Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 February	6 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Elise Henry[edit]

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

An atrociously promotional BLP without a single word of referenced text. For some inexplicable reason speedy deletion was disputed. With utterly useless content like Henry is a glamorous fitness model, who became popular through the social networking platforms. She has a big following because of her stunning physique and her ideas to maintain the figure. This gorgeous and hot model is equally popular on twitter, facebook, and Instagram amd potential sources like Bootylicious beach babe Katya Elise Henry reveals all in barely-there bikini and Katya Elise Henry is one of the sexiest models on Instagram, not to mention gossip column reports of her engagement to a minor pop star as regular and credible as those of Jennifer Aniston's many pregnancies, the likelihood of notability here is next to none, and barely a shred of the existing text would be salvageable. WP:TNT this mess. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Promotional rubbish, unreferenced BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLPs violate policy. This one is overtly promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before I lose all will to live. "References" - official website (check), Facebook acct (check), Instagram acct (check), Twitter acct (check). (What - no LinkedIn page?!?!) No citation even close to WP:RS. Pure WP:PROMO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is more like a blurb from a promotional website than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I think the subject is notable, but it's really hard to find reliable sources amidst all the unreliable ones. I'd be very happy to change my !vote if reliable sources are found. St Anselm (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3.2 million Instagram followers seemed like it might be enough to qualify under WP:BIO Entertainers #2 (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following), but a quick check of the top 100 Instagram profiles[1] shows that #100 has 14 million followers, so her 3.2 million followers are not enough to meet the "large fan base" standard yet. Google search of articles shows mentions in Cosmopolitan.com, Maxim.com, and Miamiherald.com, but none of those articles qualify as "substantial" coverage. No other indications of enough notability that I could find. Neil916 (Talk) 09:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After removing a BLP violation regarding her father, I'm not sure there's anything redeemable left. being hip on Instagram is not a measure of celebrity nor of anything real for that matter. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Per everything already said. Non notable.★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete blatant promotion and no evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real sources or references. Subject doesn't seem that notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost pure promotion. Montanabw^(talk) 11:08, 11 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Bedorf[edit]

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

As per WP:MMANOT and only one source. SQGibbon (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is all a list of stats without anything in the way of a comprehensive biographical sketch.TH1980 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons listed by Papaursa in the previous deletion discussion regarding this article. I don't know what state the article was in when it was deleted in 2014, but I don't see anything that suggests that the article is more notable now than it was then. Neil916 (Talk) 09:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been a simple DB-repost.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should also consider Mateusz Gamrot and Borys Mańkowski for the same reasons (same time and author) although these ones were not previously deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those two do not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA, but it may be a bit late to include them in this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights shows that WP:NMMA is not met. In addition, routine sports reporting is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above arguments, failing NMMA, sketchy on GNG, and bad article. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:43, 13 February 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 – clear consensus and withdrawal request. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl ^talk 08:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz's Equation[edit]

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

A fringe theory, at odds with the science of the time, never mind our modern understanding. Relies primarily on first party sources, no evidence it was taken up by anyone or achieved the sort of wider notoriety required for fringe theories. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps rename "Ritz ballistic theory" as it was known in its time. Historical theories that fail are not "fringe science". There are secondary sources. As Arthur W. Conway said in his forward to A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetics, 1938" Not everyone will agree with the author's estimate of Ritz; but everyone will agree with the elegance of his electrodynamic formula. Everything that Ritz has written in his short life is worth study, and the author deserves credit for bringing to light again his formulae. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like a genuine theory, and is sourced. It doesn't matter if the theory was disproved or hasn't found favor or whatever. --do ncr am 18:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is an important topic in the history of physics. Physicists still discuss it, why it's wrong, what it means, and so on. See e.g. Ritz is Wrong by Wesley from 2003, and look at this scholar search to see why an entry for this wrong theory is nevertheless essential for our encyclopedia. Agree with StarryGrandma about rename. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded especially by the scholar search. Obviously needs renaming per above, sourcing and cleaning up so it’s not just a wall of maths, but is notable and I withdraw my nomination.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mounes Kalaawi[edit]

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

Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. This article promotes the CEO of a healthcare firm and all of the sources appear to be self-published or promotional. There is a lack of reliable coverage and notability of this individual has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any independent, reliable, substantial references to this individual.Glendoremus (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slim GNG, PROMO. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:44, 13 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zine (songwriter)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, she fails Wikipedia:Notability (musicians) (her music doesn't chart, etc.) and the niche (regional, from her city of Nice) coverage she gets fails broader NBIO. If anyone thinks she passes, please cite reasons/sources I missed. My French is intermediary, so I might have missed some sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have provided some sources in the article itself. Yes they are in French and Occitan. Of course Occitan songwriters are far from mainstream, but is wikipedia limited to mainstream information? Compare with Patric, one of the main Occitan singers of the 1970s/80s/90s (he's still active, by the way). I have just found the MusicBrainz record, not much info, but found one interesting link there, Zine performed back vocals (in Turkic) on Aynur's LP in 2005. So not so "niche". For the pics, I've posted a message on commons. Thanks in advance. --— J. F. B. ^{(me´n parlar)} 11:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Seems to be reasonable amount of sourcing. We need further checks done on non-English language sources before deleting. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 5 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnis at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding the following for the same reasons:

Merge to 2013 Palarong Pambansa, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A proposed deltion or AFD are yet to be added to the aforementioned editions of the Palarong Pambansa, but I will like to note that these articles meet GNG, even more so than individual editions of the non-student athlete version, the Philippine National Games Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 5 February 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 List of causes of genital pain. czar 21:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genital pain[edit]

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

Correct use of redirect repeatedly overwritten to copy lists from other articles. User is doing this with multiple pages on this topic, simply duplicating existing info. JamesG5 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am adding content to these pages. Can't you show a little patience? Seriously, look at the testicular pain article, that's what I aim to have for these new pages, and it will take me just a few minutes to get them to a point where they have enough content so that they aren't simply a copy of any existing article. Please be patient, thanks! :) Ethanbas (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to List of the causes of genital pain (which should probably be renamed without "the", not that it's a big deal). On one hand, it's generally unnecessary and/or overzealous to nominate a non-vandalism non-blp article for deletion within a few minutes of its being created. On the other hand, in this case it's just a straight up copy/paste of the other article and thus rather explicitly not appropriate for articlespace (for WP:A10 or immediate redirect). Patience isn't really needed in such cases because it serves no purpose while it's there -- it's just duplicate material. That's what the draft namespace and user sandboxes exist for -- to give people time to work on otherwise problematic pages... until they're ready. So hopefully this is a temporary resolution (i.e. hopefully the article is indeed developed -- but developed into something that can stand on its own before it stands on its own). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Penile pain for remaining? I've gone ahead and copied the 4 pages I created to user space. I think though that essentially, these articles (minus maybe strangulation, although I'm working on seeing if that should be an article), I think these articles should be articles on Wikipedia. A lot of different things could be put in them. Ethanbas (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penile pain seems like a possibility if it's framed as something more along the lines of "types" rather than "causes" (i.e. "penile pain may refer to..."). No strong opinion, though. I haven't seen the various other articles, but since the real issue here is duplication of content, I don't see any reason to assume they couldn't be perfectly good articles once they have more original, sourced content. In other words, my !vote here shouldn't be interpreted as any sort of prejudice against the recreation of these pages later -- only that based on what was currently there, at the time I !voted, it was clear that it should be redirected. If they've been redirected, I think this (and any other such thread that may be open) can be speedily closed by the nominator or a third party. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page is not useful and contains repetitive information found elsewhere. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is but one in name only, what with all the redirects.TH1980 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. There are two advantages to this article over List of the causes of genital pain. The trivial one is that it breaks the issues out by body-part, which the list page doesn't but should, to make it easier to find the intended page. The more important one is that it links to pages like testicular pain that give more detail than etiology, e.g. differential diagnosis. A list article can't cover that detail. The other pages (penile pain, vaginal pain) don't cover those details yet, but could be expanded to do so. It sounds like Ethanbas is working on an expansion along those lines and I think it makes sense to allow them time to try before deleting. Mortee (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to neutral. Long term I think an article on this topic that isn't just about causes will be valuable, along the lines Ethanbas has laid out, but no-one with the time and/or expertise to do so has come forward to make those changes to the page just now, so I'm equally torn between the arguments a) redirect to the useful, existing article and b) set up an article with the better, long-term structure so it receives attention and editing. I'll leave that to an admin to decide. Mortee (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to List of the causes of genital pain). The article was not edited since January 28 (AfD nomination), so I doubt a functional version will appear within minutes. On the other hand, Ethanbas or any other user is welcome to work on it by copy-pasting the current revision in a draft, and replace the redirect once the new version is ready. (If the page is deleted, please provide the WP:REFUND.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the page, giving it a prominent link to the 'list of causes of' page in place of the current duplicated content. That would encourage other editors to develop the page, and it makes better sense long term, since the causes of genital pain are one (obviously important) aspect of the topic, not the whole. Still, if it does go back to being a redirect and then change again later it's at no great cost. I'll contact Ethanbas separately to see if I can help with the drafts (not that I know anything about the topic, so I doubt I can do a whole heap). Mortee (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm busy with other things, and I already told Mortee I'm unable to work on these pages (vaginal pain, penile pain, genital pain) for the near future. I do follow Mortee's line of thinking when he says, keep the page and encourage other users to develop it somehow, and keep the page because there is clearly material that could be added that isn't on the already existing penile injury article, I just don't have time to work on this stuff anymore. Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not a case of "work on it or shut up". You have no duty to continue editing articles you "abandoned" midway - but equally, we have no duty to adopt those articles. I fail to see why a non-redirect article would be useful; I could be convinced, but unless it is imminently coming I do not see why an "article" that is a poor duplication of a natural redirect should be kept in mainspace. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that, as a redirect, the article will probably never get worked on, while if it stays up as a stub, someone might work on it. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. If I knew for certain that eventually (even after a long time) someone would turn that into an article with more value than a redirect, I would support keeping. The problem is, right now it is a poor duplicate of the list and if I had to write the article I would not know what to do. Per WP:RUBBISH, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. - such assertion must be proven. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't have a problem with redirecting the article at this point. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to List of the causes of genital pain). This is one of multiple articles on the topic created in the "hope" that someone else would do something with them. Since Ethanbas is acknowledging he has no intention of working on it, it's simply clutter to leave it. If someone wants to develop a detailed article at some point they can. JamesG5 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the causes of genital pain. Once again, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK by this editor. There is no reason on earth for us to have two lists of why your genitals hurt, which is clearly all this is going to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without prejudice. If someone can do something with it in the future, great. Otherwise it's just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. De Guerre (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of the causes of genital pain is more useful than this one. PriceDL (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:46, 11 February 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 deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming of Spring[edit]

