Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 January	15 January >

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup

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

This article duplicates information that exists at the national team page of Israel. Therefore its unnecessary. Nations at the xxx pages are also reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [1], There is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Considering Israel hasn't competed in some of the events below. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Adding these related articles for a similar reason (the information exists at the main World Championships page).[reply]

Please visit the AfD page for the full set of links for these articles.

Israel at the 1954 FIBA World Championship

Israel at the 1986 FIBA World Championship

Israel at the 1956 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the 1960 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the 1964 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the 1968 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the UEFA European Championship (Note the country has never qualified for this tournament, and therefore the title is misleading)

Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship (Note the country has never qualified for this tournament, and therefore the title is misleading)

Israel at the EuroBasket

Israel at the EuroBasket 1959

Israel at the EuroBasket 1961

Israel at the EuroBasket 1963

Israel at the EuroBasket 1965

Israel at the EuroBasket 1967

Israel at the EuroBasket 1969

Israel at the EuroBasket 1971

Israel at the EuroBasket 1973

Israel at the EuroBasket 1975

Israel at the EuroBasket 1977

Israel at the EuroBasket 1979

Israel at the EuroBasket 1981

Israel at the EuroBasket 1983

Israel at the EuroBasket 1985

Israel at the EuroBasket 1987

Israel at the EuroBasket 1993

Israel at the EuroBasket 1995

Israel at the EuroBasket 1997

Israel at the EuroBasket 1999

Israel at the EuroBasket 2001

Israel at the EuroBasket 2003

Israel at the EuroBasket 2005

Israel at the EuroBasket 2007

Israel at the EuroBasket 2009

Israel at the EuroBasket 2011

Israel at the EuroBasket 2013

Israel at the EuroBasket 2015

Israel at the EuroBasket 2017

Israel at the EuroBasket Women

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1950

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1991

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1995

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1997

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1999

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2001

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2003

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2005

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2007

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2009

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2011

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2013

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2015

Israel at the FIFA World Cup

Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup

Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup

Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic

Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic

Israel at the 2010 European Baseball Championship (misleading title as the country did not qualify for the tournament)

Israel at the 2012 European Baseball Championship (misleading title as the country did not qualify for the tournament)

Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (misleading title as the country did not qualify for the tournament)

Israel at the European Championship of American football

Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup

Israel at the 1992 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1993 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1994 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1995 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1996 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1997 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1998 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1999 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2000 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2001 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2002 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2003 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2004 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2005 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2006 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2007 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2008 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2009 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2010 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2011 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2012 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2013 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2014 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2015 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2016 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the IIHF World Championship

Keep - Firstly I see no policy stated as to why it should be deleted, only the person's opinion. Secondly, saying some without having the world qualifying in it is not a reason to delete, if anything thats a move. Third, its not reserved only for multi sport events, every country has there own World Cup page, and Brazil for example has one for every year. - Galatz ^Talk 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication is not allowed on Wikipedia. its not my personal opinion. If you took the time too look at the other related AFD's you would see there is a consensus to delete these sort of nation pages at a single sport event. For ex. the road cycling pages were all deleted with the same reasoning provided here. If a nation does not qualify for an event there is no need for an article. It is misleading the to the reader! Again nation pages are almost exclusively reserved for multi-sporting events as the above AFD's will tell you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other user's and administrator's, the above user has had similar articles deleted in regards to their second reason [2]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Initially I thought that these articles would be notable in tournaments Israel actually qualified for (like the Brazil ones Galatz mentioned.) However, after looking at the above AfDs, I don't think those are notable either. The Brazil ones should be deleted as well, and I have no objection to nominating them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama:I could understand you saying the individual years like the Brazil ones more than the one that summarizes the tournament. There is not one other page that summarizes every appears at the World Cup. You would need to check hundreds of different pages to find everything that Brazil at the FIFA World Cup summarizes. It doesn't make sense to do that, the country at the games is inherently notable and meets WP:GNG at the very least. - Galatz ^Talk 04:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Brazil national football team would cover most of it. And in any case, Brazil has qualified for every FIFA World Cup, while Israel has qualified for one. If we put the Brazil ones up for deletion, we can discuss these issues there. But they don't apply to the Israel page. Smartyllama (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – spam like this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. How many AfDs are there going to be on these? Laurdecl ^talk 01:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurdec1: You can't really say they are spam without reviewing them. For example, look at Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic. It is extremely well source, and no matter what, with that level of coverage you cannot say it does not meet WP:GNG.

Delete. Nothing notable about these pages. And huge lack of sources doesn't help it either. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: You are clearly generalizing, I gain use the reference right above you of Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic. How can you say that doesn't have sources or meet GNG? - Galatz ^Talk 14:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is not the main subject here so I'm not generalizing anything. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: But you just voted to delete every single article, which means that you automatically are - Galatz ^Talk 16:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for nitpicking. I gave my opinion and that won't change. Just because I have a different opinion, that doesn't mean you can come here and cry. The community's vote will decide what to do with these articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voiced my objection to the hockey articles previously, not sure about including all of these sports together though. If you look at WP:SPORTSEVENT the clear direction is to expand the existing articles first and then evaluate whether an independent article is warranted. This was not done, the information was mostly just duplicated, and not even correctly. So the question is, (to me anyway) whether the existing pages would be improved upon if left up. Even after pointing out the errors to the creator, some of the mistakes were not remedied. I find it unlikely in retrospect that they ever will be unless I do it myself so I would prefer them to be deleted.18abruce (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the individual year pages, as they are unlikely to really expand and offer little different from the main relevant articles, but Keep the "Israel at (insert tournament)" as that seems like something that could provide more in depth detail and a summary of Israel's participation in said tournaments. This would even go for things like the UEFA Euro championship, which as noted while Israel has never played in the final tournament, has participated in qualification (which seems relevant for such an article). Kaiser matias (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Israel at the FIBA World Championship, Israel at the EuroBasket, Israel at the IIHF World Championship, etc. The articles about the respective national teams are too big, and having those extra pages are a great way to keep them reasonably long. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Alternatively, merge - but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not stats database. Renata (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:NOTSTATS violations. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a way to approach each of these articles individually? It's hard to make a determination on all of them combined at a glance. For the instances where they didn't compete in qualifying or the tournament itself, I agree that there's no need for the article. However, where they did compete, there should be something. There might be some middle ground, but it's difficult to ascertain here. I think it's better to close this AfD and re-open it on each individual article. South Nashua (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @South Nashua: We tried that a while back, but there were way too many of them and it became unwieldy so they were all closed. Smartyllama (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Acknowledged. Thanks for bringing me partially up to speed. South Nashua (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @South Nashua:@Smartyllama: That is an extremely misleading way of saying it and entirely incorrect. The initial nomination was the same issue as he is bringing up here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. Then you tried it again for only one set of articles and the result was overwhelmingly keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (2nd nomination). Please show me how nominating the European Baseball ones by themselves got "unwieldy". I think he wants something more like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination).- Galatz ^Talk 15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Galatz: @South Nashua: I should have been clearer, you're right. However, what happened with the original AfD is that they were first nominated as ~100 different AfDs, which was unworkable. Then they were merged as here, but the damage was already done and it was closed. It's unreasonable to make people participate in ~100 different AfDs about similar articles. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Gotcha. In that case, if there's a way to separate out the instances where Israel participated in these events and the instances were they didn't, I could register my viewpoint. (former = keep, latter = delete). I think qualification can be considered a part of the tournament, but if they weren't in even a part of the tournament and there's nothing to explain some significant reason why (i.e. - a scandal or what not), then I don't see why there would be an article. South Nashua (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @South Nashua: You're welcome to express that view anyway. There's no rule saying you have to vote all-or-nothing. And given there are multiple ways we could separate them (Galatz mentioned possibly separating them by sport) we couldn't possibly separate them by every logical combination. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the hockey ones, Israel never participated at the top-level tournament, which per WP:NHOCKEY is the only one that counts for conferring notability on players. They only participated in lower divisions, which don't confer notability onto players. I don't know if the same principle would apply here if we decide to keep only tournaments Israel actually qualified for. Smartyllama (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did in 2006. - Galatz ^Talk 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Division I is not the top division. See 2006 IIHF World Championship, which is the top division. Smartyllama (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Israel at X", Merge editions This information is better gathered at "nation at competition" level. The study of individual countries at major international sporting events (such as world and major continental championships) is a key part of any nation's sporting history (the performance at individual editions, ultimately less so). The per edition information should be merged into the main "Israel at X" articles. Also note that WP:NOTSTATS is entirely non-relevant to this discussion as the statistics gathered are very discriminate and are contextualised. Of much more relevance is the first sentence from Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This type of information very clearly resembles that of sporting almanacs and is thus relevant to our community's scope. SFB 00:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Just looks like a spam to me. Lots of violations as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not really familiar with FIBA, so I may have missed something, but is there anything noteworthy at, say, Israel at the EuroBasket 1975 that isn't covered at EuroBasket 1975? If there is, would it not make more sense to include it there rather than splitting the information out among (potentially) twelve different articles (plus the main one, I guess) that all cover the same event from marginally different perspectives? That just seems really unwieldy. Matt Deres (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Matt Deres: I think for major events it is useful as you can go more in-depth on the team's performance than you would do at a tournament level. Personally I think that is best done at the Israel at the EuroBasket level where the nation's history and progress at the event can be better contextualised in a way that is not possible at any other venue (I see lots of value and merit in things like England at the FIFA World Cup). Especially for single team sports events, the summary of the nation at a single edition will always struggle to add much more to what is already present elsewhere. SFB 21:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sillyfolkboy: I can understand that. Maybe even both 'rolled up' articles make sense. For example, we have an article on the New York Yankees and we have articles for each World Series that's been played, but we don't have articles on New York Yankees in the 1975 post-season (multiplied by similar pages for every team involved). Matt Deres (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least all the individual year ones per the points immediately above. Matt Deres (talk) 03:25, 28 January 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of works of fiction by year

