Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 December 15 December >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanina Takvorian[edit]

Vanina Takvorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a real estate businessperson and musician, who has no credible claim of notability under either WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE or WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. As written, this literally just states that she exists without actually detailing any accomplishment that could actually be measured against either notability criterion -- and it sources the fact of her existence to one advertorially toned press release about her musical album and one glancing acknowledgement of her existence as a businessperson within an article that isn't about her. All of which means that nothing here passes any of Wikipedia's inclusion tests. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 15 December 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. – Joe (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley King[edit]

Wesley King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorially toned WP:AUTOBIO (creator = Westk14) of a writer, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NAUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage. This is based entirely on primary sources, except for one brief blurb about one of his books getting optioned for a television adaptation that never materialized and one Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself -- both of which would be fine for verifying additional facts if his notability had already been properly demonstrated by stronger sources, but neither of which can bring a WP:GNG pass by themselves as the only non-primary sources in an article. And even if he can be better sourced than this, our conflict of interest rules do not permit him to write the article himself, or to remove the autobio and advert and primary sourcing maintenance tags himself (as he did) without actually addressing the advertorialism or the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is all true. Every part. Alas, I was told by a peer that most authors create a page for themselves and that was I was behind the times. Impressionable as I was, I did a quick job of it, but with an apparent lack of know-how and it seems now notability outside of my own crippling delusions of grandeur. I thought perhaps I had solved the issues when deleting said maintenance tags, though it appears I was wrong...probably because I had no idea what I was doing. Bearcat has caught me in a web of lies. In my meager defense, that television adaptation really is a thing, but I suppose that's besides the point. I did also actually publish those award-winning books, but to be honest, at least one of them was crap. Who knows...maybe all of them. I submit myself to Wikipedia's ruling council and move to strike my own article until I become famous enough to get one the honest way or wither back into comfortable obscurity. I don't think that was the self-promotional coup I was told after all. Anyway, as it seems that I can't fix the problems, let us delete this page and never speak of it again. As a last, lingering indication of my Wikipedia ineptitude, I have not added a single link to this paragraph. I was doomed from the beginning.

Fare well, Wikipedia. You spurned my affections, but one day I will make you love me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.78.185 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<eyeroll> For the record, awards don't become NAUTHOR-passing notability until media write content about the award presentation — if the only source you can provide for an award win is either your own PR or the award's own self-published website about itself, because media coverage about it is nonexistent, then the award isn't a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Red Maple Award does have a lot of web coverage - over 4 million hits on Google - and, for obvious reasons, it has high visibility with Ontario public libraries. One could pick other sources for this award such as Quill & Quire and the Canadian Children's Book Centre which are significant sources in their field. The "Forest of Reading" (to which the Red Maple Award belongs) even made the CBC news. And, of course, the Edgar Award is also a big thing in its field. I think that the main problems with this article are conflict of interest and bad choices for sourcing not necessarily notability. --Big_iron (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Google count is more like 350,000 - my bad - but still substantial. --Big_iron (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PROMO for writer who lacks sourcies, lacks credible claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 14:08, 19 December 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. J04n(talk page) 17:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanoro[edit]

Romanoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

harrassment, bad community feedback Sweetcorn (msg) 22:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of <Italy>-related deletion discussions. <--Sweetcorn (msg) 23:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)>[reply]

Redirect (changed vote, see below) This is a unique circumstance where the population of the given area is extremely small, and as a result of the article, one of its residents is being harrassed (although there is no way to confirm this that I know of.) In gauging the reasonableness of this request, it is not impossible to imagine a scenario where information the editor added as a resident of the area ended up being too personal, and as a result of this, harrassment ensued. In meeting the deletion criteria, I believe the personal nature of the information may violate WP:NPOV but as the topic is a geographical location meeting WP:N the stronger argument would be to have the article redirect to another, such as Frassinoro; Or, if it remains, to have it stripped down to the bare minimums, as are other articles describing geographical locations.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  23:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - per WP:NGEOG. The sources establish this is a real town. Having 740 residents is very modest, but not "extremely" small, I would think. This place is a unique enough location to have its own article. I'm not sure what the nominator means by "harrassment, bad community feedback", but they do not seem to understand deletion criteria. As for Spintendo's comment, personal harassment issues outside Wikipedia caused indirectly by the existence of content are not our concern, because we do not censor content, and there are no BLP violations. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The external links are the main source of concern here (one is active the other is not). Perusal of the one active link shows personal information inappropriate for use in the article, per: WP:LINKVIO. As I understand it, the person who took photographs displayed there has said that the person administering the linked-to website no longer has their permission to display them.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  00:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spintendo: I'm confused as to why that would warrant deleting or redirecting the entire article. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, also afd is not cleanup, just be bold and edit out non-encyclopedic content, i just did with some ie. the external links 1 not working and the other to a personal website so wiki-inappropriate (ditto the history), am leaving the rest for more experienced editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, also, also ("c'mon coola!, yes i know, i promise this will the last, it better be, grumble grumble."), i am concerned about this locality/village/hamlet(?) being referred to as "extremely small" or even "very modest" (btw i have also removed from the lead the apparent summer pop. of 740 as it was not backed by the dead link ref.), pop. size is generally (for legally recognised places) irrelevant. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep changing my vote to Keep, as the article is now in a much more agreeable state than before. Thank you to everyone for your input.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  20:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep WP:SK#1 NPASR  Neither "harassment" nor "bad community feedback" are appropriate arguments in this forum.  Not sure what to suggest to the nominator, but a possible place to start would be to discuss this with the former administrator who started a discussion on your talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonable article, at least now after edits during this AFD. Note the infobox states population of 54, by the way. --Doncram (talk) 23:02, 19 December 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. Ignoring a couple of obvious WP:SPAs, there's only one legitimate user who's arguing to keep, and presented some possible sources. Unfortunately, other users didn't feel the sources presented met our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GetResponse[edit]

AfDs for this article:
GetResponse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill marketing product used by spammers; article has been under promotional pressure for many years now and remains low quality directory entry; high quality refs about it are scant and the article is sourced to spammy interviews now. Not worth our effort to try to maintain the quality of. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got tired of copy/pasting sometime at 2013, just type in "getresponse" +email at Google Books. The article is promotional and needs a re-write, but the company definitely has notability. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1.@Bbarmadillo: Even if this company doesn't exist, whoever types "Get Response" in Google will get million of results. That is not indication of notability. See WP:GOOGLEHITS
  • 2. Calling this corporate spam as a "Well known solution" is another strong reason to delete it completely from Wikipedia. See WP:SOLUTION
  • 3. None of these bunch of google links are directly talking about Get Response as a company or it's history, structure and such things –Ammarpad (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check book mentions. The company is widely covered at published books on digital marketing and email marketing. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked everything before replying here. We got edit conflict while I am trying to post number 3 above, which answers your question even before you ask, because I am sure you may ask, and you did.–Ammarpad (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, came to this AFD while reviewing the contributions of Bbarmadillo, later concluded his declared COI on his user page. Before making a comment here, tried to deep dive before drawing any conclusion, looked at the history of the page especially till this point by Northamerica1000. I can find several references until there, certainly obvious promotional content was deleted after that, however genuine references were also removed of this tech company. Checked previous AfD and comments by ThaddeusB & CorporateM, you cannot expect company's history and related things when you are talking about tech companies. For a tech company, you can neither expect references like a Bank, certainly it would talking about their product. The company is quoted in various other news sources, often mentioned in the list of Collaboration Tools by Forbes and several others. Wikipedia is a place for every industry and I'm thinking it is probably notable. Comment of ThaddeusB in the last AFD; Hundreds more sources exist in news stories and books exist. Really its not remotely close, but if there was any doubt this professional review by PC Magazine would seal it - PC Magazine does not write multi-page reviews of non-notable software. Naluchanda (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — Naluchanda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • @Naluchanda: 1–Now one of the person you pinged in your comment is abstaining, meaning he no longer stand by his view of the previous (where he merely endorsed another viewpoint). This trumps your first point of using the previous AfD as a reason to keep this.
  • 2 –By this quote " For a tech company, you can neither expect references like a Bank, certainly it would [be] talking about their product. The company is quoted in various other news sources..." from your comment above, you give another reason to delete this article. Since the news sources are only talking about the product not the company, then you can use the sources and create article for the product. But before then read the guideline WP:PRODUCT to avoid creating one for non notable like this one –Ammarpad (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Forbes references are actually by unpaid writers through "Forbes contributors" platform, not a reliable source! Persistent COI spam editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, to my experience, the software company is known in many communities I have been involved in. It doesn't really take long before I can say the company does satisfy the notability guidelines. Going further, the company did receive significant coverage from top publications in the field. I don't know what else those who voted a 'Delete' are expecting to revert. Being promotional is nothing but a shameful execuse to remove a well-known software provider from Wikipedia for fear that there is COI or UPD which has been denied. Kevdaren (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Kevdaren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Convincing delete arguments. Only the creator, who offers no policy-compliant notability rationale, wants the article kept. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Gruia[edit]

Mihai Gruia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be deleted or, at best, redirected to Akcent, as virtually all of Gruia's notability is contingent on his participation in that band, and in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO point 6. Let's go through the sources:

As this analysis demonstrates, nothing indicates that Gruia is notable outside having belonged to a single band. Therefore, we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 22:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, I suspect you have a personal issue with the artist or you are a supporter of any of his competitors. Since I created this page, you are constantly trying to deny this page, not on rational but on the personal basis. He has become notable being part of the Akcent, but now he is a standalone and notable artist. Every artist starts their career from somewhere and later himself or herself become a notable person, so, relation to the initial starting point is not a factor to devalue or deny them from Wikipedia.