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

This article is not notable in its own right, and significantly duplicates the Marzanna article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwrobson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the first time I've seen an article creator nominate their own work for deletion. This might have qualified for speedy deletion. I agree the subject isn't notable. The article itself is unreferenced. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. – Joe (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've placed the speedy delete tag on it. The article creator has blanked it and nominated it for discussion. It's clear he or she wants it deleted, I think there was an unfamiliarity with the CSD vs AfD tags... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 6 February 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. czar 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Investment & Intelligence Center[edit]

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

An organization with 3 employees is seldom notable. "Canonizing" all of the information in the world about diamond investments is marketing gibberish. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't try to prove notability, reads as an ad. The three references given are a quote from the creator in a NYT article, a mention in the acknowledgements section of a forbes article, and an article that actually covers them, though that's not enough. JerrySa1 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the entry reads more like an advertisement than an article.TH1980 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - assuming it's all true, this is a tiny, run of the mill group. If you don' assume anything, it looks a lot like spam. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 6 February 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. czar 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence M. Miller[edit]

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

Self-promotional article, labelled as such for 7 years, no real prospect for improvement. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notable coverage. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although he's held in over 2,000 libraries with a particular book high of 653, I found nothing else otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 11 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Beyoncetan (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Bet (TLC song)[edit]

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

The song did not chart and didn't have enough sources to conduct a full article. Beyoncetan (talk) 19:43, 5 February 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwen Gyimah[edit]

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

No improvement to the article's content or sourcing since the previous AfD discussion. Passing mentions, roles as an "extra" and mentions in articles written by friends. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been re-edited by numerous wiki editors and contributors, if the sources were made by 'friends' there would be evidence of that. Also wiki pages are updated on relevant information and sources and not updated for the sake of updating. Many sources are from wiki pages themselves or from notable well known sources. Many actors have also worked as 'Extra's', the sources provided do not label him as an extra other than some roles in imdb which is One source out of the whole list. Also Wikipedia allows articles on importance and notability which has been proven by sources linked and by all contributors who contributed to this article. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been re-edited by one editor - you - and another editor has fixed a few errors, so that first statement of yours isn't accurate at all. Now, this article was returned to a Draft following the previous deletion discussion because you said you'd improve it. So why haven't you bothered? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see reliable sources that are entirely about the subject, just passing mentions. If there is sourcing that talks specifically and directly about the subject, then I'd be happy to re-evaluate. It may be that the subject isn't yet notable - but given that they are a young actor just starting out, that can easily change. Note that I closed the previous AFD, but only procedurally - the article had already been moved over to the draft space for further work. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed this article is about a young actor so sources could easily be updated as actor proceeds to be specified in futer articles for futer projects. This article has been drastically improved since the previous afd discussions age, sources, references, links to other wiki pages, has all been added which it did not include before, if you look at the article history you will be able to see that other contributors have re-edited and also improved the article. All article problems had been previously addressed and improved, notability has been proven by public interests from various different well known reliable sources, 'NME' being a big example as well as London Local which all address the subject as a fairy young but well established actor notable enough to be specified in articles for the large remainder of the public. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanna Mania300: We had a discussion about duplicate !votes in the last AfD discussion. Don't start that again please. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for addressing my attention to that. I have added 'comment' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Confirmed Sockpuppet comments

Keep. this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements according to: ~~WP:NASTRO~~ WP:NN , The subject may just need regular updating in due course but in the mean time it passes wiki's standards and checks for articles on living persons, keeping in mind the public attention and age of the person, there is a lack of argument into why the article should be deleted from the encyclopedia. Danny578 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Danny578 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding Danny578 comment added by Danny578 (talk) • contribs) 20:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Danny578 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike !vote from confirmed sockpuppet[reply]

Maybe you should read WP:NASTRO before you use it as an argument! I note that your !vote doesn't address the specific issues I've raised. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: This article was re-edited, sources were re-reviewed, improvements were made, all by other editors. The only editors nominating this for deletion are the same editors from the previous deletion for this article which was dated in 2016. Please read the updated article carefully. This article has lasted a week of being in the main space without an issue by any other contributor, read the updated version in 2017 is clear that its being overlooked. This is an actors article meaning a career. Career's get updated as time goes by, this article should have been suggested for improvement not for deletion, and regardless the sources provided have proven public importance of the individual by not one but numerous sources and articles outside of wiki alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny578 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A) What other editors? I'm looking at the article's edit history right now, so please point out what other editors have made major changes? All I see are the article's creator and a few editors fixing the article creator's mistakes. And, B) - Why do you keep editing other people's comments in this discussion? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: A) The fact that you are the only two same editors that nominate this for deletion worries me. B) They improved, fixed, deleted, suggested, and added to the article. That is editing the article, making it better and sorting out the references and adding the main importance was what was added and improved by other editors. C) Where are clear indications that the article should be deleted and why was it not nominated by other editors rather than yourselves?Danny578 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Danny578 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, if you're not going to answer my questions or be open & honest then there's not much I can do. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: apologies, editing mistakes which sometimes occur via editing conflicts.Danny578 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note -To Admin- The article has clearly been improved to a standard where I felt confident enough to move it in the main article space, the fact that this article is being requested to be sAlted by exemplo347 proves my example that he/she has not fully read or viewed the article at all but only nominated it for deletion based on its history, This article is of an actor who is clearly notable and relevant to the public eye and interests, sources are clearly reliable as some of the sources are from the biggest news sources in the UK., as any other wikipedia page, they will be thoroughly updated in due course and when needing to, the fact that these two are the only editors who want this deleted without proper reason confuses me, Exemplo347 please read WP:NN to understand wikipedia's standards. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure any Admin who reads this will be far more interested in the fact that you're using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The admins that read this will site out all user accounts, all IP Addresses and further more all contributors who have contributed to the article and tell that we are separate accounts, please stop pushing this matter in a case where you cant even argue relevant factors that needs the article to be deleted, you seem to have made various comments and notes barely proving why the article needs to be at all removed from the enclopedia. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your argument falls apart there. There has already been an investigation and it has been confirmed that you're using multiple accounts. I've pointed the investigation out on your talk page already, so I'm not sure why you're being disingenuous about it. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - To closing Admin - if this article is deleted, it should be SALTed to prevent its recreation. It has been repeatedly deleted over the last year or so. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources available are insufficiently reliable to pass GNG; there is no WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH of coverage for the subject to pass NACTOR. A certain reliance on inherited notability. Ultimately, on the assumption his career continues on the expected trajectory, this is a case of- in another context- TOO SOON. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few of the sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia. What is left does not pass GNG. I agree that this is TOOSOON. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be notable someday but clearly isn't yet. While we're at it, use of sockpuppet accounts is hardly indicative of a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedic article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:54, 9 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Beyoncetan (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return of TLC tour[edit]

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

The page should be deleted because "Return of TLC tour" is not an official tour nor an official title that any source mentioned. However, the fact is that they did went on tour in 2016, but they usually performed as parts of festivals – not a part of a real, official "world tour". Beyoncetan (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suppose it's a matter of two things:
- where the definition of a "tour" begins and ends
- how a tour article should be titled if the tour doesn't have an official name.

But if it does qualify as a tour (enough to have an article), even if it isn't called "Return of TLC Tour", then the best course of action would be to move it to a suitable title. — Smjg (talk) 22:56, 5 February 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. czar 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl of Oatmeal[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 10 years and no improvement = rubbish bin. I actually don't care, as Wikipedia is a repository of human knowledge. Ce la vie. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails every relevant notability criteria - I can't believe it has survived so long with such weak references, but I'm glad it has floated up from the bottom so it can be flushed away properly. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article has not been updated in awhile, and lacks notability, I think it could go.TH1980 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google search results shows nothing convincing GNG and NFLIM. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student films are proverbally common to the point of being mundane, and except for one by George Lucas, they are rarely considered notable. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Hear the Dogs Barking?[edit]

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

the only source is an IMDB page. there are also no notable cast members Wasabi,the,one (Talk Contributions) 17:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were three (non-IMDB) sources before you even nominated it. I've just added another. Not to mention the fact this was selected for the Palme d'Or at the 1975 Cannes Film Festival. Having "no notable cast members" makes no sense for deletion and is an invalid article. Several of the cast look like they'd be notable, if an article for them was created. Also, as this is Mexican film, there are sources in Spanish using the Spanish film title. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To be precise, the film wasn't selected for the Palme d'Or. It was one of 22 films in the main Cannes competition which were eligible for the Palme d'Or. Chronicle of the Years of Fire was the winning film that year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a plot. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work and a plot, per L3X1. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:33, 13 February 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 Angelo Litrico. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Litrico[edit]