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

This article should be deleted as it has only one blue link after the articles bundled with WP:Articles for deletion/List of works of fiction set in 2029 were deleted. This means the article is not any use for navigation list. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 23:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by the closure of the other Afd by @King of Hearts:, in a manner that I thought was hasty. The minimum number of days had just passed, new editors were still contributing and the opinions expressed were not uniformly to delete. But with that closure this list serves no purpose and I think WP:G8 might even apply. I'll tag it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody really goes around grouping/analyzing fiction by year. This would also be a massive undertaking, inasmuch as many works take place over a number of years and there's a ginormous amount of fiction. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 15 January 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. Already speedy deleted. Tone 13:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard M. Resh

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

Article violates WP:BLP by not having any reliable sources. One source is his website, the other source is a resort website. Rogermx (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wrekk

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

The subject of the article isn't sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article Ryujinjakka (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous afd is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex wrekk

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to NBC Sports. T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sports Live Extra

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

Procedural nomination. IPs keep nominating for CSD, and I suspect it is a deliberate attempt to disrupt. Was previously a redirect,, and I suggest we restore it. Adam9007 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect; IP basically trying to mountain up a molehill for the network's TV Everywhere service. Probably best to build up a short paragraph in NBCSN, where it streams most of its content from. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close No argument for deletion. See also WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs that were vandalizing this article have all been blocked. Nevertheless, it may still be worth having a discussion about this article, but it doesn't necessarily need to be here. Brad v 03:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because DeltaQuad blocked all for 3 months of editing period but DeltaQuad gaved the reason anonblock and Extended Vandalism. An IP is trying to delete the page but administrator are showing and the article but it nominated in my talk page. 66.215.134.13 06:50, 15 January 2017
Comment The article is unsourced and out of date. NBC Sports mentions this topic several times and has sources. I think a redirect would be a great improvement. Haven't spend the time to gauge whether a case can be made for a separate article. Gab4gab (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NBC Sports, the parent topic. No independent evidence of notability for this streaming service. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:49, 21 January 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. Tone 14:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Taplin

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a politician with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL, as his only substantive claims of notability are serving as a local municipal councillor in a small town and being appointed to advisory committees, and no strong evidence of satisfying WP:GNG, as the referencing here is entirely to government press releases, a blurb about him winning a university scholarship, and a single news article about him in the local media where coverage of local municipal politics is purely WP:ROUTINE. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where a person is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists -- if he keeps it up he's quite likely to get back into Wikipedia under an actual inclusion criterion someday, but nothing here actually gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 14 January 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}}.

Keep. While a local politician, Taplin is the first openly gay elected politician in his community and is the only listed openly gay elected municipal politician in all of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the wikipedia article List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada. When one also considers he is the youngest municipal official ever elected in Newfoundland and Labrador, his political achievements are indeed province-wide not just local. He has been recognized for these accomplishments through appointed roles from the Heads of Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Canada, in addition to being awarded two of the largest merit scholarships in the country. This article is worthy as it speaks to an example of the often underrepresented achievements of LGBT youth.

Firstly, being the first openly gay elected politician in his own community is not, in and of itself, a reason why somebody gets a Wikipedia article. If a town isn't large enough that serving on its municipal council would already have gotten him an article anyway (a status which only cities on the order of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Ottawa get), then distinctions like "youngest" or "first member of an underrepresented minority" do not inherently make him more notable than his other colleagues. He would have to hold a much more nationalized distinction, such as being the first out LGBT holder of any office in all of Canada, to get included on that basis — but he's far from that. And he isn't even the first LGBT officeholder in NL, either, as Gerry Rogers beat him to that by at least two years.

Secondly, winning a merit scholarship does not make a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article in and of itself either — thousands of university students win different merit scholarships to study at university every year, and winning one does not automatically make him more special than most of the others.

Thirdly, serving on political advisory committees is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia either.

And fourthly, notability on Wikipedia is ultimately not determined by what an article claims about its subject; it's determined by the depth and quality of reliable source coverage that can be shown about the subject. Which means substantive coverage in media, not press releases or blurbs or university student newspapers. There's only one reference here of the correct type ("Meet Bell Island's boy wonder") — but (a) that's local human interest coverage of the type that would be routinely expected to exist in the local media for a young achiever, and (b) one piece of legitimate media coverage is not enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG just because "media coverage exists". Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Rogers is the first LGBT office holder in Newfoundland (Provincial MHA), Taplin is the first LGBT municipal office holder. He is the youngest ever municipal councillor not just for his hometown, but the entire province. There are no student newspapers cited, The Gazette of Memorial University does feature student contributions, but is operated, published, and written by university staff. The "Meet Bell Island's Boy Wonder" article is complemented by the "How to go to University Without Paying a Cent" article which was nationally published in Maclean's Magazine and speaks to Taplin's accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander1999 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please note that you get only one "vote" in an AFD discussion. You can comment in the discussion as many times as you like, but you do not get to preface any further comments with a "keep" or "do not delete" vote — followup comments are comments, not new votes, and may not be prefaced with a new restatement of the vote you've already made.

Secondly, again, "first LGBT holder of office at the municipal level in his province" is not a notability claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia. If he were the first LGBT holder of any office anywhere in all of Canada, that would be a legitimate basis for an article, but "first person to hold one particular level of office in one province, when that level of office isn't inherently notable in and of itself and he's not the first overall LGBT holder of office period" is not.

Thirdly, just because a university newspaper is written primarily by the university staff rather than the university students does not make it not a university newspaper. And secondly, this does also cite the McGill Daily, so even your hairsplitting over the MUN Gazette still does not make it true that "no student newspapers" are being cited.

And fourthly, a blurb in Maclean's about his winning a scholarship does not equal substantive coverage in Maclean's. A person does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article the moment his name has been mentioned a single time in Maclean's — a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article when he's getting substantive coverage in Maclean's in a noteworthy context, which "winning a university scholarship" is not. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note on "votes", apologies, my mistake. I have removed the piece from the McGill Daily as the citation which followed it from the Huffington Post suffices. We diverge on interpretation of notability in terms of the significance of his being the youngest and first LGBT holder of municipal office in Newfoundland and Labrador. The section of the Maclean's article not only speaks to his scholarship wins but also his electoral accomplishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander1999 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post is a blog, so it's not a suitable source either: it can be used in instances where it's acting as a straight reprinter of wire service content from the likes of Canadian Press (because the citation is ultimately to the originator of the content, while HuffPo is just serving as a convenience link), but it's not a source that counts toward meeting WP:GNG if a person is mentioned in original content written by one of HuffPo's own staff bloggers. And the fact that "his electoral accomplishment" happens to be mentioned in a blurb whose purpose for existing is because of the scholarship does not make that blurb "coverage of the electoral accomplishment" — because again, "his electoral accomplishment" is not grounds for an article given that it's at the municipal level of office and not the provincial or federal levels. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an article from the Toronto Star after the Huffpost Blog. Merely getting elected to a municipal office may not be cause for inclusion in an encyclopedia article itself, but the nature of his election - framed within LGBT and youth contexts - makes it significant in a broader way. Maclean's' mention of this in his section of their article demonstrates their acknowledging of that electoral feat as significant enough to include in their coverage of his work after winning both of Canada's largest merit scholarships. comment added by Islander1999

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local political office holder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable individual for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Canada. CuriousGeorge94 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC) (CuriousGeorge94 talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete A political office holder at the lowest possible tier. The GNG threshold is not met by the list of local publications, university paper articles or "blog"-type content. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to change my orginal vote. Thank you to the rest of those who contributed to the discussion - I learned a lot about Wikipedia expectations and guidelines. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander1999 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Since you've changed your !vote (and the fact that you can only vote once), I've struck out your initial !vote for you. Also note that {u|Islander1999}} is the article creator. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:28, 20 January 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. I see a rough consensus that the current state of the article is so bad as to warrant TNT. No prejudice to an appropriate recreation from scratch (without machine translation etc.). T. Canens (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirella Santos

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

Procedural nomination as article nominated for deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7 but declined due to some coverage in reliable sources and association with notable person Latino (singer). Nomination only for discussion; I have no thoughts on the notability of this subject. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone seriously thinks they can salvage this, rather than just engaging in bureaucracy-for-bureaucracy's-sake editwars about whether CSD, PROD or AFD is the correct deletion method. A chunk of machine-translated gibberish (other than the opening Mirella Alba dos Santos Muniz (born May 20, 1983) is a Brazilian model, reporter and dancer there is literally not a single coherent sentence here), which does no more than demonstrate that the subject exists. ‑ Iridescent 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as importance is not inherited. Toddst1 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person has received much coverage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and plenty more. She is clearly notable and big in Brazil. Adam9007 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have an article in this space but this current version is hopeless and needs WP:TNT. It's clearly been created by an automatic translation utility such as google translate. Anyone can generate thousands of these with a few clicks. I'm currently working my way through 3,583 of these created last summer. Unfortunately, a lot of them are concealed copyvios, created by copying text from a commercial website into the translation utility and then pasting the output into a Wikipedia article. This is of course undetectable as a copyvio by standard tools, which leaves us with the choice between a laborious process of working out what the source text is and whether it's available on a Wikipedia-compliant license, and whether the translation is accurate -- which is effort out of all proportion to the few clicks involved in creating these! -- or just deleting it and giving Wikipedians the opportunity to start again from scratch. I advocate the second alternative.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 15 January 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. Tone 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Hignutt