Also, what about his contributions as a composer? Do you suspect about his compositions? TMOR (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, we were in primary school together and he called me a sissy once -- ever since then, my sole mission in life has been to destroy his career.
    • Seriously, though, if you want this article kept, forget diversions like what you "suspect" and please supply evidence that the subject passes any of the 12 WP:MUSICBIO criteria. - Biruitorul Talk 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bully like you can't destroy his career. He is already an acclaimed artist. But you need to consider why were you blocked 4 times. Learn to argue on Wikipedia, it is not your company and I'm not your employee who will be ready to bear your uncultured behavior TMOR (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
"I'm not your employee" is typically not a winning argument on AfDs. If you wish to demonstrate the subject's notability via the usual way (explaining, preferably with reference to reliable sources, why the subject passes the notability criteria), great. If not, it's likely to be deleted. Your choice. - Biruitorul Talk 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing is; if someone gets famous for a character in reference with a movie or band or something else, he/she is known by that character or as part of that thing. There are hundreds and thousands of articles which mention Leonardo DiCaprio in accordance with the Titanic (1997 film) because this was the work which gave him international fame. Same is with Mr. Mihai Gruia, he merged as part of the Akecent and made his position.
Second thing is, Akcent was a band, if he hadn't played any role outside the band, we could say he is only notable in accordance with the band. He is a composer as well, go through all the composing history posted on the page. If you suspect his work, I'm ready to provide the reference for each and every composition mentioned there. I had not added those links, to keep the article simple, otherwise, it could look like spammy.
Thirdly, he fulfills WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1 and there is no need to jump straight to 6. TMOR (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to try and demonstrate that Gruia himself (as opposed to Akcent, or Gruia as part of Akcent) "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Thus far, that has not happened. - Biruitorul Talk 15:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no claim of notability in the article. The article says the subject studied at a university, has a family, was in two bands and co-founded a non-notable record label, and wrote some songs, none of which are notable. That belongs at Facebook. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 18 December 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 Postal codes in Canada. Spartaz Humbug! 08:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Canada[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of postal codes in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article practically consists of a template and nothing else Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The page has been moved to List of postal codes of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to match the rest of the articles in the series (List of postal codes of Canada: A, etc.), though Postal codes in Canada still has "in". It should be made consistent one way or the other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion doesn't help, as "Canadian Postal Codes" is currently a redlink, and helped me decide to vote "Keep" at first. But the reasoning works better if you were to suggest Redirecting to Postal codes in Canada, which exists. I changed my vote to "Redirect", below. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a mistake, article should be redirected to Postal codes in Canada.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The purpose of the page in question is to provide navigation to the various Canadian postal code lists (eg: List of A postal codes of Canada) since there are too many postal codes to fit on one page. -- Tavix (talk) 04:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. This is a navigational list to the individual lists of postal codes per letter region. Maybe the page should be renamed, but the purpose is eminently useful. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above as a WP:LISTOFLISTS. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect [was Keep] per above. Obviously the page works and is needed. If it were deleted it would have to be recreated to stitch together the pages it links. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, Redirect to Postal codes in Canada (or better, specifically to Postal codes in Canada#List of Canadian postal codes) would be a better alternative. The template appears on each of the separate pages that it links to, and there really should be substantially more, else there is no reason to split out the "list" from the main article on postal codes in Canada. I edited at the main article to create a specific target for redirection there. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps it would be useful to write a brief introduction, explaining the location of each postal code (ie - 'Y' if in Yukon), the absence of specific letters (ie - no codes starting with the letter 'O', as it may be confused with the number '0'), and other top-level details. Mindmatrix 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mindmatrix, i basically agree, but in fact wouldn't that short explanation work well within a section of the main article on postal codes in Canada. No reason to have separate list-article; Redirect would be better IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC) P.S. I further edited at the main article so that redirect to Postal codes in Canada#List of Canadian postal codes should work as a good target now. Pinging User talk:Tavix, User:Patar knight, User:Jclemens to reconsider their votes. --Doncram (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree that a redirect would be the best course of action for this. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ping @Tavix: @Patar knight: @Jclemens: to reconsider their votes as well. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 13:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer keeping it as is, thanks. -- Tavix (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is navigating to a page titled "List of X" we should generally either redirect them to a "List of X" page or a "Lists of lists of X" page. There's no good reason to force them to load a whole page about the history and development of postal codes, and if they want to find that information, it's prominently linked from the current page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmm, well, I don't think anyone is out there searching for a list of postal codes, but that a reader interested in postal codes of Canada would be at the postal codes article, and would not be surprised to see the list included there. Supposing this AFD were closed "Keep" or "No consensus", it would be entirely reasonable and noncontroversial for any editor to redirect it, anyhow, immediately after the AFD is closed, because there is no content in the current article not at the target, and the target provides more context. To any closer, I think it behooves you to consider what decision actually settles something here. --Doncram (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 14
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable and high-quality navigation page. It looks different than most, but still a list of lists kind of a thing. I'm not understanding a reason to delete. That it's been written as a template isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Doncram above. The content of this page now duplicates the destination of the suggested redirect. I !voted keep on the 2nd AFD for this article because of the rapid relisting; since this has now gone through deletion review and the original close overturned, I think based on Doncram's edits to the destination article a redirect is a better solution.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Votes from 2nd nom
  • Keep per consensus a week ago. Seriously? -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the keep arguments are unconvincing. Why would we keep a short list if it's already covered in the parent article? ToThAc (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For navigation to the sublists. Someone searching "List of postal codes in Canada" is going to want a list, so we shouldn't force them to load everything we have on Canadian postal codes and make it harder to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - all information is already included in postal codes in Canada. If that article didn't exist, I'd say this one should stay and be expanded. If that article didn't already include all of the information on this page, I'd suggest merging this one into that one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is an extraordinary disservice to readers to publish a manually maintained copy of a government database. This article can NEVER be up to date. Therefore, it will always be wrong. What value does it deliver to a WP reader that a trip to Canada Post cannot? Absolute nothing. Rhadow (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect- to Postal codes in Canada (which is what I meant to say in the first discussion as an alternative to deletions). Although I am surprised we're bringing it up again so soon.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 23:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to postal codes in Canada. At this time this page is entirely redundant. This serves as a list of lists and the article contains the same list of lists. But a trout to both HindWIKI, for a non-admin close of a potentially controversial discussion last time around, and ToThAc, who should've just taken it to DRV or asked HindWIKI to undo the close rather than renominate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All the reasons given for deletion are utterly valid (I have to deal with US zip codes at work, and it's even worse than that: the published databases are always full of errors on top of everything else people say), and the main article is never going to include this list for the same reasons, so why redirect them to an article which isn't going to provide what the redirect promises? Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as Keep per Tavix's arguments on the previous AFD, which closed a week ago. Way to soon for this to be re-nominated. If there are issues with the closure, Deletion Review is thataway.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do that, and this closure will be going straight to DRV. The last discussion, well, it was hardly a discussion at all, and the reason for discussion being brought up now was not discussed then. We're not a bureaucracy, and an article is not protected from examination because the discussion last time around went awry. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural/admin note there are other !votes at the second nomination page that was created before this was reopened and relisted. I have copied them above for further consideration (note there may be some duplicates). Primefac (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Navigation is provided by the navbox. No need for a redundant permastub. James (talk/contribs) 19:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious redirect Redundant to Postal_codes_in_Canada#Table_of_all_postal_codes, and every subarticle has the navbox on it. Absolutely no utility to keeping this nothingness. Reywas92Talk 00:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious redirect, but to List of postal codes of Canada: A, the first actual article in the series. There is no point redirecting people to Postal codes in Canada#Table of all postal codes, which is misnamed. There is no such table there, it's just the same excessively colorized navbox pointing to List of postal codes of Canada: A, etc.

    Also do a merger: All of the List of postal codes of Canada: A, etc., articles can be put into a single stand-alone list, and it will still be well under recommended maximum article size. We have tables of contents with a sectional navigation system for a reason. Doing this, with {{Compact ToC}}, will also get rid of the ridiculous "My Little Pony"-style rainbow navbox.