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

Fails our WP:GNG Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects. I can find no in-depth coverage of him anywhere. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from authorPlease do not delete the article. I worked hard, help me to improve it. Klimgeran (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to improve the article. Klimgeran (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep, but it is way too early to hold an AfD Subject is just some guy related to Notable man who now works in the company. He didn't really do anything of note. Also the article is 4 days old. The article is clearly under construction. Note to author, keep in mind, if this guy didn't do anything notable, all your hard work will go to waste. I'm just buying you some time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelo Litrico. Clearly promotional, probable undeclared COI. This has already been deleted three times on it.wp as blatant promotion, now the same user is trying it here. The firm is indubitably notable, and it may be that we should have a page on that rather than on the founder; this person is one of the managers (perhaps owners too) of a notable firm, so gets some mentions. But he's not notable in his own right. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: COI declared here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least it's not paid editing. J 947 20:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Redirect to Angelo Litrico or, as Justlettersandnumbers has said above, to the firm. - He might become notable later; this might be another potentially valuable user to lose because of strictness in AfDs. J 947 19:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to author: Klimgeran, if the end result is 'Redirect' (which it probably will be), if you go through old versions of the page you can still see your work. J 947 19:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelo Litrico (to the firm if an article is created on it). Userfying the current content is fine. This appears to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. We're not seeing, or finding, independent, reliable sources showing the notability of this person. Speaking only for myself, it's difficult to find sources when the most likely sources will be in Italian, but it's telling that the Italian Wikipedia has deleted this article three times. Note that it appears that Luca Litrico is no longer associated with his uncle's firm. According to Angelo Litrico and http://www.world-fashion.info/firm/5016-Luca-Litrico Luca left the firm in 2012 to form his own brand. I don't see any problem with having this article at AFD. We have a COI editor who created a very questionable article, and who seems to have some CIR issues with English Wikipedia, but we didn't speedy the article. We brought it to AFD after a few days and nothing is going to happen for a while. In the meantime editors are looking at the article and discussing things with the creator. This is at the user's page, other users' pages, the teahouse, and the article's talk page. If the subject is notable we should be able to find the sources and article will survive, and if not, well, we don't keep articles about non-notable subjects for fear of losing a COI editor's possible future contributions. Meters (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks....i understand. Klimgeran (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought free. This is my first project on Wikipedia. Klimgeran (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the suggestion above is my vote.TH1980 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 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 09:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mufassil Islam[edit]

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

No indication of passing creative professionals and any biography. The subject was in news for only one event and I can't find anything else to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a chatty BLP violation sitting on top of a soap box. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 6 February 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. czar 21:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Kittelson[edit]

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

Mr. Kittlelson does not meet the specific notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. Whether the article meets the general biographical requirements are debatable. Dolotta (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been around awhile but has not been grown by knowledgeable Wikipedians, apparently due to how minor a political figure Mr. Kittleson is. This article is, in my opinion, dead wood as a result.TH1980 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our Notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we almost never keep such stubs. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NPOL. Unsuccessful candidate, no other indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 11:10, 11 February 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Can nominate for deletion under CSD G4 instead. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Project Management Association[edit]

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

Non notable organisation. Was previously speedy deleted under A7 but was recreated. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:34, 5 February 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. author request Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joydeep Chakrabortty[edit]

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

Assistant Professor. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF - CSD (A7) disputed. WP:BEFORE search found nothing to indicate notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user Sdbakshi13 has added {{db-author}} to page. —Non-Dropframe _talk 20:42, 5 February 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. czar 21:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward James (historian)[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable. CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a biographical entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and as an author he is the recipient of a notable award, namely the Hugo Award. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by bonadea. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction article also lists additional awards. Satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has won several notable awards, including the Hugo, which is the most prestigious award in science fiction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently notable. Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hugo Award alone meets the criteria, the rest is icing on the cake. Montanabw^(talk) 11:11, 11 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hawkins[edit]

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

Bio for a person who clearly has access to a very efficient PR team - searching for sources yields large numbers of press releases and other primary sources all showering her with accolades, but nothing that serves to meet WP:GNG. She's a motivational speaker, and she's done a lot of motivational speaking (cos that's her job, innit), but that doesn't in itself make her notable. bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I have cleaned it up a bit and removed some exaggerated/unsourced claims - the pre-cleanup version was a borderline G11 case. --bonadea contributions talk 15:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a thing about this particular "Terry Hawkins" on Gnews. Other people, yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything obvious to support notability, unless you count large volumes of primary material but in many different sources. No or very little strong IRSS - however is this due to systemic bias. If the person was male would there be more IRSS in more main stream media. If others think so too I would agree to keep as a counter to systemic bias PROVIDED the article gets referenced by something other than her own web site. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, systemic bias is a problem, but we simply cannot and should not keep biographies of living people that do not have neutral and substantial sources to back them up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 10 February 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Marseille melee attack[edit]

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

This is definitely not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sure, there is coverage, but it is a minor incident involving an injured soldier. If we had articles for this kind of minor crime, we would be creating thousands every month. st 170e 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, a minor incident very unlikely to be notable. If it becomes notable as it’s e.g. part of some wider incident then it can be covered as part of that. But as-is delete.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Attacks like these happen nearly every day in Israel. I think the article on the attack in Paris on February 3 is also not suitable for wikipedia. Both attacks have little impact in society in comparisslon with the major incidents like the 2015 november paris attacks and the charlie hebdo shooting.. JBergsma1 (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Also see WP:RECENTISM. AusLondonder (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and this is only a news story due to the Louvre attack happening hours earlier. The supplied reference supplies no evidence to show it is more than an ordinary assault, but it does tempt the reader to synthesize a relation. It is not for us to speculate on possible future notability. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no indications of any notability here. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the WP:NOTNEWS classification, nothing notable about this crime. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable incident. "Some men beat up another man who happened to be a soldier" just doesn't make the cut for an encyclopaedia. If it were connected to the attack at the Louvre it might merit a mention in that article as a related incident, but there's no evidence that it was a related incident. Neiltonks (talk) 09:08, 6 February 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF - too soon for an article. st 170e 14:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this from April 2016 that shows a still from the film with the caption that it is "currently in production". Therefore it satisfies WP:NFF. Would you consider withdrawing the nom, St170e? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Thanks for finding this, I'm happy now to withdraw the nom. I couldn't find a source with evidence/info that it was in production. st 170e 20:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My Gnews search reveals sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 5 February 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 09:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Army Men III[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable fan game. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The1337gamer (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is superfluous due to its lack of notability.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete I've updated the article with supporting references and citation. Hopefully it helps. The article should stay. --Vanguard2042 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is some random YouTuber's channel. Not a reliable source.

Reference 2 is a ModDB page for a completely different game. It does not mention the subject of the article. It is also a primary source.

Reference 3 is a ModDB article on Unreal Engine. It does not mention the subject of the article.

Reference 4, 5, 6 are primary sources from the developer's of the fan game.

Reference 7 is an IndieDB page for a completely different game. It does not mention the subject of the article. It is also a primary source.

Not a single reference you've added contributes to the topic's notability. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1: That "random YouTuber" is the game's storywriter and director. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNLp6CIReo

Reference 2: It's not a game, its a mod, and its where Army Men III originated from, at least according to Franklin (the dev behind the game).

Reference 3: I was just adding reference to the UDK's release and I thought I was required to cite the source with the history behind the start of their game.

Reference 4, 5, 6: This was just to confirm what happened to the game. Is there really anything wrong with that?

Reference 7: I guess that was probably best left out.

I took another look at my last edit and maybe they should've been listed as external links instead so I will add more to this article tomorrow.

When you said "notable sources" are you looking for press coverage? Reviews? Interviews? --Vanguard2042 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you read the criteria at WP:GNG. Take a look at WP:RS, which discusses what constitutes reliable sources. For video games, see WP:VG/RS list. We are looking for things like credentials, editorial oversight, peer review, etc. We are looking for sources independent of the author/developer. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I polished the page a bit, I thought there were at least a couple more news sources but it seems only one I can find is from Small Dev Talk which I already know about that. According to the articles HELLKNOWS linked me, it says for notability I need at least one existing source. Seeing Small Dev Talk has interviewed a lot of other games, hopefully it counts right? --Vanguard2042 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: For some reason, a bot deleted all of my work immediately for some reason when I moved the references to external links based on the advice here. Was I missing something? --Vanguard2042 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG talk in plural about sources, so you need multiple sources (that also fit all the other criteria). 2 would be really really stretching it, as you couldn't really write significant content from that. So 3+ is usually the minimum when discussing article deletion. Small Dev Talk source is an interview -- thus it is essentially a primary source as the developer themselves give information. This could supplement the sourcing, if the interviewer is a reliable source, but it does not count for notability. The bot reverted the change, because you--as a new user--added a plain youtube link, which is almost always misused. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly misses coverage from reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fan game failing WP:GNG with no secondary, independent, reliable, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Sources in the article are not reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable fan game with no reliable, secondary sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails GNG. The1337gamer's assessment on the sources present is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 7 February 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 09:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Herrera[edit]

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

Apparently self-created article. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and unclear which other specific category for notability could be met - references provided indicate he is the web designer/media spokesperson for a government department. Melcous (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not much coverage, and his job titles are not significant enough to merit articles on holders of such posts. Edwardx (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete directors of communications for government institutes are not notable. His boss the actual director may be, but he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 12 February 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 09:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Lewis[edit]

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

I do not believe the subject meets WP:Music - without access to chart data, I can't comprehensively state this is fact, however I can't currently see any evidence for supporting this or any other of the music criteria, or even WP:GNG - there's a tiny bit of routine coverage of a Voice contestant, but nothing significant from trustworthy sources. When I first came across the article, it was very poorly written, like a fan-site, possibly with considerable WP:Copyvio, all added by a very seldom contributor 6 years ago (it looked like this). I have improved and wikified it, however now I question its notability. Rayman60 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 10 February 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skate Helena[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skating skating event. Almost exclusively results based sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not a world-shaking event, but it is an European cup listed at the ISU calendar [2] and receives significant year-to-year coverage in Serbian press 2014 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017. Probably the most important annual international event in Serbian ice-skating (not that I'm into the matter.) No such user (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 5 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

80's remix[edit]

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

I am honestly not sure about this one, I am pretty certain it shouldn't be a standalone article, as it appears to be mostly WP:SYNTH as it stands at the moment, though some of this material could be used in the Remix article perhaps. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 5 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasuton Manorah (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES, as tagged since August 2008. Arguments in the 1st AfD do not actually establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per my comment at the previous AfD, it is very likely that this would have been covered in the day's entertainment news, and any exhaustive effort to verify the subject's notability should probably include a trip to a newspaper archive in Thailand. However, it's quite clear that no one's going to pick up the task soon, and the WP:BURDEN otherwise lies with the creator. Probably the best thing to do would be to create an article dedicated to the Thai version of the tale, which could then host a list of the various media adaptations. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:14, 6 February 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gunz For Hire[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. - TheMagnificentist 17:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references and no indication of notability. Karst (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 10 February 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Merritt McKee[edit]

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

This article was created in November, apparently as part of the University of Calgary/Introductory Geology (Fall 2016) project. However, the geologist doesn't appear to be notable. The closest thing to a claim of notability is "McKee was the first woman to work in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia." But even that's suspect; the reference to this (the only reference for the article) is an obituary in a small-town newspaper, the Petoskey News-Review in Petoskey, Michigan (population 5,670). The obituary itself, which was likely republishing information provided by surviving family members, seems to have errors, referring to the "American Institute of Petroleum Geologists", but probably intending either the American Association of Petroleum Geologists ([3]) or the American Institute of Professional Geologists ([4]); which suggests it is not a reliable source in any event.

