stating that so other editors know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving here from User_talk:Mig21: Mig21 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter:: I am the author of the application. I have tried very hard to be objective. Please clarify in Talk:ISO_Master what you feel is inappropriate, and feel free to improve or suggest improvements. Mig21 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed anything other than your direct involvement is problematic. You don't seem to have a clear understanding of how Wikipedia works and this will continue to cause problems. Your best bet now is to prove that your product meets WP:GNG: it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means write-ups, not how-tos or lists of ports, in sources that have little or nothing to do with you or the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter:: Hi Walter. Can you please clarify how http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/linux/ISO-Master-50543.shtml is not a "write-up"? Do you mean "it's not a book"? I looked over WP:GNG and that as well as the other pages linked to under "Reception" seem to hit every point. I would really appreciate getting some specifics rather than vague complaints about how something might be wrong because maybe it's not right. Thanks. Mig21 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not a reliable source. It has no author. Softpedia has no editorial oversight. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for full details on how to determine what is reliable and what is not. If you want it included as a fully reliable source, raise the issue at WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you come up with this stuff? It clearly states the author's name is Mihai Marinof, the date of the review, and the version reviewed. I assure you that website (nor any of the other websites listed under Reception) has nothing to do with me. The website has a large team of editors: http://www.softpedia.com/editors/ which does not include Marinof probably because it's been so many years since the review. Do you have any other objections to the current content in ISO_Master? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mig21 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I erred. Most sources list the author, the byline, at the top, not on the left side. My mistake. As for where I come up with this stuff: READ THE LINKS I SUPPLY! As for editorial oversight: WP:RS. And independent of the author is simply one of the criteria. I am focusing on the RS. WP:RSN has mixed opinions on Softpedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia has been described in numerous software afd discussions as a non-independent source as nearly all of their articles, including the one about ISO Master, contain a prominent download link. Even if Softpedia was considered independent in this discussion, one independent source is insufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not trying to be an idiot, but I honestly don't understand what you are talking about. Can you please try to be helpful and point out what would count as a reliable source for this page or a page like it? You can (and many will) argue about WP:RSN until the end of time. I have no interest in participating in that debate. How does that relate to this specific article? As it is now: it provides some objective information about a small application. What's wrong with that? There have been no New York Times articles written about it, and no books. That doesn't seem to me like a good reason to delete the page from Wikipedia. I don't know what else you would consider a reliable source because you haven't given any examples. To me all the noted sources follow WP:GNG. Can we please stop talking in the abstract and start fixing things by pointing out specific problems (i.e. this fact is wrong, this author is biased, this person doesn't know what they're talking about)? What are we actually discussing here? Mig21 (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I now delete the "Article for deletion" box? I can't find an explanation anywhere of what counts as "until the discussion has been closed". Mig21 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not delete it. Only an admin (or an editor who was not involved in the discussion) who closes the debate may do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. But how long is that supposed to take? There hasn't been any discussion here for over two weeks. Surely there is some deadline? Mig21 (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No deadline. The more you write, the more daunting it is for uninvolved editors to become involved. Unless you can offer significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, you should reduce the chatter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unreasonable and sounds a bit like "shut up and go away". I would really appreciate it if you stayed on point and tried to help. May I ask why your opinion about the quality of the sources is more valuable than mine? Surely there is a process for coming to a conclusion in disagreements like this? You decided on your own to delete the page, and deleted it. Do you have some special privileges on Wikipedia that make your opinion more valuable than mine? Mig21 (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Walter, please stop confusing the discussion by spreading it all over the place. Copied the following which was just posted in User_talk:Mig21:

you don't get it

There is only one way that you can keep your product's article on Wikipedia: find

significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the subject

Anything else is not useful. Discussing how to remove the AfD notice will happen when the community is ready to remove it. And there's no statute of limitations. If we decide to keep it now for whatever reason, an editor can come along in a year's time and nominate it again. That can happen until it's deleted. So your best bet is to either stop promoting your project or find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't get it. I don't understand why you've decided that this page needs to be deleted and absolutely refuse to consider that you're wrong. I've already asked multiple times what would count as a reliable source for this type of article and I'm very tired of repeating myself. I'm starting to think that either you have something personal against ISO Master or myself or you're just a troublemaker more interested in pumping your chest than making Wikipedia better. Yes - it's my project. No - that's not a good reason to delete the page. This page has nothing in it except facts, and that's what Wikipedia is supposed to be full of. Not useless discussions like this. Mig21 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not decided it needs to be deleted. I have suggested that because it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that it should not have an article. I am seeking the input of other editors on Wikipedia to determine if that's the case. If there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then it should be. If there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it should remain on Wikipedia. I could be wrong, but since I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I don't think I am, because that is primary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I stated above that you should read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources if you want to find out what we mean by reliable sources.

For the record, Wikipedia is not supposed to be full of facts. I don't know where you got that idea. It's supposed to be full of information about subjects that have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article verges on being G11-worthy; it has little encyclopedic value and seems to exist purely in order to promote the product. This is reflected in the sources, which read either as press-releases and advertorials, or primary and non-independent of the subject. Unfortunately, a WP:BEFORE search suggests that sources of this vintage are the only kind available. There is no depth or persistence of coverage, which means the subject fails the general notability guidelines as well as the more specific WP:ORGCRITE. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 07:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passes WP:NCRICKET. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Dua[edit]

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

Neither the article itself nor its references demonstrate that the subject is notable. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - clearly passes WP:NCRICKET as a first-class umpire - WP:BEFORE has not been followed. St Anselm (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite the guidance given at WP:NCRICKET, I'm not convinced that this article meets the WP:GNG. The subject is an active umpire, and seems to have been for a fairly long time, but despite this a Google search doesn't seem to reveal anything much about them. WP:NCRICKET suggests a level at which a player or umpire is likely to be notable, but ultimately, the GNG provides a better yardstick. In this case, I would say that the subject is a non-notable domestic cricket umpire and does not meet our notability criteria. Harrias ^talk 14:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have expanded the article. He has actually stood in five women's international matches. This should now pass WP:GNG – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per above. Passes WP:NCRICKET and has officiated in many Ranji Trophy matches as can be evidenced by a quick search. Umpires generally don't occupy much press coverage, until they reach the elite panels and I believe that it should be a Keep in good faith. Jupitus Smart 06:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails WP:GNG; the presumption of notability in WP:NCRICKET seems to be false."Umpires generally don't occupy much press coverage, until they reach the elite panels" is an argument to delete, not to keep. If they even don't generate press coverage until that, then the WP:NCRICKET criteria are possibly not that accurate.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization on Earth[edit]

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

doesn't add anything to Colonization. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – I don't think this is necessarily content that should be placed into an article. On the other hand, I believe a category could be established instead. --Tuxipedia (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Adequately covered by the article Colonization and the category "colonialism". Zero^talk 02:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding. If the decision is made to keep this, the silly title really must be changed. It reads like something out of a C-grade sci-fi film. Zero^talk 05:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:list of lists, this is a contentless navigation aid, perfectly acceptable under policy. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rather than a list article for navigation, a navbox or category would be more appropriate. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham: The Friend of God[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - do all films created by the IRIB automatically satisfy NFilm #4 (The film was selected for preservation in a national archive)? There is a hit for on google books, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MtcXDQAAQBAJ, it gets one paragraph on page 53. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to answer myself and say no. In this case, if no independent sources can be found, the article might not pass NPOV. I'll !vote weak delete. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2015 Commonwealth Youth Games. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 16:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weightlifting at the 2015 Commonwealth Youth Games[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event and is only sourced by one primary source. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you think this event is not notable, why did you not nominated the event for deletion? 2015 Commonwealth Youth Games has not been tagged. This is a subarticle, so a spin-out coverage. If you think this does not require a separate article, then it would be merged. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 Commonwealth Youth Games. No independent notability under WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Okyeame Kwame. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annica Nsiah Apau[edit]