    Get rid of the huge rainbow navigation regardless: Even without a merger, {{Compact ToC}} should be used; it is explicitly designed to work cross-article for multi-page lists.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  13:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If all the separate list-articles for A, B, C, etc. could indeed be combined into one list-article, as User:SMcCandlish suggests, that would solve everything. It would be named "List of postal codes of Canada" I guess. It would allow for elimination of the "rainbow template". In advance, I am not sure if all of the separate list-articles can be combined or not, but there is definitely some savings from removing duplication. (A less nice alternative would be to combine them into fewer list articles, e.g. "Postal codes of Ontario", "...of BC and Alberta and Saskatchewan", etc. or "Postal codes of Canada: A, B, Q, and R" etc.). I will start Draft:List of postal codes of Canada as a draft article right now, and I welcome other editors to edit there, towards resolving this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. From Doncram's draft, it's evident that a single list is WP:TOOBIG. -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP, and strongly oppose merge - the consensus was "Keep' like a week ago. The list is quite large, and merging all of them together or to the Postal codes page would be quite challenging to manage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update to comment: The material in the list-article is bizarre. I combined all the separate list-articles into the one Draft list-article, simply by appending the main sections. It is pretty large, 634,539 bytes. However, it perhaps can be edited down considerably, e.g. perhaps dropping all the sections for "Most populated FSAs" and "Least populated FSAs" within each letter. It is weird that it is a long list put into a table going across and then down, instead of just one row for each 3-character FSA. And why give the population for just the "Most" and "Least" ones in each letter, why not for each FSA? This is permalink to current, 12/16/2017 version. It could be improved, but currently I think the combo article is better than all the separate ones. --Doncram (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note wp:TOOBIG suggests that articles of size 100,000 bytes should be split, but it is a) outdated relative to computers today, and b) the actual size of the list-article is tiny, perhaps 300 bytes, in terms of readable prose. The guideline states that its "rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means). They apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table." So the editing guideline is suggesting this list should NOT be split. --Doncram (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you note the correct rule of thumb, and then arbitrarily decide that it means the opposite of what it says? That's bizarre. There's literally nothing wrong with the way it is now, and you decide you want to add WP:SIZE issues to a logically split list. Mind boggling. -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page size tool says the draft list-article has "1006 B (180 words) 'readable prose size'". The guideline suggests splitting a list-article if the number is over 100,000 B. The guideline suggests this list should not be split. Read the guideline, please. --Doncram (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Last I checked, 634k > 100k so a merge is inappropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you should read the guideline. --Doncram (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further update to comment. The combined draft list-article contains 1,088 cells (which should all be rows, but are arranged across then down) merely reporting "Not assigned" which can/should all be deleted. That is out of, I think, 2,319 cells in total (there are 2,319 occurrences of "width="). Each cell has width specifications and other formatting control which can/should be deleted if the list is arranged as a normal lookup list. (Note even in the abnormal table organization, total size could be reduced by putting long formatting control text into a mini template call which can be repeated with far less total size, for those who are obsessed by total size as opposed to readable prose size, which is what matters.) It seems feasible to get the list-article total size very far down. I think the imperative should be to delete all the subsidiary list-articles and have a stripped-down single list-article, which may have some merit for providing wikilinks to all the corresponding towns/cities. --Doncram (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete along with its subpages In my real work one of things we have to deal with is distributing the license US zip codes and their associated cities. Even the more or less official list we get is full of mistakes: for example, for ages the official list has said that the town I live in has a different zip code from what it actually has (and they prefer that we use the name of larger city which we are actually at some distance from). There is no way we can maintain an accurate list of postal codes and their associated towns without essentially copying someone else's work—hopefully that of the Canadian Post. I have no idea whether that is even legal in Canada, but I see no reason for us to duplicate information which is surely better gotten from the official authorities. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda wonder that myself. All 18 of the component list-articles provide statement: "Canada Post provides a free postal code look-up tool on its website,[3] via its mobile application,[4] and sells hard-copy directories and CD-ROMs. Many vendors also sell validation tools, which allow customers to properly match addresses and postal codes. Hard-copy directories can also be consulted in all post offices, and some libraries." This webpage at Statistics Canada is source for all the 2006 populations, is a nice normal-type lookup list. It doesn't provide the names of cities/towns corresponding to each code though. --Doncram (talk) 04:56, 17 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Korkmaz[edit]

Cem Korkmaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear indication of why he is notable. I couldn't find any evidence of him meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you want me to add filmography to the article? The channels he created? I can do that, just give me a few days. WTFLlama (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article totally fails the general notability guidelines. Total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 15 December 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 Great Escape. – Joe (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Churchill[edit]

Dick Churchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dick Churchill was a POW in World War II who participated in "The Great Escape;" he was captured and survived the war. His status as an airman does not meet WP:SOLDIER. His notability, if any, is WP:INHERITED. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Mr. Norton wants to keep articles on everything, but Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of information. We have notability standards, and Churchill fails any and all of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I don't see enough material about Churchill to write a verifiable, non-POV article. I agree that WP:BIO1E applies from what I can see and that the redirect will be useful for our readers. This may change when Churchill dies and obituaries are written (sorry if that sounds morbid). Smmurphy(Talk) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect name to The Great Escape. Otherwise, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect  Stalag Luft III#Survivors Coverage is better at the Great Escape than in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  A Redirect !vote is wrong for multiple reasons.  It is not a policy-based !vote, because the question here is notability, not what the content contributors should do with the current material.  The first !voter provided evidence of article after article.  The second reason was that with the current material, we can use the current brief article by providing readers more than one entry point into the Stalag Luft III article, as well as see also's to Thomas Kirby-Green, Gordon Kidder, Paul Royle, List of Allied airmen from the Great Escape, and Stalag Luft III murders.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 20 December 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. G7'd by the creator and deleted by User:Fish and karate. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Guidoti[edit]

Marcus Guidoti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable PhD student with no evidence he's made any impact in his field and certainly no sources to support such a claim in the article or elsewhere that I can find. Fails just about every possible encyclopedic standard, including WP:PROF. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- this looks like a resume.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in no universe is a PhD candidate notable. Clear PROF failure, and PROF is de facto exclusionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PhD canddiates are never notable for such, and there is no other claim to notability. Even the vast majority of holders of PhDs are not notable. Even being a professor who holds tenure is not enough in and of itself to grant notability. Now if this was cricket, he might be notable, but we have real standards for academics (and should for cricket as well, but that is another story).John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not a notable person. I am just a PhD candidate that happens to be an editor-in-chief as well. I am guessing this was created to link with the journal's wiki page. Please, delete. Guidotim (talk) 14:30, 15 December 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. – Joe (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren James (author)[edit]

Lauren James (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional work likely created as part of a paid editing sock farm/ring that used multiple accounts to get around the AfC process. Data is too stale to use and it is far enough back that I'm not personally going to G5 it. Taking it here for discussion. Since this is a promotional and likely UPE piece created in violation of the TOU, the question of notability doesn't matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, hi TonyBallioni, it would be nice for less experienced wikieditors if you could explain or at least wikilink all the acronyms you have used in this afd ie. AFC, G5, UPE, TOU, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, James' novel The Next Together meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with multiple independent reviews, as cited in the article, The Last Beginning, however, is not so supported. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't matter. The ground for this deletion has nothing to do with notability, but with promotionalism and terms of use violations. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion, and we need to be vigilant in removing such from the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- likely created as part of a paid-editing sock farm with a promotional intent; such content is explicitely exclused per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, having a look at Reasons for deletion i do not see "promotionalism" listed there, that sort of thing can just be edited out, as for terms of use ie. "Paid contributions without disclosure"(?), thats pretty heavy stuff, i'll just go with Delete as subject does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, 1 notable work does not necessarily mean (with a few exceptions:)) that the creator of that work is themselves notable. ps. i note that the editor who approved the article is a block indefinite, does that mean all the articles they approved thru AFC should be carefully looked at (any admins with time on their hands?:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 18 December 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 whether the coverage passes GNG/BLP1E. ansh666 03:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis McHenry[edit]

Travis McHenry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The four references in the article are all junk. None of them are actually about McHenry; they're low-budget articles (in mostly low-budget publications) about micronations in general, which include passing mentions or directory-style listings of McHenry. I did my own searching and came up with no better.