I can't find any further information on McKee to establish notability. Since this is a school project, I notified the project and held off calling for the article deletion for a few weeks. I figured the professor who assigned the article to be created knows something to support notability, and it just needs to be added; and I didn't want to throw a new contributor into the Wikipedia deletion process if I can avoid it. But it looks like it's not being updated.

I normally would have PRODded something like this, but given that it was academically assigned, I'll bring it to AfD in case there really is something to salvage here. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

did you do a google books search? Beatley (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but found nothing other than directory entries, at least where the text was visible. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I was able to find several articles quite easily where she is covered in the Chicago area for mapping Lake Michigan, and on lake erosion and pollution. I found confirmation that she worked in Saudi Arabia as the first woman "Aramco field geologist" - which probably does mean the first woman geologist in Saudi Arabia. AIPG is correct, that org changed its name to Association of Professional Geological Scientists. I think it adds up to just enough. MB 01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Chicago Tribune reports she made the first reliable drawing of bottom of Lake Michigan.
[6] Chicago Tribune article on her disagreement with Corp of Engineers on lake erosion
[7] Another Chicago Trib article on beach erosion.
[8] Chicago Trib article on lake polution.
[9] mention on erosion in Christian Science Monitor
[10] listed here as author of bulletin on Philippine Island terrain
[11] mention here on erosion study
[12] mention about lake bottom diagramming
recognized in Mar 2007 Professional Geologist mag for being member of AIPG/APGS for 40 years
AIPG 2003 History bulletin reported she gave testimony to Congress in 1975
[13] Geological Society of America publication confirms she worked in Saudi Arabia

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 5 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1998 UCI Road World Championships start list[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Olympians and cyclists and weightlifters at World Championships Bald Boris 17:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: A list of cyclists in a similar vain I AfDed since was speedily kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cyclists at the 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships. I'll leave it with you. Bald Boris 00:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a deletion of List of cyclists at the 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that only the 1998 UCI Road World Championships start list article has the AfD template that links to this discussion. As such, only this single article is nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much more than a list of "who was there" The Banner talk 21:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of WP:NOT. This is just a list. Delete per nom. CrispyGlover (talk) 15:15, 13 February 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. So Why 13:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Idol[edit]

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

Article consists entirely of one infobox, no references, and a one-paragraph lead (which makes up the entire content). Not notable at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is purportedly premiering in 2017, but is not referenced as such. Even the external link listed in the infobox fails to confirm that this exists — it links only to the front splash page of the network that's purportedly airing it, and even that consists of a "We're launching soon" notice rather than any content verifying any of its programming at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when this can be reliably sourced over WP:NMEDIA — but if it's so unsourceable that it's impossible for us to even determine whether it's a real show that hasn't premiered yet or an outright WP:HOAX, then it's WP:TOOSOON at best. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 7 February 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Volleyball Copa Latina[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Comments. I'm leaning towards keeping 2013 Volleyball Copa Latina as being officially sanctioned as an international sporting event, but we might consider a merge instead, which is actually recommended as a course by WP:SPORTSEVENT. I'm not sure what to do with the earlier ones. Should we delete or merge them? Discuss, please. Bearian (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 5 February 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. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of asteroid names[edit]

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

This article does not mention a single source even though unreferenced and OR flags have been added more than six years ago. It is likely that there are no sources for many of the pronunciations in this article. Seeing as there are abundant Category:Lists of asteroids, nothing is lost when this article is deleted.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it has the same flaws:

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

--mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as they fail WP:NOTDICT by being a usage guide in addition to what the nom said. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions})
Delete both. If a reliable source discusses the pronunciation of a notable asteroid, then that can be included in the article about that asteroid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Pronunciation can be applicable to invidividual articles, we don't need a massive list of them all. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If sources can be found, this information can be merged into individual articles where they exist. Asteroids which aren't notable enough for an article aren't worth recording this information. Modest Genius ^talk 18:28, 10 February 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaldi Gondosubroto[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources did not pass Wp:Bio ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 01:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. I do not believe that this article should be deleted because it already has clear sources, so I do not see the problem with sources that the user requesting for deletion has mentioned.~~ Theyoungeditor123 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable. If it weren;t already here, I'd have listed for A7 speedy . The refs seem obvious press releases from their format, tho I admint Ido not know the language.. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppets. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. Notable enough. Luckily, I am Indonesian so I do understand the language of the news articles, and I believe that they show evidence to keep the page. Did a search and there are even more sources for him than the news on the current page.Walrusrocks213 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, so no problem about sources. Details continue to emerge so far from other news outlets and with him taking a leadership position at such an early age, such an article is inspiring. Brotherlandpol (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject has been invited to speak in some of the events that I have attended. He has shown strong knowledge of entrepreneurship in Indonesia, and he deserves a place in Wikipedia. Smartd (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theyoungeditor123 is related to this AfD. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person may become notable in the future, but they clearly aren't yet. He's the CEO of an early stage startup. The startup itself isn't notable either. A scan of google also turns up only a very few articles. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a young person who invented something, last year. This is too soon for for one event. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 6 February 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 09:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Manuatu[edit]

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

This person appears to be a minor political staffer with no particular notability. If it was true that he had "exchanged blows with Mia Freedman", he might be notable, but these appear to have been metaphorical. Grahame (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and (to the extent this relevant) WP:POLITICIAN. Not the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, not an elected official, not a major political figure or leader of any substantial political grouping. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think there is sufficient NEXIST to scrape this one over the general NG. No article has to get over any particular SNG or have a particular notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are a few sources but they're pretty much all WP:ONEEVENT stuff for his fifteen minutes of TV fame. Pretty thin sources apart from that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 10 February 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dillon (football)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, has not played in international of professional football, and does not separately meet GNG. Mattlore (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:37, 11 February 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 09:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Yarab Tso[edit]

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

The text is just a presentation of an hotel, whose notability isn't clarified. pt:Stegop ^talk 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge into Tegar. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Notguide and Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. Hotel exists, but does not appear to have received the kind of coverage necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Has no historic significance, no references to suggest otherwise. KDS4444 (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 22 January 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, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is adequately sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notguide; no encyclopedic relevance, merely a hotel description, which can as easily be found on the hotel's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply a business listing and travel guide, of which we're not, regardless of what exists. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 11 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Spirit Tour[edit]

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

Another concert tour that won't start for few months (start date: 5 May 2017), referenced only to primary sources. A merge suggestion from last October wasn't acted on yet. I suggest soft delete (redirect), so this is restored on May when there may be more sources and this passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) for concert tours. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 5 February 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 Scottish Premiership. The consensus is that while this will likely merit a standalone article in the future, at the moment it is too early. Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Scottish Premiership[edit]

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

This page does not meet WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. It is far too early to know any information about the 2017–18 season, other than basic details. Exxy (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Exxy, we know very little about the tournament and we won't have sources to substantiate most of it until closer to the new season. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scottish Premiership. It's a bit early, but not much; this season's article started getting content in late February 2016, and was a redirect since September 2015. Similar redirects also already exist, such as 2017-18 Football League Championship. Nfitz (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Premiership - no realistic chance of it not occurring, or some other competition occurring in its place for which a redirect will be necessary. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect typically, in cases where an article is created for an upcoming season which is likely to occur, a redirect is fine. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until the current season is over. Giant Snowman 09:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogel agriculture[edit]

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

This reads as WP:OR to me. Most of it is based on (now removed) predatory journals and the like Guy (Help!) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - a wall of text about fringey pseudoscience with lousy sourcing. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StevenDaniels (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Consider Similar to what I have mentioned in the talk page, being a new user, I have tried to do keep a neutral point of view while writing. The cited sources have been thoroughly studied before citing and the user welcomes correction and information from more relevant sources. I am trying to upgrade the content quality as well and request the article be not deleted but considered for correction/re-evaluationStevenDaniels (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was indeed a bit of a mess. I've removed the uncited material, rewritten the lead, and added five reliable sources including a review paper. I think the Times of India report also reputable: I've rewritten that paragraph and formatted the citation properly. As for the science, there is no doubt that hydrogels do absorb a lot of water, and would indeed improve the properties of soil in dry places. Hydrogels can, too, be made of many different materials, anything that forms a 3-D network of long chain molecules and is reasonably insoluble and non-toxic will work. It's a notable topic and I'm happy to recommend keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the significant improvements to the article. Wow, kudos to Chiswick Chap ! Bearian (talk) 22:55, 7 February 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. With no prejudice against creating a redirect to Tarhuna if that article is expanded to include information about this subject. Currently, a redirect as suggested makes no sense since a reader will not find any information there. So Why 13:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sharshara[edit]