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

Author does not meet notability standards established in WP:AUTHOR. Owen (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of notability. Mohammad Sally (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At present this article is completely unsourced (there is a single reference, but it is to a dead link for a small local weekly newspaper and the purported title of said article suggests that it is a local special interest piece about Hignutt's marriage as a transwoman to another woman--hardly suitable for establishing Hignutt's notability as an author) and searches for additional reliable sources have turned up nothing for me, just a couple social media accounts, an amazon page for her one book (which seems to be published under Amazon's amateur self-publishing scheme that allows anyone to sell their writing on a kindle, not an actual publishing house), and a couple of blurbs in a small blog. More or less a WP:SNOW case to me; not notable under either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi snow, its great that you believe this is a snow being snowy yourself, c'mon coola, stay focussed, oh, right, sorry:), found an article from the philly weekly about the couple, which could be used to flesh out the article (this might be the "dead link" article), if kept, btw rather then a "small local weekly newspaper" phil wkly appears to be quite a large state paper if this is anything to go by - "Circulation: 86,000 (as of June 2014) .. Philadelphia Weekly is the largest audited-circulation weekly newspaper in Pennsylvania, distributed at nearly 2,000 locations reaching a readership close to 400,000."[3] (although is this site coi?), but i digress:), also found a couple of books reviews; Publishers Weekly review of Empress of Clouds - "The author, herself a transsexual, sensitively handles the book's transsexual theme, but the abundance of superior fantasy fiction in the marketplace, some of it more effectively gender-bending than this workmanlike effort, presents a challenge."[4], and International Foundation for Gender Education review of Moonsword - " Diana Hignutt?s first novel, Moonsword, is just such a fantasy, one that penetrates to the heart of transgender truth. .. The story is full of twists and turns that captivate the reader. Anyone who likes science fiction or fantasy will enjoy Moonsword. Those readers who happen to understand transgender experience from the inside out will find here a mythic tale that penetrates the mystery and the truth of being differently gendered."[5], but more is needed for Hignutt to meet wp notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coola! I'm afraid that these additional materials don't really change the equation for me much when it comes to the notability of Ms. Hignutt as an author. The Publisher's Weekly "review" is a four sentence that is essentially a bare bones plot synopsis inset to a form sales page for the book, plus a one-line analysis of the quality of the book. The IFGE review of Hignutt's first work is similarly just a couple of paragraphs--I'm afraid that's just not enough to establish the kind of significant or detailed coverage we'd need to justify an article on this book, let alone it's author by mere association. Could you please provide a link to the additional source (the Philadelphia Weekly article)? My strong suspicion is that, if it is what the title suggests it is (a local human interest piece on a couple, one of whom happens to be transsexual), it isn't going to do much of anything to bolster the case for Hignutt being an encyclopedically relevant subject in herself. But that reservation not withstanding, I'd still like to review that source. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry snow, here it is, btw agree with your above response, hence why mine is a "comment" but still on the fence as a couple more refs may tip the balance (where are the lgbt studies editors when we need them?:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 14 January 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 University of Toledo people. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Toledo presidents

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

This content appears in List of University of Toledo people under the heading "Heads of university". All relevant faculty information is brought together in that article. I see little reason for a separate list article here. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I was prepared to delete that section from that article right before this deletion notice came up. Since other universities like Ball State have a page for a list of Presidents, I felt it was necessary for Toledo. Wikidude10000 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious alternatives to deletion per WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bear in mind that this is a short list (which will expand by one entry every year, if that) which already exists within another article – it is a cut-and-paste without any opportunity for expansion. Deletion here does not remove anything, effectively! -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know why some schools have such pages, while some don't?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of University of Toledo people per WP:CHEAP. This university is not so old nor so prestigious to warrant a separate list for its leaders. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bearian. No need for separate page of mostly redlinks — Iadmc ♫^talk 06:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies. T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clark Young

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:1E may apply as well. This is an exceedingly minor writer who fails the criteria set forth for writers under the guideline. His claim to fame is that he was held up as an example of COI by a writer for Salon. Yeah, I know, COI is terrible. But that doesn't mean that we pillory people who engage in COI. I've edited the article to remove much of the large amount of material relating to his Wikipedia editing, which clearly is in breach of WP:UNDUE. Possibly the whole thing should go under WP:WELLKNOWN due to a lack of multiple independent sources. What remains just doesn't strike me as sufficient to support a stand-alone article on this person, and is overwhelmingly negative. He is mentioned in List of Wikipedia controversies. That is sufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies. He is mainly notable for that controversy. --Tataral (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tartaral. I can't find anything unrelated to WP that would get this away from WP:BLP1E, and the less navel-gazing we do in article space, the better. VQuakr (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest that any redirect page be created after deletion. I note that there seems to be agreement that the grounds for deletion are there. This is a BLP, and it is important that the page not simply be reverted back. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 21 January 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. Tone 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior diet

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

This is a non-notable fringe diet. I pruned some unreliable sources, the only one remaining is a clickbait-heavy site stuffed with advertorial for supplements and fad diets, albeit alongside legitimate content. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The topic was discussed by Washington Post in 2012. Other than that, I can't find any other reliable sources except for Blogs and Tabloids. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I could see someone looking up the diet and benefitting from a concise summary on Wikipedia. Jeff Quinn (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like WP:USEFUL. Any good sources to add? Guy (Help!) 23:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - until and unless a notable mention surfaces. Good work running all this down, btw. Kortoso (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete' i looked for sources and there is a lack of significant discussion in RS - see Talk:Warrior_diet#sources. There are lots of bloggy, poor sites.Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have destroyed the page in days! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warrior_diet&type=revision&diff=759182327&oldid=759181405 is what it used to look like. Congratulations for that. This is what Wikipedians do - take other people's work and trash it. And why? Because it is so much easier to destroy work than write it, and Wikipedia doesn't have to pay for people's time, and Wikipedians always think they know best. It's a fair bet that all the people meddling with the page in the last few days and the people above saying DELETE! haven't actually bothered to obtain a copy of the book to see what it says. You won't feel the need! That would be too logical. Just rewrite the page, as a prelude to deleting it after you've made the page look rubbish. What's your actual agenda here? To steal the guy's ideas on intermittent fasting? 5.150.92.82 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Rochon: Light Painter

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

Appears to fail WP:ARTIST - there are minimal sources regarding exhibitions (e.g. here, but this exhibition is mentioned nowhere else) and I can find no more than passing mention of him in print publications. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's so bad I think it can be speedied WP:G11. I've applied the tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 15 January 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. Tone 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Connell (Canadian weather reporter)

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

Fails the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for journalists. No apparent coverage outside of stories on the affiliated Global Edmonton website. schetm (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single-market local television personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they can get articles if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on the basis of sufficient reliable source coverage about them in unaffiliated media, but they do not get to keep articles whose only source is their staff profile on the website of their own employer. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable journalist; no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable weather reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 17 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairwinds Marina

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

Does not cite any sources or assert its notability. Pure advertisement. Veggies (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. I found one local newspaper article from 2014 that could be a ref for everthing in the article, but that is not enough to establish notability. MB 21:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. I find only a small bit of local coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:47, 21 January 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. Keep per WP:SNOW. The difference between the dossier and this article on the dossier is that this is well-referenced and verified. Delete arguments about "left-wing populism" miss the mark, and "all the sources is founded by one researcher or speculative" [sic] is belied by the facts of the article. If you disagree with an early close that's fine, I understand; I suggest you talk to another admin, or post at AN, about undoing it or whatever the next step might be. In the meantime, and in the absence of strong policy-based reasons to delete, I see no reason to keep this running. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Russia dossier

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

I think this article should be speedy-deleted as a BLP violation. It quotes extensively from an unverified document which makes numerous unproven derogatory claims about a living person. It even includes a PDF of the entire unverified, scandalous document. In other articles about this subject we have been careful to report only the existence of the document and reactions to it; we have carefully avoided repeating any of its unproven claims. I could not tag this for G10 because it does have sources, and in any case it would need broader community input to delete it. But I feel it qualifies for deletion as a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies, and I would hate to see it stay in Wikipedia for a week. Can we apply IAR, perhaps? MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After deletion (to get rid of the BLP violations) it could become a redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier, where it is extensively discussed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I may have been too conservative in saying that it didn't qualify for G10. I see that a similar article, Donald Trump "compromised" claims, was G10ed a couple of days ago even though it did have sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with more than enough reliable sources discussing the dossier in depth. Any BLP concerns can be resolved on the talk page. If we can manage to adhere to BLP when we're writing about a child sex ring run by Clinton and Podesta at Pizzagate conspiracy theory, then we can manage it on this article as well. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete or Redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia - Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid gossip or salacious, unverified tabloid materials. While the existence of this document can be verified, the document is from anonymous sources and its content cannot be validated as factual. Inferences drawn from this document constitute WP:OR and does not meet WP:RS and constitutes violations of WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After this AfD was listed, a good deal of the BLP violating material was removed from the article. What is left could possibly be acceptable but would be a constant magnet for BLP violations. And it is pretty much duplicated at 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it would be a magnet for vandalism doesn't mean we should delete the article. We do have page protection if we need it. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 20:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:EASYTARGET. ^Falling_Gravity 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A wide array of reliable sources have reported on its existence and debated the veracity of its claims; no less a news organization than the BBC has extensively discussed it. While this article should absolutely be written to conform with BLP (leaving out unconfirmed salacious details, not linking directly to the document in question, being scrupulously sourced to only the highest-quality publications), I don't think it's tenable to say the article can't exist, particularly when we have plenty of articles including claims about the Podesta emails and Pizzagate conspiracy theory that are also, at best, weakly sourced or have been outright disproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has now been greatly improved and expanded with neutral information. Kudos to User:Octoberwoodland for making this into an acceptable Wikipedia article (though it will have to be watched closely). I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I also request, if it is kept, that it be placed under Discretionary Sanctions (U.S. politics). --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate section of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Not every controversy is encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 21:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. nominator and WP:administrator MelanieN has withdrawn her nomination for deletion and she now supports its existence and publication within the outlines set out in WP:policy and guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that I am functioning at this article as a regular editor, not an administrator, per WP:INVOLVED. Also please note that this discussion can't simply be closed as "nomination withdrawn," because other people have supported "delete" or "redirect". --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:Administrator has a high understanding of wp:policy and guidelines - I respect your retraction of your deletion request and your acceptance of the article now within those policies and guidelines, thanks for your guidance. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments by Govindaharihari and MelanieN. In addition, events around the dossier are making news on their own. The article may need improvement in terms of respectable news outlets confirming and corroborating the details in the dossier. Events around the dossier - that it exists, and that it was requested, written, passed around, and extensively discussed - are still facts. -Mardus /talk 21:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*""speedy keep, and vote that whover nominated this for deletion be permanently banished from Wikipedia for such a poor excercise of partisan judgment. The idea that this is not an encylopedic topic is so laughable that it does not even a merit a response other than ridicule and public shaming,Sockhunter (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