I have a little bit of unused land behind my garage that I'm currently using as a compost heap. I'm thinking of declaring it to be "The People's Republic of Compostia". Do I get an article? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, this is also a WP:BLP1E. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are definitely mentions, but they're all pretty much puff pieces that boil down to "look how silly this all is". I'm not really seeing anything that would begin to be serious coverage, and even non-serious coverage, as pointed out above, is mostly about micronations as a topic. Having said that, some of this may warrant incorporation into the main article on Micronation, but I'm not seeing a compelling reason to have a stand alone article on either the person or the "places". GMGtalk 15:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- does not meet WP:CS or WP:BIO --12.28.84.131 (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)--EC Racing (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No one takes this guy seriously. He not notable, anyone can claim to have a fake country.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't matter if anyone takes him seriously or not. Doesn't matter if anyone can have a fake country. He has sources and meets WP:N. [1] is a fine source solely about him. Other sources in the article aren't solely on him, but certainly cover him. Over the WP:N bar by a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a fine source at all. It's pretty clearly a puff human interest piece, as is pretty much all of the rest of the coverage as far as I can tell. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[2] Puff pieces on quirky PR stunts because "look how quirky this PR stunt is" don't really count as serious journalism, and as far as I can tell, this is pretty much the best source available, and the only one that I found that deals specifically with the subject in any "depth", notwithstanding the fact that the entire piece is making fun of him. GMGtalk 18:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, if you have reason to believe the source or the article has an error, great. But it seems to be a solid story from a reliable source. Again, the level of sourcing is well above most of our BLPs where no single in-depth article on the subject exists. Hobit (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to believe the LA Magazine article isn't factually correct. But, in addition to this just being a human-interest story, it's a local human interest story. LA Magazine is writing about it because it's happening near LA. This is the best source of the bunch, and it's not enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that LA Magazine covers the entire "Southland" region, which means it services the second-largest urban region in the United States, with about 13 million people. So "local" - which rather implies the Smithfield Courier-Gazette serving the Smithfield-Groversville-Hankerton area (population 9,472 and growing!) -- is rather a misnomer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Long live the ruler of Calsahara and Westarctica!!! FloridaArmy (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sourcing which appears to show basic level of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I don't think 1E applies, he's done it at least twice, maintaining the events over time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has been the subject of in depth coverage by third party reliable sources. I don't see how that fact that the best source is a human interest story by a magazine in the same region as the subject changes this. Hut 8.5 18:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage is good enough, passes GNG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the only context in which the references could be considered sufficient is in the context of our prejudice for the absurd. We need to realize that we're actually supposed to be an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete puff human interest pieces to fill a slow news day do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The news coverage isn't significant at all. Characterizing it as "very substantial coverage" shows a lack of judgement. Peacock (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain how, in your judgement, [3] isn't substantial coverage of the subject? I'd say it's purely about him and what he's done. What does "substantial" mean to you? Something you think is important? Hobit (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- BLP that lacks sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, amounting to a promo piece. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Micronations book is self-published via iUniverse, so it hardly counts for notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG's well-made points. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage is not substantial and is not sufficient for the subject to meet WP:BIO. DGG hits the nail on the head. TimBuck2 (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 3 substantial press mentions. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Google search turns up insufficient sources. My rule of thumb is that there should be at least 8-9 articles, among which should be contained enough biographical info to build a proper narrative. None of that is the case here so it fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose that's fine as a rule of thumb, but A) it isn't policy and B) at least 80% of our articles on people wouldn't get over that bar. And WP:RS says nothing of the sort. WP:GNG just says "multiple". Hobit (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually none of the new articles about living people will pass NPP without that number of sources. The existing articles were all written before the guidelines tightened up. And you are right – RS clarifies what is a reliable source, not that there needs to be reliable sources. My bad. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)÷[reply]
Do you have a link to the discussion where we agreed to "tighten up" these guidelines? I missed the discussion. If there was no such discussion, I'd think you should start one if you want others to accept your view as something other than just your opinion about how things should be. Hobit (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can check my AfD and article creation stats if you question my experience and judgement. My delete vote still stands. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm questioning what you are claiming is the "new article" standard. Again, can you link to something that supports that claim? Hobit (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't link to my rule of thumb - but you can see that I've been successful following it. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flogging the same garbage sources you tried to spam in multiple places isn't the winning strategy you seem to think it is. --Calton | Talk 16:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent - Basically the definition of passing mention, overall about micronations generally and not McHenry
Readers Digest - Three paragraphs about the "country", and not specifically about the person, in an article about micronations, and not the "country"
Hazretz - Four paragraphs about the "country", and not specifically about the person, in an article about micronations, and not the "country"
Bloomberg - A few mentions, one in an image caption, with the majority of the content a word-for-word copy/paste of the Readers Digest article (right down to the formatting)... Unsurprisingly, in an article about micronations, and not about this person, or this person's "countries"
So despite the wall of text above, this suggest that 1) we need to be careful about churnalism, or in other words, exactly the kind of thing we should expect from puff human interest pieces designed to fill up space and fish for clicks, and 2) this probably warrants mention in the main article on micronations, which is what I said originally, and there's otherwise no reason to have a stand alone article, and very little to write one with. GMGtalk 13:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be picky, you got it backwards -- RD was republishing Bloomberg, not the other way around. They cite it in the byline. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I didn't bother to look really, because it doesn't change the point either way. GMGtalk 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's a strange new meaning of "in-depth coverage" being used above that I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 16:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep If Wikipedia is going to have any content on micronations and micronationalists, then surely this one should be included?There are numerous reliable, independent secondary sources spanning many years. A quick search on Google News reveals coverage by Readers Digest and The Independent among others. These are not "garbage sources". Hammer400077 (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Hammer400077 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Given Vyacheslav84's near fanaticism regarding this topic, the fact that both his and Hammer's only edits to their user space were to add a singe language user box, and given that Hammer's only edits besides his two today (to comment here, and unredlink their user page), appear to have been 1) while Vyach was on a self-requested block, and 2) in the interim between when Vyach requested an unblock and when the unblock was granted, I would suggest a healthy degree of skepticism here. Maybe not enough to start an outright SPI, but certainly enough to strongly suspect that this is not a "naturally occurring" new user who just happens to know how userbox templates work, and happens to just stumble upon this AfD. GMGtalk 13:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sockpuppet. I admit to copying Vyacheslav84's userbox (albeit for English) so my userpage link didn't have a "red link" in the discussion, but beyond that, I have no connections with him/her. Check my IP if you don't believe me. Regardless, I can see how - going by what you've said - this might look suspicious, so feel free to discount my vote. 84.125.106.64 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete substantial WP:BLP1E, then failing WP:N. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RoySmith and DGG and fails WP:BLP1E and lacks significant coverage see more of churnalism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Coverage in reliable sources including Los Angeles Magazine, Bloomberg, New York Daily News cited within article. --Doncram (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dismissal of McHenry's micronations, or the coverage of them, as not "serious" betrays some very serious misconceptions about the relationship between the serious and the absurd, starting with the idea that attention for its own sake is the only possible motive for outrageous actions. Review the Wikipedia articles on Diogenes the Cynic, John Cage, performance art, and surrealism, to name just a few, for extreme examples to the contrary. Diogenes has been honored in painting and statuary two millennia after he lived, and was a major influence on Stoicism—for doing things far more outrageous than anything McHenry has done. While I can't read Thomas Harlander's mind, I don't see his lengthy biographical article as simply laughing at McHenry; he notes McHenry's formal training in method acting at the Lee Strasberg Institute. The role of micronations as satirical commentary on the nation-state system comes through clearly in Harlander's article; he even mentions how McHenry's work as a military intelligence analyst contributed to his perception of nations as absurd. The joke isn't on McHenry. Imposing a view of Harlander's source as purely a frivolous "puff piece" or a lampoon of McHenry, or a view of McHenry himself as purely a publicity seeker, does violence to the source material available. Deleting this article on such grounds would be a violation of WP:NPOV, which is all about letting Wikipedia reflect, without bias, the sources on which it is based. Only hindsight prevents such an approach from dismissing Diogenes as readily as Travis McHenry.
The nominator's dismissal of McHenry's actions as trivial is also misguided to say the least. It's easy to speculate on the possibility of declaring one's own micronation, or even to make an actual such declaration (in a Wikipedia AfD?) without taking any further action. It's another matter entirely to get in trouble with one's boss by corresponding with foreign governments to seek recognition, to name only one of the lengths to which McHenry has gone. Maybe anyone could declare a micronation and run with the idea as far as McHenry has done, but very, very few actually do, and it is easy to see why they don't.
The above merely scratches the surface of the numerous problems with the "delete" arguments in this AfD. For example, trying to claim that the guidelines have "tightened up" on the basis of evidence from past AfD discussions is problematic to say the least.
—Syrenka V (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is little more than WP:OTHERSTUFF, honestly. ValarianB (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misreads both my own arguments above and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which specifically warns against blanket use of that essay section to dismiss all arguments involving comparisons.
—Syrenka V (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with that assessment. ValarianB (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To sum up: I'm pointing out that the above dismissals of McHenry, his projects, and the relevant press coverage as "junk", "puff human interest pieces", "people who are desperately trying to claw their way to their proverbial 15 minutes of fame", "noise", and all similar pejoratives, are without exception based on unexamined and unjustified assumptions about human psychology and the philosophical significance of outrageous actions. I cited other Wikipedia articles to support that point—not to claim simplistically that because these other articles exist, McHenry must have one. WP:OTHERSTUFF itself warns against extending its strictures to indirect arguments of this kind. And without the dismissals of McHenry's actions as trivial and the press coverage as junk, there is no defense against a WP:GNG case for notability.
—Syrenka V (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a pretty close call, but I'm seeing a couple sources dealing substantially with this subject. We may think his micronation projects (multiple) absurd, but they and he have been independently and substantially covered in the press and that is what GNG requires. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems the argument for delete largely focuses on the guy's absurd or notworthy venture. But clearly he is notable. And the coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG. Though I wouldn't object if the content is merged to Micronation but After AfD. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:18, 22 December 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) 16:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sullivan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Craig Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability; was a candidate for nomination, was not nominated, I find nothing useful on him including when searching using the company name added at the end of the article. Article was created in July 2004, before the primary, and has not changed much since. Prior AfD was when they were called VfD and was closed "no vote", although both of those commenting seem to have advocated deletion. There are at least two other Craig Sullivans who come up on search: one has recently made the papers in the UK, the other, whom I was checking for, was CEO of Clorox and died recently; he was G. Craig Sullivan and not the same person as the article subject. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN: "unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"--Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that this article survived a deletion attempt in 2005 shows just how poorly thought out notability guidelines were back then. I also have to add that Don Barbieri also seems to fail notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if Sullivan had won the primary election, that in no way would have propelled him closer to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in political party primaries — but this makes no claim that he has any preexisting notability for any other reason, which is the only other way a non-winning primary candidate would qualify to have an article. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did not, in this instance, even run a search, because as Bearcat says, no claim to notability is made, article doesn't even name the town where he lives, which might have been a useful keyword.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 20 December 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 deleted by Jimfbleak. (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Film Division[edit]