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

Non-notable wife of a notable rapper. There is some coverage in RS but they are of a gossip-y variety, and focus solely on her status as "Okyeame Kwame's wife." This does not, in my opinion, make her independently notable. Any content worth preserving can be merged into Okyeame Kwame. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect - this was previously redirected to her husband's article, but the author undid that. I then applied a Proposed Deletion, which was removed. My reasoning was, "This person does not seem to meet the notability requirements - lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are only tabloid mentions of her, almost always in context of her husband.". In fact, all of the current references say "Okyeame Kwame's wife" (or equivalent words) in the title. Due to BLP concerns, and the nature of the sourcing, I think we best do her justice by covering anything in RS within Okyeame Kwame; Notability is not inherited. The current article contains negative information with dubious sourcing, and problems with giving undue weight to extremely non-notable information about her sex-life and menstrual cycle. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the coverage of Apau is mainly focused on her husband does not negate the fact that we have multiple indepth articles about her, this is enough to pass GNG. Something is off though. The Wikipedia article on her husband says they married in 2009, but this article [14] published last November if I am reading things right, says they have been married 12 years, meaning they would have married about 2004. There are more sources like this [15] from the Ghana Star on how she met her husband. Then there is this article [16] on how she wrote Okyeame Kwame's brand book. I am not sure I quite get what that all means, but people care about it. There is more coverage, and it looks to show a level of people paying attention to her to show she is notable. The rule that notability is not inherited does not mean we refuse article on people whose notability is reflective. There is enough coverage to show that she is notable, even if it all comes as a result of the focus on her husband. Although with the book and her being called his manager, it appears that she has a key role in propelling his continued rise to fame, not just the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but - in my own opinion - I'm not seeing the "significant coverage". There's an interview (primary), and then a few bits of facts in pulse and the pictorial.

My concern is, without more, we can't do justice to an autobiography; if that's all the info we have, it's bound to be skewed toward the tabloid crap. For example - what's her date-of-birth?

Incidentally, you need to remove or re-word born to parents who brought up their six children with both a heavy hand and a comforting bosom - it's close-paraphrasing, borderline copyright-violation.

I sort-of hope it can be fixed up, but if the information isn't out there, it might not be possible. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is my concern as well - only one the sources JPL linked is actually about Annica (the rest are clearly about her husband, but mention her), and the focus of almost every source on her that I've found is on her role as his wife. There's next-to-no reliable information about her as independent person, and we can't hang an encyclopedia article on "she married this dude who's famous and they have sex every day..." Just look at the articles, they are little more than celebrity gossip blogs. This is not the stuff that notability is made of. Far form it. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to neutralize the wording.--Auric talk 19:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's just too skewed, because of the poor-quality of the sources. For example, the lead sentence, Annica Nsiah Apau is a well known Ghanaian entrepreneur, Business and Brand Development Manager who gained popularity in the country for being the force behind the brand Okyeame Kwame

That is hopeless POV; it should say something like Annica Nsiah Apau is a Ghanaian entrepreneur, Business and Brand Development Manager married to Okyeame Kwame"

But if trimmed to be neutral, there's no substansive content left.