~~Note: I am the original creator of this beautiful work. You're welcome, everyone. Keep up the good work,Sockhunter (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of Kingshowman. GAB^gab 22:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Reincorporate into 2016 United States election interference by Russia — Crucial details regarding the dossier have been adequately elucidated in the aforementioned article. A lot of this article feeds into present public anxiety on Russian interference and is nothing more than posturing that does not represent Wikipedia. I move for a speedy deletion. Frevangelion (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think at this point it's sort of obvious this is notable as every source and their dog has reported on the dossier. "2016 United States election interference by Russia" should of course provide a brief summary of the dossier and the controversy, but this is the article where the actual in depth info (who wrote it, under what circumstances, how was it "leaked", who's seen it, etc. - all issues covered in multiple reliable sources) can be presented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We can go into much more detail with this article than at 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier, where too much detail creates a weight problem. I also happen to support MelanieN's reasoning. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a distinction to be made here between the provability of the allegations, and the provability of the existence of the allegations, which some appear not to grasp. Whether or not the fact that whether or not the claims are unproven, it is demonstrably proven that the claims and allegations have been made, and were considered credible enough to be presented to the president and the top of American intelligence. Please consider that on the deletionist's tortured logic, we would be unable to publish an article on any criminal trial, if the defendant was found not guilty. Allegations of guilt, whether presented in dossier form or at trial, can manifestly be notable whether or not the defendant is cleared of the charges. Even if the charges are entirely a hoax, we have plenty of hoax articles that drew on far less evidence than this. I don't see any of you deletionists screaming for the deletion of Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Pizzagate, both of which were just fabricated by non-intelligence sources and both of which had far less of a claim to encylopedic interest. It therefore appears outrageously shocking how conservatively biased this encylopedia is. How is it even possible that Wikipedia has so many conservative editors, when the vast majority of educated, highly literate persons are liberal, as a matter of irrefutable fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B403:2668:89A8:360D:D4D1:F4BC (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - This is a major scandal that easily passes WP:GNG and if this is a BLP vio then Pizzagate is a STRONG BLP vio that has even less substance behind it than this does. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The comparison between Pizzagate and this document is a mostly a false equivalence outside of BLP concerns. One is a conspiracy theory that became notable for its media coverage involving the Turkish press, a banned subreddit, and a pizzeria shooting. This is a document that might be notable because of its extensive news coverage and the backlash it received. While they both discuss allegations that may or may not be true, BLP can be enforced in both articles by pointing out all false or unsubstantiated claims. ^Falling_Gravity 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article is far more acceptable than the BLP-violating mess that was its first incarnation. If anyone has concerns about parts of the article violating BLP policy, the article has a Talk page doesn't it? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
very very weak Keep Not sure if this is notable in it's own right or not. But it has received a lot of coverage (and I agree that this has far more evidence then a lot of other equally libelous accusations we do have pages on).Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with BullRangifer and others. Very well-sourced and highly significant. Questions about how the article should be written and what it should include can be raised on the talk page. Neutrality^talk 15:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly merge). This seems well-sourced and notable. We obviously should not (and do not) have an article that confirms the alleged dossier as legitimate, but this has been very widely reported on. It has already been noted that the bar for conspiracy theories (e.g., Pizzagate and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories) is somewhat lower, but then again I also feel that WP:OTHERCRAP applies. I'm somewhat neutral on merger with 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier. I think that would be an acceptable outcome, but I believe that to properly cover every response to the allegations in an appropriately neutral encyclopedic manner is best achieved in a separate article, at least for the moment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a closer parallel might be the Podesta emails, which are again about allegedly "leaked" documents coming from intelligence sources, in that case Russian intelligence (via Wikileaks), and in this case MI6. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable Drsmoo (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable topic. A WP:SPLIT from 2016 United States election interference by Russia is justified because this dossier is not just about Russian interference in the elections. It alleges ways Trump may be blackmailed, and this is different from election interference. It is also a source of a lot of tabloid and comedy commentary. The commentary is notable because it is about the President Elect and highly pervasive. A size WP:SPLIT may be needed when the article is > than 50 kB of readable prose. 2016 United States election interference by Russia is currently at 47 KB and growing. Download the prose size script here. User:Dr pda/prosesize Waters.Justin (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator withdrew in this diff, but we have outstanding !votes. Would editors (Octoberwoodland—JFG—Frevangelion) reconsider their position? — Sam Sailor 03:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sam, but this discussion is still being strongly debated. I think it should run its full course. There's no emergency now that the BLP violations have been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my !vote. Whatever meat this article eventually retains, it should not be forked from the whole 2016 United States election interference by Russia affair, which provides appropriate context (and could use some trimming too). — JFG ^talk 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I—like JFG—stand by my !vote for speedy deletion and/or reincorporation into the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article as a subsection. I cannot stand by this kind of posturing and gossip-mongering that my fellow users seem so keen on deeming encyclopedic. Frevangelion (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable article that is extensively and reliably sourced. Keiiri (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article having extensive references is not an automatic metric of its quality. The origin of the dossier and the information provided on said dossier are still unsubstantiated and are not worthy of validation on an encyclopedic medium. I'm not sure what kind of precedent we're trying to set here as Wikipedia editors. Frevangelion (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not "automatic" but it certainly does help to establish the undeniable notability of the topic. The origins and the info in the dossier are neither here nor there as far as notability is concerned. Again, we have articles on Pizzagate (if you want to talk precedent).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BLP (public figures). The policy provides the following example: this example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." It is exactly what this page does. Of course this should be described merely as "allegations", not "the truth". Perhaps this page has some deficiencies, such as linking to an inappropriate primary source. If so, this must be fixed, but this is nothing special. Not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The articles deal about different topics, so it makes sense to me to retain them separately. The Dossier is the outcome of an output of a Attack PAC of Jeb Bush, so it predates so-called "Russian Interference" in US elections. Also there is no evidence so far that Trump has succumbed to Russian blackmail in any of his business/political dealings, but there is lot of smoke on the Dossier, so I vote that these two topics should be in separate articles.J mareeswaran (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Thoughts There is a strong overlap between this article, Donald Trump Russia dossier, and Christopher Steele. Seems to me that contents of the dossier are off limits for obvious purposes & Steele's sole claim to fame is the authorship of this dossier, so it suggests perfect case for merging both these articles (after following due process by opening a new merge request, of course).J mareeswaran (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's indeed the case, BLP1E would apply to the Christopher Steele article, in which case the subject of this discussion would be the more policy-compliant target for a merger. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, page Christopher Steele should be nominated for deletion, but the deletion will not succeed because he is not a person notable for only one event. Hence I do not think anyone should bother about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept. The Christopher Steele article should be deleted/merged into this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia this is pure left populism, all the sources is founded by one researcher or speculative, if this articles stays we can copy all articles which exits on WikiLeaks from Afghanistan until Libya BerendWorst (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonproductive screed by sock of banned user

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

Comment Admins: I suggest that the above user should be blocked on grounds of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. First of all, it is patently obvious that has far too shaky a grasp of English grammar to be editing articles. I count at least 9 grammatical errors in the above sentence. 1) The sentence lacks capitalization at its beginning. 2) There is an improper use of a comma after "populism" to separate two complete clauses, giving us a comma splice. 3) He writes "all the sources is", a phrase which shows an obvious lack of subject/verb agreement. 4) He continues, even more puzzlingly, "all the sources is founded by", which is an entirely inappropriate use of the phrase "founded by"; I suppose he means "are derived from" or "are traceable to"; sources are not "founded by" their researchers in the fashion in which a city or a movement is "founded by" its creator. (Let's hope this wasn't a malapropism for "found", which would be an even more grievous and elementary error; I am being charitable.) 5) He writes "or speculative" when he obviously means "or are speculative." (I won't count the fact that this makes no logical sense anyway. If there is only one source, we can't complain that all our information is either from the same source, or is speculative, but rather ought to complain that there is only one source, which is speculative. I charitably again assume this is what this foreign author means.) 6) There is a second comma splice (!) after "speculative", creating a disastrously unreadable run-on sentence. The author clearly has no idea how punctuation works in English, and appears to believe sentences can just continue as long as you like so long as you throw in a comma every few words or so. 7) He writes "if this articles stays", which, yet again, shows lack of agreement in number. 8) I don't even have the slightest idea of how to make sense of anything that comes after this point. What can "we can copy all articles which exits on WikiLeaks from Afghanistan until Libya" possibly even mean? 9) He omits the period, since he obviously has no idea what sentences in English are, and what one does when they start and end. Even worse than the total absence of knowledge of English grammar, however, is the fact that he lacks a basic understanding of the meanings of words. Beyond the errors I already pointed out, this has nothing even remotely to do with Left-wing populism, which is roughly the movement behind the Bernie Sanders campaign, or Occupy Wall Street, which demands redress be made for income inequality, and for other grievances. If I hadn't figured out this was a non-English editor, who doesn't understand what the words he is mouthing actually mean, I would have assumed this person is psychotic, since the connection to Left-wing populism (not to mention the non-sequitor about WikiLeaks, Libya, and Afghanistan) is so tangential. Please send this user back to Norwegian Wikipedia, admins, until he demonstrates a mastery of our lovely tongue which would allow him to contribute here. Everyone else: please revert any of this editors' tendentious, nonsensical edits on sight, for he knows not the meaning of the words which he speaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.32.55 (talk • contribs)

If by "left populism" you mean this will be a POV magnet, then consider that for every argument a counterargument can be added, so I think this article can be balanced and even used for discrediting the dossier. The dossier is speculative, but the article is not citing the dossier; it is citing notable sources that discuss the dossier. Reliability would come into consideration if the dossier was used as a source on the article Donald Trump. I'm not sure what you mean by the Wikileaks comment. Waters.Justin (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ethanbas (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It meets GNG and has multiple reliable sources now, especially in the news. Only now, there are sources on this topic to adequately vouch for its notability. This article must be heavily monitored for POV/vandalism though. epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject easily meets WP:GNG as evidenced by the sustained international coverage.- Mr X 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. Calls to suppress not only insult thinking readers, but aim to cut off a historical trail leading to whatever conclusion(s) becomes relevant and able to be validated. All of this should be in the record with resourced vetting--that vetting now has not fully happened, and is under way. Until resourced vetting -- i.e., vetting that takes great governmental and monied power -- happens, calls to delete amount to trying to put a genie back into a bottle we may or may not wish to have around. We can decide that down the road. In the realm of public opinion, the key is to not be stupid through averting our eyes to the kinds of claims that circulate these days. Engage the claims instead of doing the authoritarian thing: hide information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.106.179 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Clips