Film Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding anything directly related to this specific organization (lots of generic hits) and other than the mention of it being in Little White Lies, can find no actual source to support this. Fails WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 17:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 17:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 17:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 17:20, 14 December 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. – Joe (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northtowns Neo-Mediterranean[edit]

Northtowns Neo-Mediterranean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any coverage on this except in 2 forums prior to 2010. May only get a passing mention in books, and those might be as a result of this article existing. Buffaboy talk 15:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apparent real-estate puffery term. No sources since creation and none added since tagged for that two years ago. I found a few more sources than @Buffaboy: but those are either to other forums or to real-estate listings. No evidence of notability under any standard. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:45, 20 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Shani[edit]

Lady Shani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that she is notable enough for an article, and the current article is in a bit of a state. If someone was willing to work on it, or could at least prove some notability, it would be fine, but I'm not sure she is notable from the references I could find. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 15:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 15:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on your points. Hence, I think it is best to move to draft for the mean time. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Doesn't meet any notability standards and no coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Maitra[edit]

B. Maitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has insufficient references to support the biography of a (likely) living person. A WP:BEFORE search turned up another statistical database entry [14], but no other coverage that would provide basic biographical details, including first name or year of birth. Rhadow (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Rhadow (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are rarely any solid coverage provided on Google that I can find. Hence, for the pitiful state of its references, I endorse the deletion. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- another less-than-minimal biography of a presumably living person sourced only to statistical entries. It's not even enough coverage to establish this person's full name. Reyk YO! 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to fail NCRIC. South Nashua (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sometime back I came across another similar article (Digvijay (Kerala cricketer)) created by the same editor, but had no means to verify if it passed criteria 1 (domestic) of WP:CRIN. Also had no access to the reference mentioned, and search results did not turn up anything. MT TrainDiscuss 19:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find nothing to show notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The source provided is a database entry rather than a substantive source. We don't have a forename, date of birth etc... - in those circumstances (and after careful searching for sources) I don't believe that we'll be in a position to verify anything about the person beyond what we currently have at any point in the foreseeable future. If we can't add substantive sources then there's a clear failure of the GNG and several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met. The close of the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Kodikara certainly seems to support such a position as well. In addition this is (probably) a BLP. In these circumstances I'm even more wary about keeping the article without sourcing beyond minimally detailed database entries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is high time we ended the absurd notability guidelines for cricket players. Why is someone like Eric J. Dursteller lacking an article because the multiple references are not in-line citations when he has published multiple books, some in multiple langauges, with academic publishers, but someone thinks that it is at all possibly playing in one game could make someone notable? Especially when we do not even know the individuals first name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 15 December 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. – Joe (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choices: Stories You Play[edit]

Choices: Stories You Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub that appears to fail WP:NGAME, I can only see this as good enough coverage. There's this as well, but I'm not too sure of its usefulness. !dave 13:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After comments below, I'm happy to either redirect or merge. !dave 22:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing of any suitable coverage in the VG/RS search. Delete per the WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to the developer is fine too. --Izno (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although no references cited, the matter could be addressed with a cleanup. Then, merge it with to its original article, Pixelberry Studios. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure, it has 10 million downloads, but the article is portly written and after a quick Google search I didn't find any good refs. MitchG74 02:52, 16 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PCSO-524[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PCSO-524 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously kept on the basis of a scientific study, but this turns out to be in a predatory open access journal. The remaining sources are a patent and a reference to a truth-in-advertising case, following which the manufacturer discontinued some claims. Google shows mainly press releases and uncontrolled trials. I am not seeing any evidence this product is notable. It was created by a WP:SPA and has not really been touched since. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing secondary coverage, and it's just a mixture of fatty acids rather than new molecules. It would be a stretch right now to even include it in the species article much less have its own. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Snake-oil salesmen can buy their own Web sites. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete than add redirect to polyunsaturated fatty acids Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'm with Doc James on this one; we're not a dictionary, and this is not a standalone article. Sbalfour (talk) 20:30, 15 December 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. – Joe (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon Vector[edit]

Daemon Vector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable video game, I could only find one reliable source in a review by JeuxVideo. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be a title/translation issue. I can't review at work, but "demon vector" (rather than "daemon vector") has some interesting hits that I think should be investigated. This is probably a redirect to the publisher/developer even so, but I'll check back later. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to XPEC Entertainment after review. --Izno (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: There has never been any indication that XPEC Entertainment is notable enough for an article as it is. You might want to make sure that article itself isn't a candidate for deletion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: You are free to start that AFD if you think that will convince me to change my opinion. I prefer redirection to deletion, and unless there's a PROD about to expire or an AFD likely to close as delete, I see no reason to do otherwise. --Izno (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:20, 14 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Residual power series method[edit]

Residual power series method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"The RPSM was first devised in 2013 by the Jordanian mathematician Omar Abu Arqub of Al-Balqa` Applied University". The sole author of this article is user:Omarabuarqub, who has no other contributions to Wikipedia. Most of the cited sources have the user as author or co-author, including some as yet unpublished. Redux: WP:SYN and self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete GScholar hits say that this is something new that hasn't caught on (yet). Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 14 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Stringer[edit]

The Stringer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article leads to a political opinion blog. This article and that of its owner seems to be self-promotional, created by a SPA WP account for that purpose. No 3rd party sources are given. Notices at top of article have been in place for years with no improvement action. Pete (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 09:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 09:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 09:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 09:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There are no independent, reliable sources to indicate that this would pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB, and the only sources the article cites are from the subject of the article itself. Kb.au (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After excluding its own two domain names and facebook I could find nothing at all to indicate any notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to MacGyver (season 7) as episode title. Besides that, the searches show other non-notable blogs such as Stringer Survey [15] Stringer Java Obfuscator [16] a blog by Desi and Derrick Unlat of Lloyd Lake Lodge [17], Jay Stringer [18], The Stringer Mausoleum [19], AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above arguments. I'm not in favor of going over to the MacGyver article given the vagueness here. Don't have a strong opinion there, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the precise episode section would be better than nothing. If this - or any other things mentioned above - becomes notable, then reëvaluate or create a disambig page. --Pete (talk) 08:15, 19 December 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. Draftspace shouldn't be used as a holding area for articles on non-notable topics on the off chance that they will become notable in the future. However, if anybody wants to actually work on the article as a draft, I would be willing to restore it to their userspace or draftspace. – Joe (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Gonzalez (actor)[edit]

Fernando Gonzalez (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

definetely WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 09:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 10:00, 14 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's Convent, Vikas Puri[edit]

St. Peter's Convent, Vikas Puri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable school Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A similar page Kamal Public Sr. Secondary School, both should be probably kept or deleted.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 10:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 10:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 10:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 10:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on deletion. Most of the sections do not have inclined citation and notability of the school is vague. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both It is high time that we start expecting at least a show of notability for schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 15 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration Arena[edit]

Celebration Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Another run-of-the-mill event venue. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple sources describe this building's former state-wide significance as the home of indoor high school track in Alabama, and its continuing significance as a horse arena, notably as the site of the Racking Horse World Celebration. I added a couple of references; more are apparent in the usual searches.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one of those sources is a blog, and the only others appear to be local- exactly what you would expect for any small facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bneu2013 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by sources. This 5,000 seat arena may have been somewhat replaced by 6,000 seat Bill Harris Arena, but so what. Arenas like these are repeatedly mentioned in news reports about sporting events, and it makes sense to have articles describing them. --Doncram (talk) 22:55, 19 December 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. Substantial reliable sources independent of the subject must be provided, and have not been in this case. bd2412 T 18:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint (magazine)[edit]