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

PROD contested, no reason given. There is no evidence that this landmark is notable. Giant Snowman 10:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is a specious reason for deletion when shelf space is infinite; it only matters to dead tree encyclopedias. There is nothing to indicate that this is a spurious story, and it costs nothing to retain it. As almost no one will find it, it isn't causing any trouble. Should tourism in Libya return, perhaps interest will develop.Acad Ronin (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of notability is a specious reason for deletion" - Really? Lack of notability is the main reason articles get deleted. As for lack of shelf space being a reason to not delete something - WP:NOTTOILETPAPER describes the general opinion about that argument. Wikipedia doesn't need articles about subjects that don't meet the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"[A]ny article can be improved..., and so deletion should be reserved for only the most outrageously slanderous, unsourced, badly written articles." So I spent time improving the article's English. How about lighting a candle rather than going around snuffing them out?Acad Ronin (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no mention anywhere else on the wiki, despite being touted as one of the most famous waterfalls in Libya (a country without much water, as it hapoens). Might even be a hoax, can't find any relevant info in English.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Clearly no one has bothered to look at the "see also" before advocating deletion: sharsharh national park - proap group Before the Libyan civil war there apparently was a serious plan to develop the site. The article does not appear to be a hoax, unless the whole Portuguese website is a supporting hoax. The website has quite a bit of relevant info on Al Sharsharh. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this webpage mention a waterfall? If not, the article might need rewriting. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I had re-written the article, before Giantsnowman deleted my work. Admittedly, I hadn't incorporated the info from the website. Since then, I have also discovered that there is a reserve of some sort 2o miles east of Tajura (also spelled Tajoura).Acad Ronin (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this page doesn't have content currently, any content about the falls seems most appropriate and useful on the Tarhuna page. The only RS coverage I could find (including in Libyan sources) of the falls was directly about tourism to the Tarhuna area as a whole. That page currently lacks a 'notable sites' page and I think the waterfall (and whatever complex surrounds it) would have the best content impact on that article. I would move for Merge if the page had any RS content currently, but now: AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of merging the original article, somewhat rewritten, into the Tarhuna page. Is there any way of finding out a more precise location? There is another, small green patch about 15 miles NNE of Tarhuna.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion, take it for what it is worth: The few RS hits I could find on Al Sharshara all referred to it in the context of Tarhuna. So even if it is not the most precise location, that is the best page for it with English coverage. While I can speak some basic Arabic, I can't read it, so if local coverage provides a more precise coverage that would be reasonable to follow. But, I'd suggest taking the lack of precision for the better coherence with coverage. The article on Tarhuna could certainly use some "candlelight," to borrow your metaphor. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:17, 8 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Celtic City Populations[edit]

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

"Celtic cities" and "(early) modern history" is an intersection of two unrelated topics, as these cities have become populated with a lot of non-Celtic people. (Note that we do have ancient Celtic cities though.) I would suggest to move the population data to the separate city articles, if not already there. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. If there was academic material discussing the growth of "Celtic cities" (still a questionable topic because of bracketing) then I might see the point in this. This article, however, is just a listing of census data and all reliant on one source. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete (1) it is largely based on works by one author. (2) "Celtic cities" is a topic of questionable validity, since it is based on perceived linguistic affinity. It is not accurate to describe Rennes as Celtic today as Breton is an extinct language; nor Edinburgh, since its language is Scots (a close relative of English), not Gaelic. (3) The basis of estimates is not set out, only cited from the books of that one author. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - numbers don't match those in the source (for instance, I did a spot check of the Glasgow source), Some numbers are "interpolated or extrapolated" (that is, original research), source isn't reliable, selection of cities is not well defined, time period is arbitrary, and so on. WP:TNT at best. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR. The inclusion criteria seems more than a little indiscriminate (why these cities? and not others in Ireland or Scotland or elsewhere?). And what is a "celtic city" anyway? (The term itself would seem to be OR). An indiscriminate grouping of indiscriminate stats. Guliolopez (talk) 01:41, 12 February 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. Opinions are divided between moving to draftspace or keeping because of the already-existing media coverage. Sandstein 09:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Day March[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to advertise planned protests. We should write about such events after they actually happen, and in proportion to the RS coverage they get. Similar to the decision in the Scientists' March case, I suggest moving this article to Draft space until it takes place. In the meantime, a couple lines in Protests against Donald Trump#Planned protests, as it stands today, are enough in terms of encyclopedic coverage. — JFG ^talk 09:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect mainspace link and Move article to Draft: No doubt this will get a lot of media coverage when it happens, but we shouldn't have an article about it till then. This is Paul (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plans for the event had received widespread coverage. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to wait until this event takes place. This is not rumour or speculation—the event already has already received substantial coverage in mainstream media, as is evidenced by the sources given within the article. Brad v 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. This is pure political advertising for an event that may or may not become notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. After the date for the scientists' march was chosen, every vote cast for that article was keep. And yet it still ended up as a draft. So this time, I'll just vote for that outcome right away. Connor Behan (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Date has been announced and this protest has gained quite a bit of press coverage, with tens of thousands of people participating. When an event is large enough it makes sense to have an article about it before it happens. Plantlady223 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move article to draft as suggested. This article is about an event that (according to the article) is not certain to occur. It also fails other tests in the policy about what Wikipedia is not, for example, Wikipedia is not a political soapbox and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are plenty of other articles about Protests against Donald Trump where this content could be recorded, and I don't yet see the need for a standalone article. Given that the protest is not certain to occur, it has not yet met the notability criteria for an event. Gfcvoice (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL contrary to Gfcvoice. We do not know that this event will not occur, but if it does not occur as planned, it still cannot be denied that this would belong in the series of "Protests against Donald Trump" (The statement "there are plenty of other articles about Protests against Donald Trump" is not an argument; if anything, to point out how there is a large number of articles on the subject would support the idea that it is acceptable to create an additional article on the subject) as it would remain a significant attempt at organized opposition. Even unsuccessful protests, movements, marches, coups, and riots have their place in history; even a footnote has notability. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG coverage does not automatically mean this should have a standalone article, which is doomed to remain a stub until April. A few lines in the main article are sufficient and representative of the balance in sources. — JFG ^talk 10:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationales of Bradv and Plantlady223 above. The topic continues to receive coverage, such as this article that was published on the same day that this deletion nomination was initiated (February 5). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. See also WP:NEXIST: topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. No prejudice against renomination that includes a valid deletion rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Educational Trust[edit]

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

This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source until 2007 RaySingh (talk) 08:30, 5 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hunter (composer)[edit]

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

Non-notable teacher per WP:Notability (academics), not a professional musician, no evidence that any of his music is notable. A self-written vanity page sourced only to himself. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: after trying to clean the page up, I agree it becomes clear that there is nothing to meet the notability guidelines either for WP:PROF or WP:NMUSIC. Melcous (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject may become notable some day, he comprehensively fails the general notability/inclusion criteria at WP:ANYBIO as well as the alternative criteria at WP:PROF and WP:MUSICBIO. I haven't been able to find anything better than the sources already used in the article. Of the 8 references, 4 are to his self-written profiles/website, 1 is to his bio at the university where he teaches (ANU), 1 is to the website of someone who collaborated on one of his performances, 1 is to a 10-minute YouTube video made by the music department at ANU (misleadingly described in the references as a "documentary"), and 1 to a brief mention [14] of an upcoming performance at the Canberra Glassworks, which in itself is strongly linked to ANU. I can find no reviews, no articles about his music or performances, or indeed anything about the subject himself that has been published in independent, reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voceditenore's argument is fairly convincing. Add to this Hunter recieved his PhD less than 3 years ago. People rarely make it to being notable academics so soon after earning their PhD. There are exceptions, but no indication this is one. Music is a different story, but no show that Hunter's work has yet become impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 10 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TAGAP: The Apocalyptic Game About Penguins[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no substantial hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, and the non-English sources I found were also cursory or not substantial enough to do justice to the topic. There are no worthwhile redirect targets—only lists from which the title would be removed. czar 11:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 11:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sourcing for this. No RS's listed at Metacritic or Mobygames either. The closest thing I found was a JayIsGames review, but even with that, the Wikiproject says that its the type of source to use sparingly, and isn't good for proving notability, so that doesn't really help either. Probably unlikely to change either, considering the game is a decade old now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 10 February 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 09:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston Research Inc.[edit]

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

No real claim of corporate notability. Moving to draft space would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only at least compared to what this emulates and shows about the company, since it's simply a business listing with the simple company-specifics, clear violations of our policies. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 05:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 05:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space or delete: It's poorly written, I'd say give them one chance to salvage it. Looks like some interesting stuff being done, but I agree with Robert on this one. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft-space A preliminary Google search shows some signs of possible notability. The edit summary of the move to mainspace strongly suggests it was a simple error and that Draft-space was the intended destination anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notwithstanding the move error, the source analysis below shows that this is highly unlikely to be a notable subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - The sourcing I see here in both the current article and searches such as this one show nothing but clear business announcements, mentions, company quotes and all similar. For example, take (current article): 1 is a map and 2 to 3 are all company webpages ---- Now from my searches:
1 to 10 are all clearly labeled company announcements
the next 10 are all still clear company announcements, including from the same labeled publications
same goes for the next 10, except a few publications now in being locally published announcements
same goes the next 10
same goes for the next 10 which continually include such labels as "This is a press release" or a PR trade publication
exactly the same goes for the next 10
actually worse now for the next 10 here because the PR ones largely outweigh the few supposedly better ones
So this all, not only questions why our policies themselves, would accept such violations of both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, but also the fact no one else has actually shown how this can be convincingly improved, because I myself am unable to improve it using these sources. We move articles to Draftspace only when there's a conceivable chance of actually accepting it or quite close to it, and the sources shown haven't convinced us it will happen, hence it would simply be hosting a business page for a company initiating its own advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm persuaded that moving to draft space isn't in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#2, bad faith nomination by a sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Sadorra[edit]

Julio Sadorra – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Primefac deleted the above page and recreated the page ,which was closed by bad NAC.But some other again closed the discussion with bad faith,so i am recreated the page Polammagudi (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC) (Polammagudi (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Wiki-Coffee vote in invalid[edit]

• 17:12, 4 February 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julio Sadorra (2nd nomination) (Duplicate nomination created due to some confusion thanks to a bad NAC close)

Primefac deleted the above page and recreated the discussion page (which was closed by bad NAC).But some other user Favonian again closed the discussion with bad faith. Really Favonian supports CatcherStorm (who is the article creator)?