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

Nonnotable hair franchise. This article in Wikipedia has been here since 2009; so far, no in-depth references, just occasional mentions, press releases. Tags have had no effect in generating references. Promotional content. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone added information to Talk:Sport Clips, maybe intending to update the article at a later time. Formatted as it is, it's not much help. Maybe there is something in the WSJ references, but it is subscription-only and I don't have access. I couldn't find significant news from sources I trust (haircuts don't get many headlines). I agree it is no more than a promotional piece. Jacknstock (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although this is in fact nationally known and common, there's simply the same unconvincing substance of local business announcements, listings or mentions, none of which satisfy our policies, and at least Great Clips is a significant company whereas this one hasn't. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability beyond being a franchise and NASCAR. Fail WP:ORGSIG as no company is considered inherently notable. Article contains mostly promotional content. CBS527^Talk 10:26, 21 January 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. Tone 14:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2003 World Rubik's Games Championship

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

Delete. The first one (1982 World Rubik's Cube Championship) may or may not merit its own article, but there's no real press coverage of subsequent ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb Mohammed Lodi jame Mosque

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

The sole source, since created by a sockpuppet in 2011, has been user-generated wikimapia. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest, have found no mentions in reliable sources.

Tagged for notability, and PRODed by RHaworth shortly after creation, both were removed by the sockmaster. No reliable sources confirm existence, let alone establish notability. Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There aren't very many reliable sources I can find online for Beanibazar Upazila, either. That isn't because it isn't notable, nothing in that region has reliable online sources. There was a previous version of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taleb Mohammed Lodi Jame Mosjid, and of the likely founder of the mosque: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi. For what it is worth, I'd !vote keep and help develop both pages if there were a source. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:38, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan Girl Guides Association

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

Non-notable organization. First reference requires you to log in and the second reference does not mention this organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles on all Scout and Guide National organisations affiliated to the World bodies. Sources are a problem for South Sudan, but we do not want bias against organisations in such countries, so leave it to have time to find sources. I have informed WP:SCOUT and they might find sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is that sources are difficult to find in poor new third world countries, so leave it for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234 per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Harassment.23Wikihounding_by_User:Sportsfan_1234- There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have updated the article with a few additional references. Realize this is a new country that is very poor and in the middle of a literally atrocious civil war, so reporting on Girl Guides will be low priority. Jacknstock (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, here's the rub: The main newspaper in the country doesn't have an online presence anymore. Relevant (stubs are available but full content is down for now. The Citizen (South Sudan) website appears to have expired. Per GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online." So, 1. We have some sources from Jacknstock. 2. We have good evidence of at least a few additional secondary sources, but 3. Those archives are not available online for the time being. Base notability appears to be a fair assumption with this evidence. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be notable and as AbstractIllusions pointed out, the sources do not have to be available online. -- Dane ^talk 01:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, extra care should be observed regarding WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS from regions not given to broad Internet availability--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've mentioned the systemic bias essay. I have suspected that issue with several conversations here. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:21, 20 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian humanism

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

- most of the article has nothing to do with "libertarian humanism". - the subject isn't wiki-worthy. - creator of the page refuses to accept edits. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so, your nomination is based on... personal feelings and beliefs? do you have a valid reason for deletion; perhaps the article has no purpose? because my personal feeling is that there is at least one person wanting to liberate thier notion of humanism to depart from the status-quo of modern currents, which lean towards a popular, extreme form of secularism, society and culture. Carl Sagan is a humanist who does not adhere to atheism. http://www.ihumanism.org/2014/11/carl-sagan-a-humanist-you-should-know.html and this sentiment is echoed in his protege, Neil deGrasse Tyson; though Dr. Tyson's affiliation with the American Humanist Association is yet unclear to me. Xan81 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article says little to nothing about the subject of Libertarian humanism. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention the spectre of Joseph Stalin's State Atheism - which is itself a reason to include libertarianism; if not anarchism. Xan81 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, only a collection of a few direct quotes, none of which even demonstrate the existence of "libertarian humanism" as distinct from secular humanism. No evidence of notability. Jacknstock (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that isn't an argument. you're suggesting that because the subject is generally unknown the article is invalid? I'm not an author of encyclopedias, as I'm sure many people aren't; and there are many scant articles about. also, I'm not clear on what is missing from the article - it describes a lifestance and manner of thought - which are not claimed to be the original author's views. Xan81 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

distinction from secular humanism is the anarchism, which is held contemptuous to influence by state and society. Xan81 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating that the subject fails notability guidelines. It also fails Wikipedia policy because it is barely more than a collection of long quotations. Jacknstock (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which guidelines? and is there another viewpoint which discusses the ideas which is in opposition to common, popular and proselytized atheistic notions which may be offensive and harmful, hateful to people's faiths and traditions? Because there does exist a current of conservative antitheism pushed by popular figures, such as Richard Dawkins - Militant Atheism Militant atheism (Russian: воинствующий атеизм) is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.Dec 5, 2016 Militant atheism - Conservapedia www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism Xan81 (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps the article should be a stub Xan81 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopaedic content to salvage. It's just a poor collection of quotes, as mentioned above. I'd suggest to the author of the article that they read the General Notability Guidelines thoroughly before they create another. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that also isn't an argument - still no violation directly cited... begining to seem like persecution Xan81 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No encyclopaedic content to salvage" is definitely an argument in favour of deletion - why would an encyclopaedia include an entry that isn't encyclopaedic? Now, are you actually going to address that issue or are you just going to make questionable, petulant comments on every singe !vote? It's not helping you. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no issue to address - it's an incomplete article because I'm neither a theologian nor an author, as stated before. it's an incomplete article; but I am positing an active and extant lifestance. persecution is persecution. Xan81 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's rule about Assuming Good Faith? I've never had any interaction with you. Accusing me of persecution is frankly ridiculous. If it's an incomplete article, it shouldn't have been published - you should have worked on it in your sandbox or as a draft & then submitted it through the Articles for Creation process. Don't accuse people of persecuting you when all I am doing is participating in a standard process, which is designed to sift out articles that aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok - I concede the debate on grounds of not caring enough to pursue creation of an article. I am glad, however, to have made the arguments that I have - I do believe atheism, in its current form, is toxic to liberty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation cheers - and don't hurt anyone. Xan81 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is questioning the validity of your views, this debate is about the article and nothing more. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anyone did - I just pointed out that the arguments presented by the prosecution were baseless if they were unbecoming of wikipedia's morale and leadership. no matter, I have conceded and leave the discussion. I guess I should have went with "agnostic secular humanism," because I get a whole lot more concession with that: https://www.facebook.com/AgnosticSecularHumanism/ 157 adherents and counting. cheers Xan81 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people participating in this discussion, as far as I know, are employees of Wikipedia. Can I say that you must not blank the article while it is the subject of a Deletion Discussion? It may be seen as disruptive editing. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely original research, so WP:TNT applies. The concept may be discussed (Gbook preview), although I'm not entirely sure whether or not it's a fringe topic. In either case, this page ain't the article Wikipedia needs on the topic. Thus, delete. Judging by the course of this AfD, this can't happen soon enough. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Caste system in India. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economically Backward Class - EBC

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own article. I suggest deleting it and absorbing relevant content into social class. DrStrauss talk 17:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Caste system in India. Jacknstock (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and i had made a fresh page without adding any copyrighted material in Economically Backward Class - EBC thanking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakilsayed (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Caste system in India per Jacknstock as the most appropriate target. -- Dane ^talk 01:26, 17 January 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. Tone 14:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities and towns in the United Kingdom by population

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

This article looks just like a renamed version of an older article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population which was deleted back in 2012. This article has the exact same flaws. It's main source does not state that it is showing the population of towns and cities and the population of London is from a completely different source. Seeing as the user who created this article is Taiwanese I wonder whether that old now deleted article lingers on foreign language wikipedias and he was just translating it here. Eopsid (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We already have List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, which is what the article is covering and List of cities in the United Kingdom which is what the article's title suggests. Redundant article. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, as stated above. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. City population is not the same as urban area population, but since this article appears to be showing urban area populations, it isn't even doing what the title states. --Michig (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: We also have List of cities in the United Kingdom, which further makes the article redundant. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is redundant for reasons outlined above by other contributors.Dunarc (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pittston, Pennsylvania. czar 06:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Pittston, Pennsylvania

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

A list of mostly non-notable mayors of a small city. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pittston has a population under 8K, so the office is unnotable. I've nominated for Afd three of the five mayors who have articles. One was already nominated, and the fifth was a member of the House of Representatives. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a significantly trimmed version of this into Pittston, Pennsylvania. While it's true that the city isn't large enough to hand its mayors an automatic WP:NPOL pass, a basic mostly unlinked list of the mayors' names isn't unreasonable information for us to maintain, so long as it's properly sourced and not a WP:HOAX. It doesn't need to be a standalone list if there's nowhere for it to link besides the city itself and one mayor who cleared NPOL for other reasons — but it's not unreasonable for them to be listed as a subsection in the city's main article rather than as a standalone spinoff. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian. A list on the Pittston page would be a good outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pittston, Pennsylvania per Bearcat. Contents of lists have lower threshholds.--Rpclod (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pittston, Pennsylvania as this is not appropriate for a stand alone article. -- Dane ^talk 01:30, 17 January 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 06:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark metal