Viewpoint (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present this is a speedy keep, as no rationale for deletion has been offered by the nominator. This was tagged as A7 four minutes after it was created, but subsequent edits added explanation of why the subject is important, so A7 no longer applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every reference in the entry is sourced to the magazine itself except one (the last) that doesn't appear to be about the publication. Where is the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that this magazine is well-read, indeed, I've come across their articles before and learned of this AfD via socialist twitter, who generally has good respect for the magazine (I don't consider this a WP:COI but feel free to disagree). It seems that User:Burphole and User:Chanteuse267 gave good reasons for keeping it around (that it's been cited in other publications, though perhaps not as the object of discussion), and I think that that information can be meaningfully incorporated into the article to satisfy WP:NOTE. If someone incorporates these references to demonstrate notability, then I would say we should keep the article. Even if they don't, I would say that the contention that such material exists should be enough to keep it around.
    That being said, I agree with User:FloridaArmy's frustration that the article does not cite enough secondary sources and that this problem should be fixed. I may take a look at reference sources later and see if I can make relevant edits, though I alone cannot fix this aspect of the article. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 01:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do I have the feeling that we ran this tape before? Is there a way to check whether a page on this once existed, and was deleted?E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. I can't source it. If someone can, feel free to flag me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting. Prod was contested on talk page, assertions of notability made in unsigned comments were unpersuasive with the exception of a citation to a book by Steve Wright (Not one of the Steve Wrights on whom we have pages), it is out from Pluto Press (Socialist Workers Party), distributed - not published - by a university press. It asserts that Viewpoint is among the rare outlets publishing material on Workerism. I accept that in good faith, but even if true, it does not suffice to confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being well read doesn't mean notable for inclusion as there's no reliable secondary coverage of the magazine itself. Sources are the magazine itself and search returns the same including the Wikipedia article and its mirrors –Ammarpad (talk) 06:43, 21 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100 Happy Days[edit]

100 Happy Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't point out the notability level and it is not written in neutral point of view and instead has been conveyed in an unpleasant manner. Abishe (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this article meets the notability criteria. Added more references to it. This article was created because I saw it was one of the requested articles on the Wikiproject on Internet culture 8ABASALOM (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a brief look, it seems it may be notable. Benjamin (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. It should keep it's status. I'm Opposing. Montey
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notable social occurrence which happened. So, keep. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. Though a merge can be proposed. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 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. – Joe (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triloquist[edit]

Triloquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of noteability whatsoever. Jtrainor (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 (c · m) 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this doesn't seem to be a particularly common abbreviation: I checked Wiktionary, dictionary.com and oxforddictionaries.com as well as a general Google search and nothing comes up. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has some reliable sources reviews such as Washington Times and Horror.com as shown at Rotten Tomatoes here also external reviews at imdb here mainly non rs but has some possible rs , passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 14 December 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. Reclosing as No Consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 December 22 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Instagram accounts[edit]

List of most-followed Instagram accounts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is far from a properly sourced encyclopedia article about the topic, with no evidence of significant coverage of the topic. This is a WP:ELNO-violating index of offlinks to numerous Instagram accounts, violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia isn't a platform for hosting links to other websites' content. Links in a list article should be internal links to other Wikipedia articles, not offsite refspam links to other websites. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For starters, the number of people who follow any given Instagram account changes daily for any number of reasons: new followers adding it, old followers removing it, and on and so forth — so it's a characteristic that's in a state of constant flux and renders a list dynamically unmaintanable. Secondly, the references aren't reliable sources at all — with just one exception they're merely the primary source Instagram feeds themselves, and the exception is just a raw ranking aggregator and doesn't contain any content to analyze or explain why the rankings would matter. Which means that ranking people by the size of their social media following isn't a thing that reliable sources do — it amounts to original research that we're doing ourselves. Having more Instagram followers than somebody else does is not a comment on their relative worth or talent — Selena Gomez doesn't have more Instagram followers than Adele because she's a better singer or makes better music, she's just a bigger gossip magnet who plays the celebrity game more actively (basically, people are just hoping she'll post revenge porn of her ex-boyfriends' peckers.) And it doesn't even mean Selena has a bigger fan base than Adele does; Adele's sold more than 14 times as many records as Selena has, and the only difference is that more of Adele's fans are adults who have more important things to do with their time (like being the parents of Selena Gomez fans) than clcking the little hearts on Instagram posts all day. And when the single most widely followed account (with almost twice as many followers as the runner-up) on Instagram is, well, Instagram itself, that's not really telling you very much at all — people follow the host account because they want to keep up with the platform's news releases. Big fat hairy "Tom on Myspace" deal. Who over the age of 12 really gives two hoots about ranking people by the size of their social media followings? Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that ranking people by the size of their social media following isn't a thing that reliable sources do You sure about that? Because I was easily able to find sources that do - including Reuters and People magazine (not just tabloids). Most of your argument seems to be a personal dislike that people are ranked by their media following - but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also rounded to the nearest million so it wont change daily. Can shorten to top 25 and have "updated as of xyz". Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fewer words, but Bearcat put it all best (and much more hilariously), it's a fluid list that changes way too much for us to maintain (and yeah, Selena isn't going to post a picture of a certain Canadian ex's endowment or she'd no longer be on Instagram for a TOS violation). Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – At 10'000 views a day,[22] this list is obviously of interest to many readers; and some of them, I suppose, are over 12. Evidently Bearcat is entitled not to ever lay eyes on this travesty of 21st-century culture again.[FBDB] The list itself is sourced, not OR, and it does not require much maintenance when you count followers in millions for a mere top 50 accounts. See also similar arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Twitter accounts. — JFG talk 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views isn't a valid reason to keep. This is a web directory masquerading as a list article, and the topic is not notable. Where is the subject discussed in any reliable sources? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a good reason to keep. Subuey (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the topic of most-followed Instagram accounts falls short of WP:LISTN. I also don't think viewer interest is or ought to be a factor here. Notability is about the potential to write an article about a given topic that complies with RS, OR, NPOV, and contains more than a few sentences; and the NOT requirements are about advancing Wikipedia's broader purpose. Also: WP:POPULARPAGE. Rebbing 23:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an encyclopedic topic, a bunch of WP:RAWDATA that is primary-sourced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial directory based solely on primary sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [23][24][25][26][27][28] documents the set in clearly reliable sources (reuters, people magazine, businessinsider) - from WP:LISTN one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.. Not sure whether the number listed should be trimmed to be easier to maintain (top 25?), but a list of at least the top 10 is clear from RS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those sources you list are clickbait, and some are rather trivial, but some are OK. I wouldn't object to keeping the article if it were trimmed to the top 10, because that's what seems to have coverage by two or more of the sources you list. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Galobtter. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Requires constant maintenance to remain accurate. If you want to do monthly snapshots, that could work, but not this format. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that can always happen. This seems like a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. The list can be trimmed to top 25 or top 10 and then done monthly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 23:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure how it's a LISTCRUFT violation - there's clear parent article - instagram. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be worth mentioning the top ten in the Instagram article itself, but beyond that the concept is trivial. bd2412 T 22:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the information is appropriate, and the list is a summary of the information in the other articles. This sort of a list is much better separated from the parent article. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. J947 (c · m) 04:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major indicator of cultural notability, but add "as of" dates to headers, like with List of most popular websites. Note this one, a far more useful list, has been tagged for improvement since June and still has 7-8 month old rankings, so temper your expectations about how frequently the updates will be done. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the date to the column header. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is a WP:BLP related article (look at all the names of living people) and I placed a BLP template on the talk page. I really should not have to go any farther -- but -- Please read from the policy page: "This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.", and from the lead: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.". There is then the question of WP:notability. The article is well referenced, having 58 of them, but they are all from "Instagram" which are primary (a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research) which states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.". This leads us back to WP:BLPPRIMARY that states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.". Considering all this there is evidence the article should have been blanked because of BLP violations. The statement, that I have seen variants used several times, "...and the list is a summary of the information in the other articles"., does not give an exception to WP:policies and guidelines, and introduces concerns of original research and certainly synthesis. Maybe we should re-visit List of most-followed Twitter accounts (52 references with 99.98% primary), and other "List of most..." articles, with some of this in mind since BLP issues have apparently been overlooked Wikipedia-wide? -- Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The top 10 can easily be sourced to RS - like reuters. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd agree with regards to BLP, but here's the critical difference. This article is reporting what Instagram shows as the number of followers, and makes that clear from the sourcing. So, as long as you can verify that Instagram reports these numbers on their site, they are de facto verfied. To prove this, I picked #50 Vanessa Hudgens and went to her profile [[29]]. It matched the 27.5 million number (rounded up to 28). This topic is also notable, as seen by the media coverage including [[30]], [[31]] and many others. Big picture - social capital is today's currency. 27.5M followers as the #50 account on this list has shows more notability than an article in the NY Times, USA Today and Wall Street Journal, whose combined circulation is one third of Hudgens' followers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you quote Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source - reliable secondary sources do discuss instagram followers, sourced from instagram. So we can use the instagram website. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there's still room for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as always inaccurate. It doesn't matter that people are stupid enough to search us instead of Instagram. Mangoe (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like many other lists..can just put "as of xyz".. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normally I am for keeping lists, as they can be useful reference tools for research. However a list of most followed accounts is impossible to keep up-to-date as the numbers of followers change daily. An alternative might be to create lists of most followed account in years past, e.g. 2016 - however that does beg the question of whether anyone today would look up The 1000 most popular pages on Myspace in the year 2005. Lists are useful but overuse should not degrade Wikipedia to a factoid-collection site. 13:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The numbers posted are rounded to just be in the millions. That won't change very much. A sweep through every 6 months would be sufficient. Since the list is helpfully compiled at one of the cited pages, it's even easier to see how the relative rankings have changed to identify significant changes in the number of followers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that another article that I've put some time in, List of wealthiest families, is much more difficult to create and maintain, but that hasn't been a deterrent. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a couple of articles above that address the subject of whether an Instagram following is notable. We have List of wealthiest families. It's not a big leap to make the jump that social following is a form of wealth, since it can be monetized. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Some people" argue to keep articles that are blatant violations of a mandated BLP policy. WP:OTHERSTUFF is only a valid argument when these are allowed to remain by consensus not violating policies and guidelines. Having sources "out there" somewhere might be alright with some articles but we let one article after another creep in, usually a compilation of content thrown in which is WP:OR and we argue "keep" then on other like article because we now have "other stuff". I am not going to argue this type of content is not interesting. I am not going to argue that it is usually outdated shortly after being updated, because that does not seem to matter. I am going to argue that according to the BLP policy these types of "primary sourced" only BLP related articles are a direct violation of policy. It doesn't matter how much we like them, or how we skirt policy to allow them to remain, or that they survive a AFD by no consensus, they are not properly sourced BLP related articles and the whole lot should be examined for possible expunging. Just because we make it look good, without reliable sources to back up the title, it becomes a pile of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information under a false title, while we are throwing names of living people around like the mandated BLP policy is really just a suggestion. Properly source the articles, or remove them, is the only clear solution to stop degrading Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the BLP argument against this article is tenuous. Where is the contentious material about living persons? I think WP:BLPSELFPUB is more relevant. These verified Instagram accounts are effectively self-published in the same way that an individual's own website would be. It is entirely appropriate to reference such sources in an article about those sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing that my BLP comments are weak, yet you point to a section of the same BLP policy, and #5 of the criteria for using self-published sources states "the article is not based primarily on such sources.". We are back to the fact that a BLP OR BLP related article should not be based primarily on such self-published primary sources and I seem to think that an article based on 99.98% of self-published primary sources fail #5. Secondary sources establish notability. By watering this requirement down we allow this type of article to exist, where even the title is original research, and then they expand and we get other predominately primary sourced articles like List of most-followed Twitter accounts, where all but two out of 52 references are primary self-published. How is this list article considered Wikipedia:Listcruft? The Meaning section, #11: The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.. We attempt to solve the issue by rounding up a half a million so it won't need updating as often. Now we are just adding figures for the fun of it just to support social networking fancruft on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to keep this up to date - the compilation source does the heavy lifting for us. Rounding the numbers is convenient because the exact numbers aren't important except in the event of a tie - it's the relative ranking and differences between numbers of followers on the list that is notable. There are plenty of sources substantiating this ranking as notable. Passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there aren't even two sources substantiating this top 50 ranking as notable. Top 10, maybe. And whether or not it passes WP:GNG, it still fails WP:BLP. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be kept in a way that is compliant with all policies, not just cherry-picked ones. We don't get to pick and choose which policies we should comply with. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: How does this article fail BLP exactly? I sincerely do not understand where there may be a BLP policy violation. — JFG talk 09:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Did you not see WP:BLPSELFPUB point number 5? The vast majority of the citations are self-published sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need all the listed Instagram accounts as sources. The secondary source (Socialblade) listing the top accounts is enough. — JFG talk 23:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I am not for just listing google search result pages, because there are mirror sites, fan sites, and "less than reliable" sites that cloud the figures but on a WP:BEFORE I went three pages into search results. I found the one site used on the article (Socialblade) and one from birdsonganalytic that was current as of April 2017. That article shows Selena Gomez with 117 million followers which is far below the 131 million listed on socialblade so is outdated. We can try to argue GNG, and one source backed by 57 primary sources (that does violate policy), merge a smaller list (top 10) to the parent article discussing the reliability and current standings of statista, businessinsider, also covered by socialblade, but we have to watch out because other references like forbes was last updated with Selena Gomez at 103 million followers. techcrunch list top 25 (to try to list article standalone) and dailydot list top 30 (current)
I can find consistent top 10, that could be placed in the parent article, but looking to squeak in enough to satisfy WP:SAL I just can't find it without using one source, and that just does not justify a standalone list, certainly not when related to BLP's, because as stated above (about picking and choosing), even "SAL" mandates following content policies and notability criteria. We need multiple reliable sources to not degrade Wikipedia to a social media reporting site landing in the middle of what Wikipedia is not.
Just to mention the statement of passing GNG which includes: 1)- "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", 2)- ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability", 3)- "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.", and 4)- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Now, for notability we have a one source list article. I am having a real hard time equating the above to passing GNG. Otr500 (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not see the sources I listed above? There's a 20 day old reuters article with 130 million as the number. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And a dang fine reference it is for the top five people on a list of 50. I have actually, even though it might not seem so, been trying to find reliable sources to give justification for a list of 25 or a list of 20 (see above). A list of 10 or 15 could be used on the parent page. I would have thought **someone** would have addressed some issues ---shhh!! it is allowed. Instead, I am reading comments steadfastly proclaiming it is a perfectly good list-class article, breaking no rules, and that all the policies and guidelines listed that it does break are acceptable because people like it, ---and--- that it is not hard to update from the one, single, solitary source other than primary, as long as the principle "updater" is alive, healthy, and has internet access.
As stated above (way up there), WAIT! by you, that maybe the list can be shortened. It can be reliably sourced to the top 10 but there is absolutely no reason to have a stubby stand-alone list of the "10 most followed Instagram accounts". A list like that can be presented in a section on the parent article and nobody will question some added primary references to an article with 289 other references. Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no space for it in the main instagram article. Also Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. It doesn't say has to be in the article. I don't see the problem with the primary references. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 21 December 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 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of customized bus routes in Shenzhen[edit]