He is behave like sock and try to save CatcherStorm articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julio_Sadorra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Dallas_Dance_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julio_Sadorra&diff=763684305&oldid=763652690 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Christaphercharly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Dallas_Dance_(2nd_nomination)&diff=763649061&oldid=763638114

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 5 February 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. Consensus is that this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. D. James Holdings, LLC.[edit]

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

No actual evidence of corporate notability. Run-of-the-mill corporation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article does not provide any claim to notability, and RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company, sourced to primary sources and routine listings. I see nothing to indicate more than a company going about its business, nor are my searches providing any indication of encyclopaedic notability. (Note: Draft:A. D. James Holdings, LLC. also exists.) AllyD (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The draft can be deleted if this article is deleted. The draft can be declined as duplicating this article, but the draft hasn't been submitted yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged it for notability but there has ben no improvement since. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I missed one of my search windows doing BEFORE. Bad nomination on my part. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 02:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Barker Band[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:BAND. I could find no real coverage beyond one article in The Boot which I am not sure if is an RS. Beyond that it is just blogs, Spotify, Apple Music etc. Jbh ^Talk 02:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:05, 5 February 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 09:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simunition[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. I find lots of passing mentions but nothing which gives significant coverage of the company. Maybe there is some coverage in specialty publications and if someone can find the sources I will withdraw my nomination. Jbh ^Talk 01:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm seeing uses of "simunition" as a generic noun, but nothing on the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage that exists in reliable sources is (as K.e.coffman mentioned) either referring to a generic product or a very trivial mention (name mention with no further elaboration) in reference to local police departments. No significant coverage. Appable (talk | contributions) 21:15, 5 February 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. So Why 13:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Lee (bishop)[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Wikiain (talk · contribs), whose rationale (seen here) reads thus: "having an organisational position is not enough for notability - WP:GNG". On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it remains controversial whether all bishops in the Anglican community are automatically notable. I think all bishops of apostolic churches are notable, but I'm willing to concede that assistant bishops are not necessarily so. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of WP:N. I've had a look for sources that discuss Lee, I've found a bunch of Anglican church sources that are not independent, as well as a bunch of quotes by Lee on other issues (like this), but those are not discussions of Lee himself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Keep ~~to Assistant bishops in the Diocese of Sydney. All the information in the article is there already by direct implication. I cannot find anything to support notability in its own right.~~ Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Keep per WP:HEY. Sufficient for GNG now. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. It has been a long-standing practice to keep all Anglican bishops. St Anselm (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but how do we apply that to an Assistant Bishop? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. He is not a Bishop suffragan, (Suffragan bishop,) he is the Bishop of the Western Region, one of the Assistant bishops in the Diocese of Sydney, but a full-charge bishop, not a suffragan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC) He is "only" an assistant bishop. See below why we shoulc nevertheless keep/E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just by the by, a news archive search produces newspaper coverage of Lee doing routine bishop things: ordaining pastors, dedicating a memorial plaque honoring a much-beloved headmaster, and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk)

All WP:ROUTINE stuff, in other words? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I do not get it. As long as the article is a micro stub what is the point of it. GNG requires depth, which cannot be over ridden by SNGs. The article currently is actually less informative than what is in the table in Assistant bishops in the Diocese of Sydney, so reduce the uninformative clutter and just redirect to that. If there are core depth references about the bishop himself, can one of the Keepers please list a few, to let me see otherwise. Aoziwe (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have this policy on WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES because bishops are powerful and important. It is true that some bishoprics are less powerful than others, which is why we restrict this practice to major churches. And while it is true that some bishoprics, like some independent states, are less powerful in recent centuries than they were in earlier ones, we keep all men in lists like List of rulers of Baden, and even though there is nothing much to say about Herman VIII, Margrave of Baden-Pforzheim, or about the incumbent Maximilian, Margrave of Baden. We not infrequently find that a largely forgotten man like Richard Trevor (bishop) comes in for a new wave of attention, in this case because he bought a group of paintings of a man and his sons known to art historians as Jacob and his twelve sons by Francisco de Zurbarán - going on a major international tour this summer. Many things can draw sudden attention to a bishop, living or dead. Adnd that is why we keep all of these bishops the way we keep articles about all heads of state, even heads of state as minor as Sint Maarten, (even though there is little to say about the incumbent Eugene Holiday. And we keep every elected member of a provincial legislatures, even the New Hampshire House of Representatives, which, with 400 members, necessarily includes a member of virtually every household in the state, and means that we have about a great many individuals far less notable than Ivan Lee.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's an assistant bishop. Generally only diocesan bishops are considered to be inherently notable at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, I don't think that's quiet accurate. Although I am not defending assistant bishops as automatically getting pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @StAnselm: as an editor who may understand something about the Anglican hierarchy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is accurate. We have certainly never assumed anyone except a diocesan bishop is inherently notable. Non-diocesan bishops have been deleted in the past - in fact, I don't think I've ever seen one kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check. He is an assistant bishop in the diocese of Sydney. Not automatically notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you give me an example of an AfD about an assistant bishop? St Anselm (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, We can now Keep in the ordinary way. Using his middle name brings up coverage of his career, which I have added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory, the additions still don't include anything notable. Most of your examples above are of people who have done something notable or have been in a notable position. Eugene Holiday is governor of a Dutch land, which is a notable position. Your claim about the New Hampshire House of Representatives seems somewhat exaggerated: the article says "On average, each legislator represents about 3,300 residents" which looks like a bit more than a household. A sampling in Assistant bishops in the Diocese of Sydney shows assistant bishops who became notable through elevation to bishop. As Lankiveil says, the Lee material is still all WP:ROUTINE stuff. Wikiain (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, every single name on that page is blue-linked. Why is this article being singled out? St Anselm (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm, many editors are ignorant of the nature of Bishopship, ignorant of Christianty, and ignorant of history.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiain, It is always difficult to enter a conversation that has been going on for a while. However, do note that the "examples" you refer to were not examples, but an explanation of the reasons why in terms of notability, Anglican Bishops are treated like heads of state and members provincial legislatures (Also: I sometimes forget that there is NOJOKINGALLOWEDONWIKIPEDIA; but I assure you that the New Hampshire remark was a joke. ) Note, however, that David Boutin and many similar name check articles exist because the position they hold is notable. Please take another look at the articles I cited, I do NOT regard the sourcing as "routine" or inadequate as inadequate. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who can claim that the appointment of this son of Chinese immigrants is less than notable cannot be aware of how radical this was in White Australia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You realise that "white Australia" ended as a policy well before Lee's appointment in 2002, right? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Of course I do. And I also realize that it was many years before the complexion of theocountry began oto change. And that Racism in Australia did not vanish with repeal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fear there are a number of editors who don't understand how assistant bishops work in an archdiocese. The only reason he's an "assistant" is that it's an arch-diocese. Otherwise "Western Region" would be its own diocese. After all, Bishop Lee has his "own" cathedral: St John's Cathedral, Parramatta. St Anselm (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So an archdiocese is less than a diocese although an archbishop is more than a bishop? And he works in a big office? These ecclesiastical arcana aren't convincing me. Wikiain (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? I'm suggesting a "region" in an archdiocese is the equivalent to a diocese. St Anselm (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't, is it? Otherwise it would be called a diocese! An archdiocese in the Anglican church is just a diocese that happens to be headed by an archbishop as its diocesan bishop. The group of dioceses headed by that archbishop is a province. This is merely an area of a diocese. See Diocese of Canterbury as opposed to Province of Canterbury, for example. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Diocese of Canterbury doesn't have regions; it has archdeaconries instead, such as the Archdeacon of Maidstone. So the Bishop of the Western Region might be like that, or like the Bishop of Dover, except that there is no cathedral in Dover. (And, needless to say, all the Bishops of Dover have WP articles.) St Anselm (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article in The Tablet: First Chinese-Australian bishop will be a great enrichment to the Church [15] Great story, and, pace the snark from User:Lankiveil above, something worth bragging about. Except, the story ran in 2017. And it's about Roman Catholic Bishop Anthony Fisher. An article published in 2002 in the Sydney Morning Herald (already added to the article) called Ivan Lee the first Chinese-Australian Bishop.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Tablet's "First Chinese-Australian bishop" in the Catholic church in 2017 show about an Anglican assistant bishop in 2002? Being the "first" something is not intrinsicaily notable. (And Lankiveil was simply noting that your reference to the White Australia policy was wrong by about 30 years. Beat me to it by a couple of moments.) Wikiain (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had pointed to the fact that he is the son of immigrants form China, which I added to the page, citing an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, with the assertion that this fact supports notability, another editor dismissed the assertion. I brought this story from a London paper trumpeting the appointment of the First Chinese-Australian bishop" to show that this is, indeed, a type of ethnic milestone regarded as significant by the world in general.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "a type of ethnic milestone regarded as significant by the world in general". But a milestone upon what road? It is the road to assistant bishop and I am suggesting that you need something more.

Are you suggesting that Lee's appointment is an exception to an ordinary practice of racial discrimination by the Catholic and Anglican churches in Australia? If you are, please provide evidence. My impression is that, in recent decades, those organisations have been at the forefront of opposition to racial discrimination.

Please also consider an alternative and innocent explanation: that Lee being a first Chinese-Australian Anglican assistant bishop might be simply because there might not be very many Chinese-Australian Anglicans, or not with sufficient qualifications for that level of appointment. I have no way to find out, but I think you should consider these possibilities.Wikiain (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I meant only that these ethnic group "firsts" are celebrated in the ethnic and general press. The fact is that Chinese parishes are a huge and flourishing part of the Anglican community in general and NSW in particular. And, yes, of course the Church has been in the forefront on this issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding citations, but none of them shows that Lee has influenced anybody. Maybe you can show that, but just referring to him as a "leader" in an apparently small organisation does not do so—especially because the Porter article cited does not actually mention him. Nor is he mentioned in the GAFCON article. Through that article, I have traced the linked organisation FCA Australia, which however also does not mention Lee—especially, as of the election of directors in September 2016 he is not a director of that body. Wikiain (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly he was/is part of the leadership of GAFCOM [16], [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN I urge editors to look at the sourcing now in the article. And to remember that "Lee" is such a common name that some good-faith searches may have found less than is out there. Also, the many hits about his bout with pancreatic cancer probably account for the fact that he appears to have been less active in recent years that he was about a decade ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Also, as E.M.Gregory points out, there are likely more offline sources given his activity has flagged. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. despite the good work of E.M.Gregory. There simply isn't enough. The SNG limits itself to bishops for a reason--unless they;re promoted , an assistant bishop is not likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I think you misunderstand what an assistant bishop is: an assistant bishop is a bishop. See Bishop#Catholic Church, Orthodox churches and Anglican churches. When WP:CLERGY mentions "bishop" that includes assistants (though AFAIK no "assistant bishop" has ever been nominated before at AfD). St Anselm (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a/c the article linked to above, Bishop#Catholic Church, Orthodox churches and Anglican churches an assistant bishop in the Anglican church would normally be a retired bishop, though there seems to be no precise specification. However, based on the article Assistant bishops in the Diocese of Sydney, that paragraph is not correct, they seem rather to be in charge of a territorial Region within the diocese. Since that's the essence of why bishops are considered notable, this would count. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are more like "Area bishops" in England. St Anselm (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Bishops in major denominations are normally notable, and this includes suffrigans, who may in some places be called Assistant bishops. The fact that a diocese needs an assistant bishop is itself an indication that the diocese is big enough to need one, pointing to notability. If the position is anything like a suffrigan in England, the position allows him to minister anywhere in the diocese, but he in fact concentrates on a particular area. Nevertheless, territory should be irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 12 February 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Crick" vs "Creek"[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTDICT as it is just the origin of creek (something that should be in a dictionary). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crickin' dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't even say who pronounces it "crick" -- if the urban/rural split is a US-thing then it could be redirected to somewhere within North American English regional phonology perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrStrauss (talk • contribs) 10:34, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Khan (Film actor)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. According to his self-written IMDb biography, he played one "supporting role", with another film in pre-production. No reliable sources, and I can't even confirm independently that IMDb's filmography is correct. Bollywood Hungama doesn't list him as a cast member for the film he supposedly acted in. Huon (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, can't find anything in reliable sources to support his role in any film listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfortunately the article is crammed with unreliable sources, references with trivial name mentions and less. Searching found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Cannot find any reliable source and fails WP:NACTOR JackTracker (talk) 23:38, 5 February 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. Consensus is that this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Artists Records[edit]