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

This is a classic example of an article which is nothing but a synthesis of different sources. The authors are not referring to a "Dark metal" musical genre, but rather bands from other metal genres who use "dark" imagery and themes. If this article exists, then by the same token someone could start an article about "brutal metal", "fun metal" or "depressing metal". I call the big one bitey (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For pretty much the reasons stated. Its not a real genre, and most of the listed sound extremely different to each other. it would appear that this article has been nominated before and indeed the conclusion was to delete. Hadomaru (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a metal fan and have noticed "dark metal" as a descriptor for a variety of bands, but never as a genre. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Synthesis of sources. -- Dane ^talk 01:40, 17 January 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 06:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Menno de Jong

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

Article contains original research and does not cite any source, which fails to pass WP:MUSIC. Hakken (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourced BLP. The external links are all self-created social media accounts and a single interview with the media. DJs are notoriously run of the mill, even if they play to big parties. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No authoritative references are given. Nothing proves notability. Smacks of self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 20:58, 14 January 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 06:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Callan-Thompson

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

Non-notable individual. Keri (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero sources to attest to notability of this late model. The oblique reference to her son and her murder strikes me as a WP:BLP problem. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the absence of evidence for notability. Lepricavark (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reference provided is not authoritative and was written by the subject's son.--Rpclod (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and Draftify. While there is a growing consensus that the topic is not yet notable, there's no argument presented that would prevent preserving the content to allow development for the possibility of it becoming so when and if it is released. joe decker ^talk 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The draft is at Draft:Hello Neighbor --joe decker ^talk 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neighbor

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

Reviewed article. Prod removed with any concomitant work to add any source. Article is about upcoming game, slated for release in Q2/Q3. Could be delayed though. Fails WP:NOT. WP is not a scheduling engine, which is now established notability guidelines. scope_creep (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The game's notability is quite clearly established by the reliable sources available, which are assessed reliable at WP:VG/S. Keep. (Side note: it looks like the article creator removed the AFD banner. I would fix it but I'm on mobile.) --Izno (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing below a number of "delete" !votes. I'm seeing a three reliable sources covering the work in-depth (that's RPS, GamesRadar), and PCGamer, besides all the announcements (meaning this article meets WP:SIGCOV). Given its release timeframe is this year, a deletion is certainly unwarranted. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've listed several RS'es on the talk page. Game is clearly notable, whether or not it is delayed. This is not crystal balling. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be worth puting RS'es in the actual article, so they can be viewed and tested, to see if they are reliable verifiable sources. Izno, as a gamer obviously, if it is alpha stage, it will have had a number of reviews, but why were they not added when the article was created? scope_creep (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, 2 things: 1. These are indeed RSes. 2. Usually because the user who started the article is not aware or does not realize how Wikipedia articles need to display notability. --Izno (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry about deleting the AFD banner that was a accident, I think the game's worthy of an article it's clearly very popular and other game's have had an article without a definite release date, and they were not deleted, it's not worth deleting it it's already made, just one big edit when it's released and the article is perfect it saves someone the trouble of recreating it. Mr.wilson125 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Izno It is a hard question to answer. I think it is mostly to do with awful design of the editing environment and the lack of leadership in updating the environment to a manner that ensures that new editors are fully aware and trained before they create an article. I think at the beginning the wiki was chosen as it was the best tool at hand to represent Wikipedia at the time. But now its more of a burden than a help. The current environment is static, it's like 1985 on Dec Vax, just type with Emacs and your away and functionality is bolted on with no design or rigor. And aesthetically speaking it's a dog. Even encarta looked better. scope_creep (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft as the only available information is the quarter release, and that's not guaranteeing us a substantial article in that time, so Drafting allows enough time and path. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Product does not yet exist. No references are provided to show any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too Soon - The references mentioned above, on the article's talk page, are not sufficient, and (apart from ones based on the kickstarter campaign) appear to be based on press releases. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clearly notable game, and although it is not yet released, I see no reason for the article to be deleted. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft as compromise. Articles should have sources before entering mainspace. I share concerns that video game articles enter mainspace too easily with just an announcement (see WP:NFF, for comparison). czar 09:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON {MordeKyle} ☢ 03:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON here. Not enough sources. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do want to say, though, that moving into a draft space is a reasonable enough decision. At any rate, I've only seen this receive a smattering of attention from some publications (such as this commentary from Polygon.com). We don't have the kind of coverage that we need for a proper, well-written article. We'll see what happens once the game receives a full, expanded release. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with my fellow editors above. This is, literally, too soon. This Afd can be closed now as delete. If there's any editor who wishes to work on the draft, they can request the same from the closing Admin and work on the same in their user space. Lourdes 13:49, 22 January 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 06:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Bergeron

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

Non-notable actor in my opinion it does not pass WP:ACTOR FITINDIA (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actor has several credits listed on IMDB^[1], commercials listed on Screen Actors Guild recognized site ^[2], and is the spokesperson for an international sports nutrition company ^[3]. Lowcawki (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1531108/?ref_=nv_sr_1
^ https://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/AJq/ramsey-bergeron
^ https://eas.com/athletes-who-use-eas

Note per edit summary in Draft:Ramsey Bergeron that Lowcawki is affiliated with the subject. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more info. czar 06:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Lowcawki, the subject of your article just doesn't meet the Notability Guidelines for Actors. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON Exemplo347 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no authoritative references and nothing that shows notability. Just a guy who has done a bunch of stuff.--Rpclod (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His acting credits are mostly of the red shirt type - bouncer, dad, and some guy named Mark. His modeling credits are a bit beefier (pardon the pun), but still no reliable sources attest to his notability. IMdB is the classic unreliable source; we allow it in our articles, but not as a citation. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 18 January 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 speedied as vandalism. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Castillo Marta

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

Notability not shown, further no references are supplied. It's is the onus of the editor to show notability and supply references KoshVorlon} 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC) KoshVorlon} 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism. It's already tagged for CSD. GAB^gab 16:16, 14 January 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. Blatantly obvious SPAs accorded less weight as usual. T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Scherle

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personal website, IMBD, and press release do not qualify as authoritative references. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A person does not inherit notability from the films they have worked on. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability existent - multiple mentioned projects won awards (Emmys, Golden Globes), proof of involvement existent and plausible after consulting performance royalties organizations.David2257 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in multiple reviews: ^[1], ^[2].Mrsspenser (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on many awards winning shows as an additional composer/additional music: Mr. Robot, American Horror Story, American Crime Story: People V OJ Simpson ^[3]Mrsspenser (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Has notable upcoming composing work such as Light Wounds (2017): ^[4] which stars noteworthy actors such as Terry Serpico of 'Sneaky Pete' ^[5], Brenda Vaccaro of 'Kubo and the Two Strings' Mrsspenser (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://darkeyesoflondon.blogspot.com/2016/10/new-films-round-up-reviews-of.html
^ https://sonicsmashmusic.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/film-composer-julian-scherle-releases-new-soundtrack-album-lets-be-evil/
^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4477558/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3388090/?ref_=nm_flmg_com_1
^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0785352/?ref_=tt_cl_t2

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Oltrogge

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

Biography sourced to the institution he was president of and ancestry sites. No evidence of notability in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N not established. Fails WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNG threshold not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Tokens. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intercourse (The Tokens album)

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

Only sources are to AllMusic, Discogs, etc. and to artist's own site. No evidence of significant coverage in independent or reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge to The Tokens. Coverage from Allmusic, Record Collector, NPR, and the BBC, though perhaps not enough to say about it that it can't be covered within the article on the band. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the release is not notable on its own. I do not see any notable reviews (Rolling Stone, Billboard?) and the re-release on CD appears on the band's own label. According to the RC review the album was rejected by Warner and the band decided to release it themselves in 1971. Merge with the main article. Karst (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable based on coverage found by Michig. Satisfies WP:NALBUM element #1 (subject of multiple non-trivial published works). Gab4gab (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Nothing worthwhile can be produced from a seperate article and I doubt anyone above who listed sources is actually going to put them in. Better to merge with the Tokens as it is still partially relevant to their career.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:26, 21 January 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. Though noted that it's mostly on faith that the MobyGames review listings check out. czar 09:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Beast

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

Abandonware game. Only sources are to abandonware listings and play sites like Moby Games. No significant independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A game from that time period is unlikely to have coverage online. Have you checked for offline coverage before this AFD nomination? --Izno (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that I checked a couple of standard periodical indexes, yes. Even if the source text from that time would be offline, the indexing would be online through research libraries (although not necessarily through Google). I don't think WP:BEFORE requires exhaustive prove-a-negative-type searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, before does not. However, it appears there's offline coverage--see the Highbeam link above. Couldn't tell you whether it's significant. There's also a few nuggets in the WP:VG/RS search. So while I won't !vote yet since I haven't had a chance to review any of these results, I might suggest there's notability for this game. --Izno (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I saw that one result from Knight-Ridder. In the Highbeam search it is listed multiple times but it is clearly multiple hits for the same article in multiple papers in the same chain. I didn't believe it would be considered significant coverage and ignored mentioning it That was technically incorrect in making the nom, and I apologize. I should have specified "..and one old short review at time of game's release, not creating sustained coverage."
It looks like there's a few others too, not based on the Ridder review. Any way, I'll take a closer look later. --Izno (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mobygames lists plenty of reviews from magazine sources: [6]. Probably enough to meet notability requirements. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the linked Mobygames (and a few places elsewhere) indicates that there are sufficient WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG. Keep. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the reviews linked on Mobygames, there's a review in the December 1995 issue of Next Generation which I neglected to add to the article. Will try to add that in within the next couple of days.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Next Generation review to the article as planned.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:18, 15 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railway junctions in Andhra Pradesh

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

was PRODed but the tag was removed. The topic fails WP:STAND as none of the junctions has an article —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are in fact articles for about 19 of them, well for "railway junction stations" instead of "railway junctions". See Category:Railway junction stations in Andhra Pradesh. We don't need separate articles listing the railway junctions vs. their stations. --do ncr am 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Railway junction stations in Andhra Pradesh. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:09, 14 January 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. Tone 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinay Berde

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: The actor is better known as the son of a notable person and I can not find any significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details so I would say it fails WP:GNG as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. No coverage that would make this notable. -- Dane ^talk 01:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for those involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 20 January 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. Tone 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2027 AFC Asian Cup