List of customized bus routes in Shenzhen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTTRAVEL Ajf773 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete egregious violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY; it's a list of about 500 bus routes with no other content or context. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:DIRECTORY What is a "customized" bus route anyway? Do you get on the bus and then tell the driver which way to go?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among other problems, this article is completely unsourced and does not even explain what a "customized" bus route is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Rusf10 said, Wikipedia isn't a directory, if anything it may be better off, being transcluded onto Wikivoyage, with some major edits to make it fit the Wikivoyage Policy's. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above.Charles (talk) 22:10, 16 December 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 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Gillis[edit]

Bryan Gillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom...nothing of substance here and fails criteria for inclusion. Not notable. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we seem to be drowing in articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = greatest claim to fame seems to be winning MJAHL Rookie of the Year in 2006, and that is not nearly enough for notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 16 December 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. Canley (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Cook[edit]

Patrick Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability disclosed. Simply being published is insufficient ADS54 talk 03:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable as a satirical artist and writer and as a performer on stage and TV. Seidler cartoon controversy alone made him a national name. Castlemate (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This guy is very famous in Australia, don't you think? You can google and find all sorts of mentions in books, news stories, author credits, lawsuits, and so on and on. The article could become very long, there is much to say. Easily passes WP:GNG. This is an absurd nomination, and it just looks like ADS54 is simply creating an AfD for everyone who ever attended Newington College. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A speedy keep would be appropriate and would send the right message. This attack on anyone that attended Newington College from 1863 until the present day, and from aged 3 until 18, is absurd. Clearly I'm at fault for writing bios on people I think are notable and interesting but a more reasoned approach to my exuberance is called for, rather that the current slash and burn approach. The same approach was used in 2007 by another, now blocked, editor so again some discipline needs to be exercised with this nominator. Castlemate (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's not a quality article by any means, but it meets the notability guidelines and cites reliable sources. Material on what the subject is actually notable for could be expanded on. Kb.au (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep A clear failure of WP:BEFORE by NOM. Plenty of WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG. Yes the article needs to be improved. Aoziwe (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep In the Newington College rush (most of which lack notability), let's be generous and say it was an oversight to put this one up for AfD. Boneymau (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lack of sources to show notability. Absolutely nothing justifies the calls for a speedy keep of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you are from Detroit Michigan you clearly have little or no understanding of the person in question so I respectfully ask you to stop "voting" on issues you know nothing about. Please also desist from harrassing me on my talk page and accussing me of spamming. I have been assured by other editors that his is not the case. Castlemate (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep One of the most prominent Australian political cartoonists of his generation. Tons of sources should be available on him. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A simple Google search turns up tons of stuff here - article's spare but no reason to delete. Frickeg (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many people are saying "so many sources available" etc, and that a simple google search can find sources..yet I can't find much really..could anyone give a few examples of sources? Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? I have not been through them myself. Aoziwe (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that much. The one source I can find - this - appears to be some sort of wiki (I edited it, and corrected grammar). Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a moderated wiki where all edits are reviewed, and the article has 15 citations. And you didn't look very far if that's all you found. I have real work to do, but if I have time later I will come back and build the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much in it that is about him. I don't see much in the sources either. I saw people claiming above that it is very easy to find sources on him..so I figured they'd be able to easily give me some :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete !voting delete on this one unless someone can produce a link to an independent and reliable source with significant coverage on him, not a link to a search. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was probably most prominent in the late 1970s and the 1980s, and not much from Australian media at that time is online, which is why finding in-depth sources is a little challenging. But I've found this about the famous Harry Sideler defamation trial referred to above and this about his TV show The Dingo Principle. He really is very well known in Australia. I'll add these to the article. Boneymau (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, seems enough to strike my !vote. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not the the AfD is suspicious He passes notability. For being recipient of Walkley Awards a number of times he passes WP:GNG as it's important Journalism award in Australia, often regarded as national-equivalent of Pulitzer Prize, the world most important journalism awarad. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 She-Ra: Princess of Power. Until more sources appear. Sandstein 08:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She-Ra (2018 TV series)[edit]