You end up with "Apau is married to Kwame. She went to school and got a degree. They have sex a lot." - at that point, it's obvious she fails WP:GNG. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue is not weather the source is about Nsiah Apua or about her husband. The question is weather the source provides indepth coverage. We can have an article on someone who has never had anything have them as the subject, as long as there is indepth coverage. On the other hand, we can delete an article where the person has often been the theoretical subject of articles, if they never provide indepth coverage. The test is not subject matter for a source, but how indepth the coverage of the subject is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside the gossips from blogs, the subject fails WP:GNG as notability is not inherited.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tea // have a ☕️ // leaves // 18:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of the subject on Google doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. The references in the article are about her husband, not her. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article seems to have a basic number of sources needed to validate the existence of an article. Perhaps some of the sources unique to the article might be ones that people in Ghana would be familiar with, but people in the West might be unfamiliar with. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that consensus about what to do with this article has not appeared yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per JPL, but is that last sentence in Critiscisms necessary? I mean, no one cares what they do in bed. And anyway, that "tidbit" of "information" seems more suited for a tabloid then Wikipedia. L3X1 (distant write) 14:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough credible reliable sources on the subject alone, also the article is not wiki worthy, it's something you'd read on dailymail. Tzsagan (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the group has been mentioned and its founder interviewed by numerous reputable publishers, there's a rough consensus that these sources do not have the depth or objectivity to constitute a body of significant, independent coverage. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Optimization, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company with a high risk of being self-promotion. Of the references given, most are either self-published, online rankings, or (at best) mention the subject in passing (e.g., one mention in a list of fast-growing companies in San Diego). While it's difficult to search for this company's name, nothing else prominent from independent, reliable sources appears to come up. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of notability, I'm inclined to lean toward the risk of advertising being too high. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece, this page looks like a company description on its website. If there is truly notability, then writing a new good article will probably not take more time than converting this into a good article.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be deleted because it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically in that the organization has coverage from reliable outside secondary sources in regards to software the company has released from download.com, ComputerWorld, and PCMAG. I have also established notability as the company has received awards from outside sources such as Search Engine Land, Inc. Magazine, Search Engine Watch, San Diego Business Journal etc... These sources exhibit depth of coverage as well as a regional and national audience. If you feel this page still does not meet the notability guideline, please specifically state why and what specific sections and language are believed to be advertising. Bughunter92 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 06:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I upgraded the article a bit today. Scanning the footnotes, there are a lot of reputable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and therefore GNG. The references fail to meet guidelines on establishing notability. Perhaps those editors above who !voted to keep could point me to the references they believe are acceptable and establish notability? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited this article as a result of using the "Random Article" button so I don't care much what happens to it. However, here is a list of the cited sources, many of which seem like acceptable and reliable secondary sources (obviously that does not include a few of them like #7 and #12):

Bloomberg L.P.
Entrepreneur (magazine)
Computerworld
Wired Japan
Bloomberg News
Blackwell, Roger et al. Consumer Behavior, p. 118 (Thomson/South-Western‬, 2006).
PRWeb
DMNews
PC Magazine
Download.com
Search Engine Watch
SEO Inc.
San Diego Daily Transcript
World Wide Web Consortium
Inc. (magazine)
San Diego Business Journal
Search Engine Land

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Anythingyouwant, many of the sources are reliable secondary sources. In particular:

Bloomberg L.P.
Entrepreneur (magazine)
Computerworld
Wired Japan
Bloomberg News
Blackwell, Roger et al. Consumer Behavior, p. 118 (Thomson/South-Western‬, 2006).
PC Magazine
Download.com
Search Engine Watch
San Diego Daily Transcript
World Wide Web Consortium
Inc. (magazine)
San Diego Business Journal
Search Engine Land

They establish both regional (as the company is in the San Diego area) and national notability (as many of these outlets like Download.com, PC Magazine, Computerworld, etc... are National) -- HighKing out of the sources listed which do you believe are not acceptable and why? Bughunter92 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant and Bughunter92 - neither of you have put forward an arguement or reference to policy and have simply linked the publisher to their respective Wikipedia articles. This demonstrates to me that you do not have an understanding of Wikipedia policy in relation to what is required from sources and references to establish notability. Please read WP:GNG to get an idea on what constitutes a reference that establishes notability especially that the source should be "intellectually independent". Take careful note that within the quoted references there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Also note WP:RS and what it has to say about user-generated and self-published content and WP:CORPDEPTH for the most commonly excluded types of references (many of which are in the article).