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

Not related to the 1960s Houston, Texas indie label International Artists. Unreferenced ever since it was created by an owner of the company in 2013.[18] Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and ProQuest found a single one-sentence mention.[19] Does not meet WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unreferenced and promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have thought, collecting classical on vinyl as I do, that a label producing classical music in the USA since 1956 would have shown up sometime, but I've never ever never seen it. I can't find anything but directory listings for references. Must be distributed very locally. Does not appear to meet any definition of notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a record label, coverage of it is virtually non-existent—it gets a mention here in a local NYC magazine from 1975 and the main person behind it, Mark Andersen, is covered in this article in a local newspaper for Lumberton, North Carolina. There are a couple of very obscure holdings listed in WorldCat OCLC 30847587, OCLC 30847696 and ...er.. that's it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:38, 8 February 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 as a hoax. I've turned it into a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo-kai Watch (film)[edit]

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

This article is about an upcoming film, so the relevant notability guideline is WP:NFF. I cannot find very many reliable sources that definitively confirm the existence of this upcoming film, let alone whether it is clearly out of the pre-production process as NFF requires for animated films. Here may be one that says "it's coming" but nothing more. Some of the content that was in the article appeared to have been unverifiable speculation (violation of WP:CRYSTAL), such as this cast list that included Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande. The production company and distributors that are listed in the article (Sony Pictures Animation and Columbia Pictures) are also inconsistent with past films in this franchise (where OLM, Inc. was the production company and Toho the distributor -- see Yo-kai Watch: The Movie), and I was unable to find any verification that American production companies are being involved. It is most likely too soon for a standalone article at this time. Mz7 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Yo-kai Watch: The Movie. I could not find anything whatsoever about an American-made Yo-Kai Watch film (and given how the franchise didn't exactly do well in the West, I doubt one will be made anytime soon). I have a suspicion that the article in its current form is a complete hoax: the Yo-Kai Watch film referred to in Mz7's link is for a completely unrelated Japanese YW film. If Genndy Tartakovsky really was involved in the making of such a film, given his reputation in the Western animation industry, that should surely raise eyebrows and have coverage, but no. The article is close to being a G3 hoax: it's probably not blatant enought to be eligible for G3 (remember that legimitate films in the franchise do exist), but it sure is close to one. If the article is deleted, I suggest that the title be recreated as a redirect to the article on the legitimate YW film (Yo-kai Watch: The Movie) as a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a hoax. Tartakovsky might not necessarily be one of those guys that gets news whenever he farts, but he most certainly would get coverage if he were to direct a film for a major anime series. Also, Justin Bieber is one of those people who gets coverage for his bodily functions and there's no way that he'd be attached to this film and not have it mentioned somewhere. There are just too many big names attached to this, including big companies, for there to be zero coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- as a blatant WP:HOAX per the obviously inflated cast and crew list. The article's creator also has a history of similar problematic edits. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:20, 6 February 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. While the content forking argument is a strong one, those arguing for deletion have not been able to demonstrate that WP:CFORK#List formats does not apply in this case, especially considering the issues raised that the list that is currently included in List of Presidents of the United States does not convey the same information in the same clear way. Possibly the information can be merged to the latter article at a later time but currently there is no consensus to prefer one such list over the other. So Why 13:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the United States by time in office[edit]

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

Taking this to AFD since PROD was contested. Aside from specific day counts (which are overall superfluous), this is a repetitive content fork that needlessly rehashes the terms of office mentioned on List of Presidents of the United States. William Henry Harrison's month in office and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 12 years in office are already included on that page along with everyone else's date ranges serving as president. This should therefore not have its own page per WP:Content forking#Redundant content forks when all of the non-trivial content is already included in the main list of presidents article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No, there is no other page with the same content in an easily displayed format. Please don't delete this. Earthscent (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the tables within the main presidents list (which I linked above), then you'll see there's a column with their full terms of office. That part is what's truly important. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It doesn't show that at all. There's no column that shows the number of days in office. It shows the dates they were in office. And that table isn't sortable, so it is not at all the same thing.Earthscent (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the numbers of days are superfluous. The focus should be on years and perhaps months. As for the table, maybe someone could alter that to make it sortable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your opinion. Earthscent (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment, not a vote yet This list may have some use as the BBC had an article about US presidential length. They concluded that Bill Clinton had the second longest time in office after FDR, albeit only a few minutes longer than many other 2 term presidents. Lakeshake (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this? It actually says just 5 seconds over 8 years, but far too trivial of a detail regardless. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that this list has been maintained and developed since 2004 and has been completely unchallenged until now gives me pause. On inauguration day, page views spiked to over 15,000,[20] despite not even showing up in the first page of likely search results,[21],[22] suggesting a lot of readers have found this separate list useful. And before WP:ITSUSEFUL is raised, utility is key to determining whether to present lists on the same topic, organized in different formats and focusing on different facts; the nominator's argument is also essentially "it's not useful" and so they apparently agree that this is how we should analyze it. As pointed out above, the parent list of U.S. presidents does not present this information in this level of detail or in a manner that allows this ranking to be made easily. Given the attention that every aspect of the lives and service of U.S. presidents receives, length of service is hardly minor trivia. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page views and duration of existence are entirely moot points per the WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:ARTICLEAGE sections of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially when the article doesn't offer any new significant detail. The WP:ITSUSEFUL section says to give a reason why something is or is not useful rather than simply saying "it's useful" or "it's not useful". I've noted that it isn't useful because the exact durations served in office are already included in the main list of presidents article. The days when one entered and left office are what's important, not the exact day count. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I am far from sure this is useful. It is mostly about whether they served one term or two. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I share Peterkingiron's doubts about whether this is really useful or not. More than half of the presidents involved here are clustered in two 10+-way ties at "exactly one full term" (rank #22) and "exactly two full terms" (rank 2), and each of those clusters also has one additional quirky situation under it, where another president who also served exactly the same number of terms happened to serve for marginally fewer days due to some insignificant technicality. The fact that the leap year of his term didn't contain a leap day, because of the 100/400 thing, is not an important distinction between John Adams and the eleven other presidents clustered at the 22nd rank — the fact that he served for one fewer day than the other one-full-term presidents did is not a significant enough detail to warrant ranking him below the others. There is some value to the overall information, given that there are numerous presidents who have served incomplete first or second terms in office, as well as one who served more than two terms in office because term limits hadn't been implemented yet — but enumerating the terms in days, as a separate standalone list, isn't the most useful way to present it. Snuggums is correct that what's important here is the number of years and months in office, not the number of days, and so it is effectively a content fork from the main list. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's interesting but it's another OR-fest list. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping in mind WP:CALC, what do you think is OR? postdlf (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, I never read CALC. I had been firm in saying that "2+2=4" is OR if you don't have a source for it. I guess I'm wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a kind of traditional, children-oriented encyclopedia article that would be appropriate in World Book Encyclopedia or Childcraft or other tried-and-true encyclopedias. It is factual, it is not disputed. It makes certain information salient/sortable, and it does not matter that the same information is technically available in another list-article if one went through a lot of effort to compute the number of days in various date-ranges and compose this again from scratch. --do ncr am 18:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It actually DOES matter that the exact time ranges for terms of office are included per WP:Content forking#Redundant content forks since the page creates needless repetition. Effort (or lack thereof) is irrelevant per the WP:MERCY and WP:EFFORT sections of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of a sortable table elsewhere doesn't make this article useless. It's near impossible to sort tables on mobile devices. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything that isn't trivial is already at List of Presidents of the United States. Redundant content fork. Flat Out (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The List of Presidents of the United States only lists the presidents in chronological order. This article lists the presidents in order of total time served. If a reader wanted to know the order of the American presidents by time in office they would first have to decipher it out of the other article; whereas in comparison, this list is more convenient and easier to search for that information. The List of Presidents of the United States article also does not list the lengths of the presidents' terms in days like this article does so information would actually be lost if this list is deleted. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, exact day count is superfluous compared to years and (in the cases of James A. Garfield and William Henry Harrison) months. I also doubt anybody would look for such an order, plus the main article already noted how Harrison's term was the shortest and FDR's was the longest anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The counting of the length of the presidents' terms by days is not irrelevant as their were many presidents that did not serve a full term. For example, General Zachary Taylor served 1 year 4 months and 5 days (or 492 days) of his term. The List of Presidents of the United States only gives the start and end dates for the presidents' terms so if a reader desires to know the precise date they would have to decipher it. Again, it is easier to find this information with this article. The other article may state that Franklin Roosevelt had the longest term and William Harrison the shortest, but it does not state the order in between. The List of Presidents of the United States is also not sortable so even if the other article stated the exact length in the Presidency column it it would be impossible to get the order as displayed in this article. As for whether someone would look for such an order, I did, which is how I arrived at this AfD. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's truly important for people like Taylor is years and months in office, not day count, and main list already does an adequate job of providing ranges served. As for lengths in between FDR and Harrison's terms, Garfield is the only possible instance where "duration rank" (for a lack of a better term) was really a prominent trait as he was the one other president aside from Harrison to serve for less than a year when he died six months after his inauguration. Remember that Wikipedia isn't supposed to have excessive listings (which this page is) per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Presidents of the United States does not do "an adequate job of providing ranges served" because all that is provided are the start and end date of a presidency, not the specific length of time that they occupied the office. It is not necessary that this list counts by day, it could alternatively count by year and day such as in List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office or List of Chancellors of Germany by time in office, or by year, month and day such as in List of Joint Premiers of the Province of Canada by time in office. What is important is that the specific duration of the presidents' terms in office remains. The current consensus would appear to be that lists of office holders by time in office are not considered "indiscriminate collections of information" seeing as there is an entire category for them. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, start and end dates are the truly important facts, and people can calculate months/years on their own anyway. We shouldn't go into minute details. Secondly, other similar articles existing (or not existing) is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. Whether other pages are warranted is a separate discussion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue OTHERSTUFF, I noted that consensus seems to have been reached regarding whether lists of office holders by time in office violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These lists clearly present a very specific, not indiscriminate, collection of valuable information. This list is a ranking of the American presidents by time in office. It is not a rubbish listing like List of Asian golfers or List of outdoor speeches where the weather was sunny. That people can calculate length on their own is irrelevant as it is much easier to read the data from a table than to process 44 different time periods through one's head; some readers, be they children or developmentally disabled people, can't do calculations on their own so they would lose access to such information if this page is removed. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting other pages' existence (or lack thereof) is literally the definition of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which is what you quite clearly just did. Don't try to pretend otherwise. Ranking of such durations is indiscriminate trivia for everyone except Harrison, FDR, and maybe Garfield because none of the other presidents are prominently noted for such traits. Such a "loss" isn't so detrimental when it lacks overall significance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not "indiscriminate trivia" but rather an acceptable WP:SUBARTICLE and WP:SPLITLIST of List of Presidents of the United States. My reasoning was not as WP:OTHERSTUFF says "based solely on whether other articles exist." I was pointing out that we do not delete so-called "lists of office holders by time in office" articles because they are indiscriminate stockpiles of data and that WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. That such data is only "indiscriminate trivia" except for "Harrison, FDR, and ... Garfield" is really only your opinion. It has often been mentioned that Ford only served half of a term and being the only president not to be elected the office or the vice-presidency. It has also been noted of Lincoln dying very early into his second term and thus being unable to fulfill his goals for that term. Of all of these it is easier to glean this information from this article than it is from the parent article. Once again, this article is not a collection of insignificant data, but a ranking of very specific information. Information that exists no where else on this wiki, hence it is clearly not a content fork of List of Presidents of the United States.. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I'm certainly not alone in deeming this trivial given the other "delete votes". If we took out day counts, then this would be a thinly veiled duplicate of the main list. As for Lincoln, while his second term might be noted for only lasting one month before his assassination, I'm certain that the amount of people who really bother to go into day count is quite minimal (if even existent). Same thing with Ford, who might be known for only serving between 2 and 3 years in office, but his lack of election isn't the focus either way. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if the day counts remain it is clearly not a duplicate. As a subarticle of course it is similar to the main article but only if you remove its defining characteristics. If the bar for articles being content forks is that high, that pretty much bars the creation of any WP:SPLITLIST entirely. The information this article presents is not present at the parent article, nor at any other article in this wiki, thus it is most definitely not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated before the article was a duplicate aside from day counts, and superfluous additions like that are nowhere near enough to make up for it. Such a count is by no means worth including anywhere at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page is as valid WP:SUBARTICLE and WP:SPLITLIST of List of Presidents of the United States, and provides clear and and concise information. Drdpw (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the only additions that aren't repeated from main list are minute trivia Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As we've got List of Vice Presidents of the United States by time in office, as so it would be strange to delete this article. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF, which says you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. That other article's existence is a separate matter. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By nominating this article for deletion, you should've also nominated the related Veep article. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that article at the time, but now THAT IS FOR A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't relevant here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is relevant. This article is a part of a series of articles, as well. Therefore, I shall continue to support keeping this article. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is flawed, and you haven't even tried to give any real rationale as how its existence has any merit, though there aren't any good reasons for keeping it regardless. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per my comments on th r article's talk page. While OTHERSTUFF is generally an argument to avoid, I think it has more relevance than usual here given the existence of a set of closely linked lists of Presidents of the United States by various features. Removing this list, especially while the main list is not sortable by length of term makes the set less coherent, not more. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't actually carry any more weight here than other cases. While someone might be able to make some type of sortable parameter on the main list, length of term isn't overall a defining trait for most presidents to begin with, and you've even admitted yourself that day count is trivia. The points on supposed popularity and article existing for a while are also entirely moot per the WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:POPULARPAGE sections of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is useful for highlighting presidents who have served unusual term lengths. —Mulad (talk) 23:12, 12 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Smagin (musician)[edit]