She-Ra (2018 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:TOOSOON considering the show isn't out yet and coverage of production only consists of announcements that the show will be on Netflix. All of this could just as easily be merged into She-Ra: Princess of Power page. Comatmebro (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to main She-Ra page At minimum, we need crew and voice cast here, along with a confirmed airdate. Without that it's still a 'maybe' series. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge as per User:Mrschimpf, its kind of too early for a 2018 Tv Show to know much information to make it an encyclopedia article, just merge into the main She-Ra page. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:54, 14 December 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 08:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Rohde[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kristin Rohde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of independent secondary sources, fails GNG. —cnzx (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could unfortunately find only one obituary reference which seems like a reliable source.[32] Apart from that, as there's nothing, the subject does not seem to pass GNG or WP:BIO/NACTOR. Lourdes 02:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be IMDb and does not seek to be a comprehensive listing of all actorts and actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 15 December 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 08:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star1 Airlines destinations[edit]

Star1 Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of destination for an airline that operated for a bit more than a year and went bankrupt in Oct 2010. List vandalized in 2012 and not reverted since. Renata (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:36, 14 December 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. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Henrich[edit]

Adam Henrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does appear to meet WP:NHOCKEY. According to [33], 189 American Hockey League games (187 regular season, 2 post-season) and 11 Deutsche Eishockey Liga games. That is 200, so it is met. Considering the last time he played in one of those two leagues it was almost 10 years ago, finding sources from a google search may prove difficult. Due to the time distance from the prime of this subject, I think we let the presumption hold that if we look hard enough (e.g., go through hard newspaper archives), we would find sources. Therefore, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at this again. Another reason for keep is he was the top pick that year from Tampa Bay. I know it was not round one, but it was round two and not like round five. In a draft, often times the top pick of a team is covered in the regional press. If there is no first round pick, they will just cover the second round pick that was picked first. To put another way, newspapers have space for interest stories on the top new player reserved by an organization. Whoever that top player is gets coverage - otherwise the paper would have blank space. Since this event is 2002, I think it will be hard to find those stories online 15 or so years later, but another point to consider for keep. RonSigPi (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think Adam sneaks through. He does meet point #2 of NHOCKEY, having played 200 games between the AHL and DEL. His early career received fairly substantial coverage. The article needs a lot of work, but I think it merits inclusion. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Barely passes NHOCKEY criterion #2. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 16 December 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Mikula[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shawn Mikula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of a VFD years ago, when he was still a grad student and trying to promote himself through Wikipedia. Now he's graduated and gotten a research job, but it's still not enough to meet GNG. Calton | Talk 00:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- this isn't linkedin--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Authoring articles in peer-reviewed journals does not make one notable. David notMD (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- the article is too short and lacking secondary sources. But afaik this is the only person who has preserved whole mammal brains for imaging all the brain circuits, which has clear ramifications for reading out memories and mind uploading. Medlat (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [citation needed], especially for the "afaik" and "clear ramifications" (Note: editor is creator of the article.). --Calton | Talk 07:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' – no secondary sources and this is a vanity page. Natureium (talk) 16:04, 14 December 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 La que se avecina#Cast and characters. Sandstein 08:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of La que se avecina characters[edit]

List of La que se avecina characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Split from main article 1 without reasoning. If it's superfluous to the main article, I don't see that it warrants an entire article of its own. The main article still contains an extensive list of these characters, so this article might be more appropriately titled Character appearances in La que se avecina, a topic which I don't believe is notable. Pontificalibus (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is how you do a WP:SS breakout, and if you want to start a merge discussion, this is the wrong place. You're arguing for re-merging the content, not deleting it, and AfD is not Articles for "Discussion". Nor is AfD for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for a remerge, I am arguing for delete per WP:AVOIDSPLIT - this topic (character appearances) isn't notable. What happens at the main article with regard to reverting deletions doesn't really concern me. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At no point does WP:AVOIDSPLIT justify the deletion of anything; and even if it did, it's an editing guideline, while WP:ATD-M is policy. Jclemens (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale for keep was that this was split from another article. I am pointing to WP:AVOIDSPLIT and saying just because it was split, doesn't mean it should be kept - it shouldn't have been split in the first place if it wasn't a notable topic. I suggest it was only split because it was excessive detail for the main article, and the proper response to that should have been to edit that article. Because the split should not have been made in the first place I am arguing for delete. There is no need for a merge because the edit in the main article removing this table can simply be undone. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not arguing that the content be removed from Wikipedia, so you're arguing for a re- or un-merge. Deletion means that no merger, no redirection is appropriate, and that's clearly not the case here. Merging and redirection also cause content not to exist as a separate article, rather than for it to be removed such that no non-administrators can see it. That is what is different about deletion, and why I don't believe what you're advocating is best called "deletion." Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear I am arguing that this table be deleted. How many times do I need to say that? However, this is not the place to mandate that this table not be restored in the main article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to the main article. Not notable by itself. Renata (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to main article per Renata. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to main article. Just a small single list, doesn't need a new article. !dave 09:55, 16 December 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 08:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noise and Confusion[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Noise and Confusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This single-occurrence "festival" fails WP:N, specifically the part that reads: "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time."

Although the concert was reviewed in the UK press at the time it occurred, I have been unable to locate a single review or commentary from anytime after Dec 12, 2005. There is no indication that anyone had the slightest interest in this event after it was over. Therefore, it fails the portion of WP:N that looks for significant lasting attention from the world at large. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a nn event lacking significant coverage. External links is the biggest section in the article, amounting to promotional spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The arguments in the previous AfD were an odd combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:EVERYTHING, and WP:ITEXISTS, none of which would be persuasive today. While notability is not temporary, it was a one-time concert of very doubtful notability even then. None of the sources previously offered are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 20 December 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 Tommy Curry (professor). Sandstein 08:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Man-Not[edit]

The Man-Not (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Existings refs are unreliable (goodreads) or self-published; a quick dig unearted nothing better. TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 17:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 11:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a book; the only references are primary sources and social media (Goodreads). [34] is the best coverage I was able to find about the book; a long piece at the Guardian on Mr. Curry doesn't mention this book. I would prefer a merge to the author's page, but the author is not listed on Thomas Curry. I'm looking to see if there's enough other coverage/information to create such a page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page created at Tommy Curry (professor) but still needs work; the Guardian piece is a shorter version of a Chronicle of Higher Education piece that I can't access. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent move.TheLongTone (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 14 December 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 08:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Tutorial Centre[edit]

Dublin Tutorial Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Seems to be a cram school and test-taking center. Macrakis (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not every place needs a page on Wikipedia. I Support. Montey

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 01:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- promotional article created by single purpose accounts. Surprised it has lasted this long.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads as an WP:ADVERT. As Wikipedia, isn't a promotional site. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NSCHOOL, no educational establishment is inherently or automatically notable. Rather, the subject must meet WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG. And, notwithstanding the PROMO/SPAMO concerns, there is no indication that GNG is met in respect of this subject. (A news search returns only trivial coverage and passing references. And a broader search test would seem to return only their website, this article, and other trivial/passing references - certainly nothing to suggest WP:CORPDEPTH is met). Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Meets criteria for CSD A7. —cnzx (talk) 06:29, 15 December 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 12:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Indian IT companies[edit]

List of largest Indian IT companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing for deletion per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Listcruft. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Babymissfortune 13:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You could, say, use the list of fortune india 500 to rank IT companies by revenue; however there aren't any sources that talk about largest indian IT companies as a group, so fails GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Indian IT companies, which already covers this topic. Whether that list should have such a ranking by size as part of its index of our articles is for editors to decide separately. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incomplete list. Moreover, those figures can be added to the table in the List of Indian IT companies. MT TrainDiscuss 19:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely not clear list criteria (define largest) and mostly original research. Ajf773 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially duplicate topic, has elements of OR and unclear criteria. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:03, 17 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_December_14&oldid=1142619634"