In brief then. Of the sources in the article, taken in the order in which they are listed in the references section:

Bloomberg is a standard listing that Bloomberg produces for companies. It is not analytical or objective and it fails since it is simply inclusion in a list of similar organisations.
Entrepeneur magazine writes a section on Search Engine Optimization but it is not independently analytical or objective and uses quotes from the CEO of this company.
Computerworld article fails for the same reason. It is not independently analytical or objective and uses quotes from the CEO.
Wired Japan, same as the two above
The next Bloomberg is an advertorial, essentially following the formula of "interview with CEO where he talks about whatever he wants to promote".
The "Consumer Behavior" book could possibly be good but the only snippet I can see is where the CEO is being quoted so .. not independent.
PRWeb article - fails because the content is generated by the primary source - the company or an executive.
DMN article - failus for the same reason.

I'm not going to continue. *All* of the other references fail for similar reasons. I've no problems looking at a source if you believe it establishes notability but please try to understand how the reference fits with policy and make an argument about why it should be acceptable as a source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I listed all of the cited sources and specifically said that "a few of them like #7 and #12" are not "acceptable and reliable secondary sources". So there's no use trying to convince me by arguing against sources like #7 and #12. I've listed all the sources, and people can look for themselves how they're used in this Wikipedia article. I disagree that they're *ALL* lousy, but I don't have time or inclination to argue about them one-by-one. I will say this: over one third of articles at Wikipedia have much weaker sourcing. And to dismiss a source because it "uses quotes from the CEO of this company" seems pretty silly to me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no you didn't "list all the sources". You linked to the publisher's Wikipedia article as if to say "reliable publisher => reliable source" which shows you don't understand policy. And if you can't be bothered debating (with references to appropriate policies) why the references should be kept, then the likelihood is that nobody else will either and the closing admin will dismiss them. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOURCE:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:
The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)

The creator of the work (for example, the writer)

The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)

That's Wikipedia policy, so maybe someone ought to get off their high horse? Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my opening comment would have been clearer if I stated "no you didn't *just* "link all the cited sources". The point I am trying to make is that your links to the various publishers' Wikipedia articles implies "reliable publisher => reliable source => reliable reference". From my reading of the references it was clear to me that they were "advertorials" for the most part and I could not find a single reference that I was happy with. In AfD's in general, a position is seen as stronger when it is grounded in a policy. Your only comments to date are personal opinions such that you "disagree" or to say that "dismissing a source because it uses quotes from the CEO" seems pretty silly. If others read the references they will see that the articles with quotes don't just have a single quote, but completely rely on the quotes provided by the CEO with no evidence of objectiveness. (Apologies if I came across as being on a high horse, shout out if you need any help.) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said readers can go see for themselves. They need look no farther than the second source in the article which obviously does not merely rely upon a quote from the CEO (emphasis added):

Search Engine Optimization
Being a rock star on stage in front of thousands of screaming fans will get the hairs on your arms to stand up. Garry Grant, 46, who used to play with the likes of Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen, says he got that same feeling the day he learned his company was ranked No. 1 on Google. The CEO and president of Search Engine Optimization Inc., Grant says top ranking has equaled huge revenue gains: He expects company sales to reach $6 million in 2004, up from $1.9 million in 2003. Not bad for the multitalented computer science graduate, who went from being a rock star to an internet entrepreneur.
Eighty-four percent of Americans online use search engines, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which researches the impact of the internet, and ComScore Networks Inc., a provider of marketing information and consulting services. That means getting a high ranking can make or break a business. "You could spend a million bucks on a website, [but] if it's not visible, it's worth nothing," says Grant. Businesses that want top rank turn to search engine optimizers, which provide the "technology, methodology and science of increasing your website's visibility," according to Grant.
Larry Chase, publisher of Web Digest for Marketers and SearchEngineForMarketers.com, says search engine optimization (SEO) isn't for the faint of heart. "This is a very fast-changing marketplace," says Chase. "It's not the kind of field where you learn it once and forget about it." Chase recommends constant reading of industry news to keep up; Grant goes a step further and checks for patents filed by search engine companies to stay ahead of the competition.