Do not show the significance of the article of the hero, there is no article in the Russian Wikipedia. Sources in the article is not authoritative.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 00:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 00:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. - TheMagnificentist 19:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 10 February 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. - Deleted under G5 by Jezebel's Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AT Black Knight Transformer[edit]

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

This flying thing doesn't hardly exist yet, except maybe for whatever is shown in promotional videos on the internet. I find no reliable sources, it's not yet in production, and the company making it doesn't seem to be notable either. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It fails WP:N, with no third party references to show notability. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my crystal ball. Nördic Nightfury 11:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not as yet shown to be notable; "still under development"; premature at best. Reads likes a press release and has no RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see the in depth independent coverage generally necessary for GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I deleted half the article because it was copied verbatim from a source that wasn't linked. [23] Felsic2 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've speedy deleted the article under G5 criteria as it was created by a (now blocked) sock of Ctway.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 6 February 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. The consensus here is that the coverage available in reliable sources for the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Mz7 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting Nurse Service of New York[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article should be deleted because it fails to meet Wikipedia notability standards. I admit that the article is professionally written and nice looking but that is not a criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. The company is simply a nursing company in New York. See below for delete reasons, which is basically not meeting any of the criteria of "Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)" or WP:COMPANY. Lakeshake (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

further evidence of delete

WP:CORPDEPTH states "the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." SORRY, FAILS.

WP:AUD, a subsection of the corporate notability page states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." SORRY, FAILS.

WP:ORGIND, a subsection of the corporate notability page states "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." SORRY, FAILS.

WP:NONPROFIT, a subsection of the corporate notability page states "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple[2] reliable sources that are independent of the organization." SORRY, FAILS EACH OF THE TWO CRITERIA AND ALSO FAILS BOTH CRITERIA

Sorry, while written like a professional and has a nice logo, it fails. Lakeshake (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting "sorry, fails" repeatedly comes across as snide and unjustified. There are sources about this organization. I would hope that repetition of an incorrect assertion should not "WIN" an AFD, though I think it did set the stage to garner a couple votes of agreement. The goal should not be winning, but rather improving the existing Wikipedia coverage. --do ncr am 21:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although a non-profit, the article is still highly promotional (I consider any article with a Mission section unencyclopedic), with only primary references. Fails WP:NORG. MB 01:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the nomination calls it professionally-written, meaning it is well-written and not promotional. This vote seems to be about a different article? --do ncr am 18:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and per insufficient coverage in quality independent sources Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the ping-pong like responses to every vote, but this comment seems not informed by any searching. There are quality independent sources available, easily found. --do ncr am 18:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a huge and important organization. Article doesn't seem particularly promotional, perhaps it was edited? And I immediately find multiple sources, including this New York Times article, which terms it "one of the largest nonprofit home health care agencies in the United States" and gives it credit for a lineage going back to its founder, Lillian Wald, who began in 1893. --do ncr am 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying they are no good but doesn't meet so many of the Wikipedia guidelines. That's the problem with Wikipedia, full of video game and porn star articles because they meet the criteria. Lakeshake (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a major organization that is the subject of academic research and has staff who do research themselves. The Google Scholar search link yields, among its first hits:
- "Are there racial differences in attitudes toward hospice care? A study of hospice-eligible patients at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York" P Rosenfeld, J Dennis, S Hanen… - American Journal of …, 2007 - journals.sagepub.com / Research on African American and white attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge of hospice care has focused predominantly on patients and providers in institutions and community-based care settings. Little is known about patients receiving home health services, despite / Cited by 25 Related articles All 11 versions Cite Save
- "Healing at Home: Visiting Nurse Service of New York, 1893-1993" / E Denker - 1993 - Visiting Nurse Service of New York / Cited by 5 Related articles Cite Save More
- "Using technology to enhance the quality of home health care: Three case studies of health information technology initiatives at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York"
I voted "Keep" above. There is no way this should be deleted. --do ncr am 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Stubify - a cursory search suggests more than enough to get this past WP:GNG ~~if not WP:ORG~~. I am happy to do some work on this article, ~~it is in poor shape~~ and take it back to a stub format with reliable sources from which it can be expanded. I review of the history shows the article was taken from a stub to an advertisement by a single authorFlat Out (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider ~~merging with~~ improving the article on the Visiting Nurse Association. I just contributed an image from the Commons to that article, a photograph from a 1906 magazine article titled "The Visiting Nurse as Social Force". The history of the VNA organizations is all but forgotten, and merits inclusion here. — WFinch (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Keep - I have started improving this article by cutting it right back, removing the copy vio, advertising and POV. I have added a ~~couple~~ number of reliable sources, and there are more out there. The organisation has a rich history (not all positive) and is notable in its own right. @Lakeshake: you might consider withdrawing your nomination based on these improvements Flat Out (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram and Flat Out. Thanks to Flat Out for improving the article. The organization is clearly notable, and the nominator's comparison of this article to articles about video games and porn stars is ludicrous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article improved, notability established. Montanabw^(talk) 11:12, 11 February 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.