Editors here will find more objective reporting in various of the other cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? The entire first paragraph and half the second are directly attributable to Grant, a primary source. And the third paragraph has someone else attributing stuff to Grant. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the stuff that I put in bold attributed to Grant? Don't you think there might be some reason why I put it in bold, or are you more accustomed to disregarding emphasis? I'm done here, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- even after supposed "upgrades", this is still a promo page on an unremarkable private company. Sections include "Clients and achievements", which is typical of such corporate spam. This content belongs on the company web site, not in an encyclopedia. I thus reiterate my "delete" vote from earlier. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles at Wikipedia about companies that include sections about rankings, recognition, and clients. For example, the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is in the same city as Search Engine Optimization, Inc.. So I reiterate my "keep" vote from earlier. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anythingyouwant's work on the article and per the detailed coverage in Entrepreneur and the significant coverage in this article in the San Diego Business Journal. The article notes:
Garry Grant is the founder and chief executive officer of SEO Inc., a company he started in 1997 out of his kitchen, which quickly grew to encompass his entire house. Every year since inception, SEO has seen profit and has not accrued any debt. Grant created SEO's proprietary methodologies and continues to do research to ensure the growth of the product and the company. SEO's revenues have grown from $1.5 million in 2003, to $5.6 million in 2006.
...
Since his daughter was born blind, Grant has always been a contributor for causes with the visually impaired. Even though it is not required, all the work that SEO does is Section 508 compliant, meaning it can be accessed by the visually impaired.
Cunard (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' This article is about the company, Search Engine Optimization, Inc. It isn't about the CEO, Garry Grant. There reference you use above comes from an article in relation to "Most Admired CEO Awards" where it is a profile on Grant, not the company, and it is obvious that the article is not a secondary source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local business journals and business section of local papers are unreliable sources, because they are indiscriminate in the ones the publish and indiscriminate in what they say--most of the content is almost always straight PR. That's so for a least the opening paragraphs in the San Diego Business Journal--they are straight PR and puffery, not even a pretense at objective reporting, primarily about Grant and by implication about the company. Entrepreneur's basis for existence is publishing slightly disguised press releases. The article cited is in fact a series of 13 of them for different industries. Read the entire article--the coverage of this particular firm is minimal. In the 3-paragraph section quoted above, everything is either what the company president says or routine comments about the industry in general. The two sentences in boldface are essentially all the actual information. Selective quotation confuses the issue. Fragments and listings and PR are not substantial reliable coverage. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Idolmaster Master Special[edit]

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

Was redirected to show, redirect reverted without rationale or improvement. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be any reliable sources about this (at least ones in English) nor any that suggest that this is notable. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no indication of independent notability; even if reliable sources on the subject were found, the natural thing would be add them to The Idolmaster SP. There's no reason to have a separate article for this.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated, even if there are reliable sources found about this series of soundtracks, it is still an unnecessary WP:FORK of The Idolmaster SP, where they are already briefly discussed. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 19:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzie Weegar[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the WP:GNG,WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTBASIC. This is because the article has no reliable, independent, and nontrivial (mentions of the subject) sources included and a WP:BEFORE search found no reliable, independent, and nontrivial (mentions of the subject) sources. This means the article should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Weegar has already played two games for the Florida Panthers of the NHL. Not only does this meet NHOCKEY, but playing in a major professional sports league meets every notability criteria from WP:ATHLETE on forward (SPORTBASIC, for instance, holds that "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level") With over six hundred Google News hits [17], take your pick. Ravenswing 02:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY, per Ravenswing, as a current NHL player. WP:BEFORE, anyone? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Connormah (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The subject meets SPORTSBASIC and NHOCKEY as an NHL player and meets GNG with coverage in multiple reliable sources, (e.g., [18]. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Rlendog (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foster Care Council of Canada[edit]

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

Article about an organization, created by the organization itself (see creator's username) and referenced exclusively to its own deadlinked primary source content about itself rather than reliable source coverage in media. As always, an organization is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; it must be the subject of enough independent coverage to clear WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

José Rizal Coliseum[edit]

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

With no sources, this article does not demonstrate the notability of Jose' Rizal Coliseum. Specifically, it does not document "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Eddie Blick (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 01:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just too soon, only coverage I could find so far is from the Calamba City government website. Recreate if/when construction is underway and more sources appear. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22Libby+Babet%22

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Biggest_Loser_(Australian_TV_series)

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Biggest_Loser_Australia_(season_11)

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bridges

[5] ttp://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/weight-loss/the-biggest-loser-trainer-libby-babet-responds-to-criticism-that-at-78kg-nikki-isnt-heavy-enough-to-be-on-the-weight-loss-show/news-story/be2f6d579e5ccfc3ac0a366a7bd99053

[6] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4312050/Biggest-Loser-s-Libby-Babet-train-without-tough-love.html

[7] ttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/television/new-the-biggest-loser-trainer-libby-babet-says-she-is-a-different-trainer-than-michelle-bridges/news-story/8ddc671f8824d40b99855c30f1db0b9a

[8] ttp://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-ratings/channel-10-backs-the-biggest-loser-transformed-despite-dismal-ratings-for-launch-episode/news-story/6d760899a88d29f40641f965f371e5a6

[9] ttps://www.byronnews.com.au/news/whats-small-screen-week/3153493/

[10] ttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/television/first-review-of-the-new-series-of-the-biggest-loser-on-channel-ten/news-story/b90c86d2f74edb9b047e0b731a5f16de

[11] ttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/health/the-biggest-loser-transformed-nikkis-partner-hasnt-seen-her-naked-in-three-years/news-story/cb20641ae8597ef871711eea3579a62a

[12] ttp://www.bodyandsoul.com.au/mind-body/wellbeing/libby-babets-letter-to-the-biggest-loser-transformed-contestants/news-story/981bb91c62ae2ba0ae47f75a655858a9

[13] ttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/macarthur/biggest-loser-winner-sam-rouen-motivates-new-camden-contestant-simon-cummins/news-story/fd4bde2ba1425cf6edf2f27ab7e165bd

[14] ttp://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/weight-loss/the-biggest-losers-new-trainer-libby-babet-is-no-strict-paleo-pete/news-story/47b50d189f3633930a561261fcac6e74

[15] ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/tvshowbiz/video-1429159/Biggest-Loser-trainer-distances-methods-Michelle-Bridges.html

[16] ttp://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/penrith-press/boxer-fights-bulge-on-biggest-loser/news-story/8b1d4ddff523ea24155af849d0aeffcc

[17] ttp://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/fitness/weight-loss/sydney-personal-trainer-libby-babet-to-replace-michelle-bridges-on-new-season-of-the-biggest-loser/news-story/dbb68399dcf6c3ce04f8f90c476b551d

[18] ttp://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/the-biggest-loser-will-return-in-2017-on-ten-but-with-a-new-look-and-weightloss-focus/news-story/85abf20094f39e615b984fba61b0c7e2

[19] Australian Institute of Fitness - Top 16 Influencers: http://fitness.edu.au/top-16-influencers-of-fitness-and-nutrition/

[20] Brisbane News Feature: http://creative.news.com.au/WEB_QLD/BN_Flipbook/latest-issue/#page/8

[21] Morrissey Management: http://www.morrissey.com.au/portfolio_page/libby-babet/

[22] Lifestyle YOU: https://www.lifestyle.com.au/libbybabet/>

[23] Wired For Wonder by Commonwealth Bank: http://www.wiredforwonder.com/archive/2015/libby-babet-1/

[24] Channel 7 - Sunrise: https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/30587463/this-years-top-fitness-fads/#page1

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]