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL #1 because the article is about a scheduled or future event that is just speculation. The article also fails WP:NOR as there are no attributable sources this article could use now(see WP:TOOSOON). Finally, the article fails WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage from reliable sources. I also did a Google search(WP:BEFORE) to see if there were any sources but the only things that turn up are trivial mentions of the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 16:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the 2027 AFC Asian Cup article does need to be deleted because it will tell us an event in the future. it's important.\ — Note to closing admin: Badass Flare (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

@Badass Flare: Firstly you are to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) and secondly that argument is WP:ITSIMPORTANT and should be avoided at deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 16:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect change as redirect to AFC Asian Cup, recreate as separate article as the event draws nearer and had reliable coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 10 years away, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies, does not even merit a redirect IMHO. Giant Snowman 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The host is unlikely to be awarded for a few years (yet alone the decision on format etc.). Best to recreate when more information is available. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, nothing to be said on this at all at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 16 January 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. Speedy deleted as a clear hoax. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnair Flight 666

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

Absurd article about Flight 666 on Friday the 13th, during which nothing happened, sourced to a joke article. E Eng 16:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy it with fire. Barely above conspiracy-theory nonsense. Wow, "people though the plane was going to hell". Give me a break, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Yintan 16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know whether this can be speedy deleted, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a load of nonsense. Zero encyclopaedic value or relevance. SempreVolando (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. And the user who created this is clearly WP:NOTHERE judging by this and their talkpage. Someone shove AGF up their arse and block. Pretty please. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the flight definitely happened and there are readily available news articles online about it, but literally nothing extraordinary happened to the flight or any of the Finnair Flight 666s that are regularly scheduled. "Pepper" @ 18:39, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 Oras Weekend

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

Unsourced article, and no explanation as to why this subject is notable when 24 Oras#Weekend edition already exists. David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like a copyvio to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now. It was taken from 24 Oras by copy paste without being in edit mode. I also see that text at some pinoy tv site, but that could be reverse copyvio. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Aside from this being a poor article, it looks like a content fork from 24 Oras. I suggest deleting this and merging any real information (re-written into a decent standard of English) into that article. – The Bounder (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per The Bounder; like all network weekend newscasts, this is literally just the same as the weekday version with the B-team anchors in the chairs instead. No need to elaborate beyond that (though the Filipino crufters WP:TV has to deal with ad nauseam will sadly never get that). Nate • (chatter) 13:01, 15 January 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. Tone 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date Eligible for Return from Overseas

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

This is a weird one, as it is about two terms. DEROS seems to exist but this is not a dictionary and it does not appear to be notable. '365...' seems marginally more so, but still doesn't seem to cross the notability threshold - term is used as title for non-notable book and non-notable blog. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a dictionary definition/glossary of US military terminology. The article could be redirected to Tour of duty which covers the same thing somewhat more broadly. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with redirect. Also, I was always under the impression that the "E" stood for "estimated" since return travel dates usually occurred earlier than the end of overseas tour date. See Date Estimated Return From Overseas (DEROS) for a Department of Defense site that seems to agree. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Glossary term. Redirecting to Tour of duty sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maricelle

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

Currently non-notable singer/songwriter. WP:TOOSOON Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and MUSICBIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From this recent tabloidy article, Chances are, you have never heard of Maricelle. But it is likely that by the end of this year, you will. WP:TOOSOON as this is the only source available. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears she was a contestant in Miss Earth 2010 (look for "Maricelle Rani Wong") and finished in the top 5 no less, behind only the winner. But I'm not sure that's enough for an article. Timmyshin (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she was Miss Singapore Earth. (There was an article in a tabloid about her see here). But this is still not enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I clicked a few links in the Miss Earth 2010 article and discovered these individuals with similar beauty pageant records: Anastasiya Sienina, Sandra Marie Lees. If this page is deleted so should their articles. Timmyshin (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a musician or a beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 20 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_ideophones_by_language

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

Seems to meet AfD criteria A1/A7. This is redundant with the main article Ideophones and seems highly questionable listcruft, as also noted on Talk:List_of_ideophones_by_language by a different user. To see the problem in a nutshell, consider the non-extant articles List of nouns by language, List of adverbs by language, List of adjectives by language, List of verbs by language. They are perfectly parallel: ideophones are a class of words just like nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. These other articles don't exist because (I guess) everybody understands they would not belong here but in Wiktionary (if anywhere). If this list stays as haphazard as it (necessarily) is, it is redundant, incomplete, and useless. If it were to be more systematically done, it would be a dictionary in itself and therefore belong in Wiktionary not Wikipedia. Janice Patrick (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to User:Zadignose, posting on the talk page 2 years ago (the article has seen little meaningful edits since then): "This "list" seems ill conceived. It cannot succeed in listing even a tiny fraction of the items which could theoretically be included. It's similar to having a page called "list of words," with six or seven words on it, arbitrarily chosen. For instance, it should be relatively easy to list several hundred Korean ideophones, so why are these particular four items selected. If we put ideophones from all languages, it would run into thousands of items, and the page would resemble a jumbled heap of trivial data." Janice Patrick (talk) 13:34, 14 January 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 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate. If, as the lead suggests, the intention is to list every ideophone in every language except English, then it can never hope to be complete. I can't imagine discriminating criteria for a WP:Stand-alone list on this topic that would satisfy WP:Notability. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Wiktionary Spiderone 20:49, 19 January 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. Nominated by sock of banned user, no other editors supported deletion. BethNaught (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertension

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

Falure of update, some one revert 2015 update inforamtion and prevent updates and also using old guidelines bp values,plese see talk page of this article for letest sources,pleae see classification of hypertension it is old classificatin. for update contact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_international_blood_pressure_guidelines Barodaj (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC) update sources of 2015 of hypertesiion and normal bp letest update ^[1]. ^[2]. ^[3]. ^[4]. ^[5]. ^[6]. (¬¬¬¬) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barodaj (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (WP:SNOW) I'm not sure why this AfD has been filed - it appears to be a content-related issue. I'd recommend suggesting the edits you wish to make on the Talk page of the article rather than taking this drastic, and frankly ridiculous step. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 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 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but update ,please follow 2015 guidelines ,dont mislead the public ,becasue classification follows 2003 old guidelines and not follow letest

(¬¬¬¬) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barodaj (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, plainly. Something has gone wrong but it can certainly be fixed (by any procedure up to completely rewriting the article). The topic is notable so it's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://csc.cma.org.cn/attachment/2014315/1394884955972.pdf
^ https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/publications/PRO-167_Hypertension-guideline-2016_WEB.pdf
^ https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg127/resources/hypertension-in-adults-diagnosis-and-management-35109454941637
^ http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/practitioner-pro/bc-guidelines/htn-full-guideline.pdf
^ http://csc.cma.org.cn/attachment/2014315/1394884955972.pdf
^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4137642/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flanaess. Mz7 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Ulek

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flanaess; there's nothing to merge as the copy is uncited (since 2009) and is strictly in-universe content. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flanaess, or merge if preferred. I would recommend a merge to Ulek States, but I'm a long way from convinced that that article should exist. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flanaess. I don't see how it's own stand alone article is appropriate. Longevitydude (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flanaess. -- Dane ^talk 01:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flanaess as above. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeed Technology

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

Unambiguous Promotion. CSD tags repeatedly removed by author of article (logged in and logged out). Exemplo347 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – thanks for nominating this, I was about to report the IP for vandalism. I suggest the page be salted as articles like these are usually recreated. Laurdecl ^talk 10:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I saw the messy edit history and decided to follow a deletion process that isn't as easy for logged-out editors to disrupt. As you say, salting is probably a good idea too. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete– I concur with the above comments it is Promotional. FITINDIA (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – This is unambiguously promotional and speedy process has been repeatedly disrupted. Alex Cohn (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all the reasons above - very clearly promotionalism and advertising. -- Dane ^talk 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nothing is here! Light2021 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American professional soccer players abroad

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

Contested PROD. Numerous issues with this topic - entirely unreferenced; no evidence the topic has been subject to significant coverage, as opposed to run-of-the-mill WP:ROUTINE news stories about an American signing for a foreign team; WP:LISTCRUFT; inaccurate (e.g. Nermin Crnkić is listed even though he is not American, and there are numerous players who do not play in professional leagues; arbitrary inclusion criteria. Need I go on? This kind of information is more than adequately covered by Category:American expatriate soccer players. Giant Snowman 09:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again, there is a difference between this page and Category:American expatriate soccer players. One covers past and present foreign based players, including those with a page, while the other covers only Americans abroad now, whether they have a page or not. Jozy Altidore for example would be in that category but not on this page. Secondly, Nermin has an American passport, played high school soccer in the United States, and is eligible for the US national team. Thirdly, I agree when you say that there is no significant news coverage on the subject and thus I say delete. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ArsenalFan700 — The article now has references that include several publications that provide significant news coverage. I don't know if these article revisions change your views. Barryjjoyce (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see there being any advantage to having a current listing of American footballers playing abroad; this would require a ridiculous amount of work to keep up to date; the category is sufficient. Spiderone 15:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that it would require a ridiculous amount of work to keep up to date is a ridiculous point. It would take a lot of work to maintain all the thousands upon thousands of player articles each match day, it would take a lot of work to maintain club record lists and the like etc. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's already a Category for this subject. An unreferenced, inaccurate list with questionable inclusion criteria is not what an encyclopaedic entry should look like. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Exemplo347 — Responding to each of your comments in turn: (1) arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided, see WP:NOTDUPE, (2) the article is referenced now, plus see WP:NEXIST, (3) all identified inaccuracies have been addressed, plus see WP:SURMOUNTABLE, (4) the inclusion criteria are clear (to me at least) and satisfy WP:LISTCRITERIA, what about the criteria are "questionable" in your view? Barryjjoyce (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I don't feel strongly whether this article stays or goes, but I do hope that whatever decision is made is based on correct facts and correct interpretations of wiki policies and guidelines, and not based on mistaken assumptions. In that vein, I'd like to make a few points. First, the fact that the article had no references at the time of deletion nomination is not a correct basis to delete; per WP:NEXIST, the correct standard is whether sources exist, not whether they are present in the article. In any case, I have added a few references. Second, several folks have claimed that this topic does not have significant coverage. That is not so. I have added references from eight sources. Many US soccer media outlets report on Americans abroad quite prominently, and for at least one source, this topic is their exclusive focus. Third, nobody has explained what is "arbitrary" or "questionable" about the inclusion criteria. The criteria for inclusion, as explained in the article, is that the players are (1) Americans, and (2) playing soccer professionally abroad. I'm not sure what other inclusion criteria people are proposing. Fourth, the presence of some errors, per WP:RUBBISH, is not a valid reason for deletion, esp where the nominator himself has been demonstrated to have been inaccurate in attempting to point out the claimed inaccuracies. Relatedly, the complaint about non-professional leagues being included has been fixed. It took all of 10 minutes. Not a valid reason for deletion. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS, whilst I agree the category does not quite equal the listing, I also agree that, aside from the fact that I don't think the subject has gained any real coverage per WP:NLIST, I don't think that "professionally" can be clearly defined. anyone who has been paid any money is professional and this would create a list of unmanageable length. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down — I believe the article addresses both of your reservations. The references section lists a number of publications that provide significant coverage about Americans playing abroad. And the article is limited to players in a "fully-professional league", a term that has been defined by WikiProject Football, and that is used in applying the WP:NFOOTBALL notability guideline. Barryjjoyce (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fully professional league bit doesn't really help, as it is a project-defined criterion used for notability, the list itself is still incredibly vague and there is not a clear indication of notability per LISTN, for instance:

There is no indication that there is any requirement to make a first team appearance, simply to "play for the club".
This list seems to work as a "live list". How would this be managed?
Why include the regionalliga, it is not an FPL
Why are players for FPL teams in Canada not included?
What about players who might play for reserve teams which currently play in FPLs (e.g. Russia)?
Why exclude players with dual citizenship that have played for another nation?
What about players who are american citizens but have only declared for another nation?
The links you have provided are in the main merely search queries for a number of websites. This does not indicate that there is discussion of american soccer players abroad as a subject, only that articles have been written about aerican players who happen to play abroad.

To me, this is simply not a list that can be managed effectively with a clear and agreed set of inclusion criteria and so is not something which is encyclopedic. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to California Dreams. T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Jackson (actor)

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

Delete: as non-notable former tween actor. Quis separabit? 07:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not found , secondly this article lack independent Reliable sources Samat lib (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Article cites no sources to establish notability. Google and NYT searches provides "no results" CBS527^Talk 03:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California Dreams as was done with both Michael Cade and William James Jones in earlier AfD's. I {{Notability}} tagged this one myself back in February 2016 (which [email protected] removed when AfD'ing this one back in late December), but the fact is that Jackson is only known for his role on California Dreams, and thus fails WP:NACTOR, let alone WP:GNG. He is definitely not notable enough for a dedicated article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 19 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Kent

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}}.

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

This is a non-notable biography. Sources are either the subject's websites or self-published sources such as blogs, with the only exception being the sabotagereviews.com reference which includes just a single paragraph on one of the author's works within a review of a collection of other works. The article was created as a draft and moved into article space by a new user (who just made enough edits to get autoconfirmed, in order to make the move), deceptively subverting the normal WP:AFC review process. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated on the Wikipedia Biography page an article must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and Kent's recent Poetic Interviews makes this so alone - as the project is completely new in style and approach within the poetry community (see Wikipedia requirement for creative professionals 2 - The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique). Considering the breadth and scope of the work, and the individuals involved, this is a significant enough piece of work within the poetry and literature community to ensure his relevance. Also, through the screening of his films, and the recent inclusion of his work on various outlets (podcasts etc) these showcase importance. Finally the self-pblished blogs are not just minor blogs but interviews on literary websites, and one in particular is a respected music magazine (God is in the TV) 2.31.105.116 (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC) — 2.31.105.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Deletion seems unnecessary and article should remain. 2.31.105.116 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You souldn't vote twice (or three times, if you are Minisixx, which seems likely.) Edgeweyes (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was intended as an additional edit not a second vote. Have deleted 'keep' and added to above.2.31.105.116 (talk) 19:42, 02 January 2016 (UTC) — 2.31.105.116 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closer: The IP 2.31.105.116 first edit was on Dec 27, 2016 with a total of 7 edits- all concerning this article. [7] CBS527^Talk 14:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creator of the page was not informed of intention to delete. Also, with new information such as the screening of the St Day Road film at the Polytechnic cinema in Falmouth, individual has become more noteworthy still with this new secondary source. Minisixx (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC) — Minisixx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is incorrect. I did inform the creator of the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.151.198&oldid=757577046. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a case of WP:TOOSOON. Article sounds too promotional and does not pass WP:GNG. Bandcamp EPs are self-released, fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails [WP:GNG]]. Per nom. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 04:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG threshold not met. I was unable to find Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources Exemplo347 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 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. Merge discussions, if desired, can be had at the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon sundae

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

Old fad with little/no continuing press. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 07:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm...erge to List of Burger King products#Other. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Burger King products#Other and/or the Denny's article, as both establishments seem to have offered this dish See this article from June, 2016 noting Denny's version. There was an early attempt to redirect the article to the main Burger King article right after the article was created in 2012. That was reverted by the creator. As it stands, the article is too narrow and of limited notability for a standalone, but it might work in the list article for Burger King products and/or as a mention in the Denny's article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples provided below; more in addition to these are available. Notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, those sources aren't very good. As well, a more practical approach is more relevant here. Though it arguably could pass GNG, it's not worth it to keep four sentences of text about a BK/Denny's invention when it could be stuck in an article about those businesses or about the bacon mania of the time. I will individually pick apart these sources if necessary.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 04:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Almost all of those stories/references are dated June 2012, when the product was rolled out. There are a couple of stragglers (July, August), two early bird previewers in April, one undated and one for Denny's. It just had no lasting power, like many others (I'm looking at you, McDonald's mediocre 12). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Northamerica1000 mentioned, notability is not temporary, and there's no "lasting power" requirement. If significant coverage exists - no matter how old - general notability is established. The nomination statement here is fundamentally flawed for that very reason. Still, I figured I'd relist to get more thoughts on whether to merge or keep the article as a standalone. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NorthAmerica is right, notability is not temporary. Argument to merge this to two different restaurant chain articles suggests that in fact it is better to have this one article covering the topic, which can be briefly linked from the other two. Merging and redirecting to something like a list-article of weird desserts would be another possibility, if this topic would be covered as a list-item there, and the restaurant chain articles could then link to it there. But no good merge target has been suggested, and I don't see why it shouldn't be a standalone article anyhow. --do ncr am 23:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, plenty of "notable" articles get merged just because there's not enough substance or interest for its own article. See Donald Trump email controversy for one. This sundae article could very easily take up one line in the BK article and one line in the Denny's article (if needed).

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 01:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Burger King products#Other. The Dennys one is not mentioned in the article so if someone wants to add it to that page then there are no attribution issues. Lots of different fast food joints offer similar meals so I don't see the problem of having two potential merge targets, especially as this one seems the primary topic. We basically have a Wikipedia:Permastub here that would fit into the main article easily. AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not temporary... and now I'm hungry. Lepricavark (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The sundae is served at multiple restaurants and passes notability rules per the list by Northamerica1000. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't an exclusive product to just Burger King and it is notable with coverage in multiple sources. -- Dane ^talk 01:58, 17 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deeper Life Bible Church Lagos

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

This article looks like a mirror of Deeper Christian Life Ministry. It should be deleted or redirected to the aforementioned article —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ per nom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep - Deeper Christian Life Ministry appears to be a denomination. This article (better punctuated as Deeper Life Bible Church, Lagos) is presumably its local church there and perhaps the mother church. I see reference to a mega-church of 65,000 people. I would have thought such a church would be notable in its own right, as Cathedrals tend to be. However the articles are not clear enough for me to be sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: DL have millions of members across Africa. It's actually among the top three most populated Pentecostal churches in Nigeria. It has thousands of branches scattered across every state in Nigeria, with each state headquarters amassing at least 5,000 members every Sunday. This article is the worldwide headquarters for DCLM, the same way Faith Tabernacle is the worldwide headquarters for Living Faith Church Worldwide, and RCCG City of David (I will create this one soon) is the most notable of all Redeemed Christian Church of God parishes. It passes WP:LOCAL, plus it also houses a building of above 65,000 capacity. Darreg (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. It looks like DL has as many as 500 churches in Lagos alone,[8] (I'm not sure if there are other locations in Gbagada). Also, it seems that "Deeper Christian Life Ministry" and "Deeper Life Bible Church" are different names for the same thing[9]. However, I've stricken my vote on the assumption that this article is meant to be about the church headquarters. Perhaps it is now at the right location, or perhaps it should be something like "Deeper Life Bible Church Headquarters" or "Deeper Life Bible Church Headquarters (Lagos)". Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are very correct. Deeper Life Bible Church is the wp:commonname. There is even Deeper Life Bible Ministry, all refering to the same thing. The current parent article title isnt the wp:commonname. Additionally, I prefer the second name you suggested, with Lagos in parenthesis. The headquarters was recently completed in 2016, so we need to remove 1973 from this article. Secondly the capacity of the church auditorium is 30,000, they usually have more than one service every Sunday and there is extension to the building but the capacity is 30k. I think that should be reflected in the article.

Keep The article seems like a mirror but ought not to be. The Deeper Christian Life Ministry, is the overall registered section of the church. Its under the ministry that we have the Deeper Life Bible Church, Deeper Life Campus Fellowship and Deeper Life Student Outreach. Unarguably the Deeper Life Bible Church is the biggest and most popular arm. So an article about Deeper Life Bible Church does not violate any wikipedia rule I know of - Only that it really needs a cleanup. I can vouch to do the clean up when I'm less busy this month.Mahveotm (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, what I suggest is that Deeper Christian Life Ministry be moved to Deeper Life Bible Church, and this article Deeper Life Bible Church Lagos be moved to Deeper Life Bible Church Headquarters (Lagos). You can create an article for the ministry that covers all Deeper Life related congregations when you are chanced as implied. Darreg (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently recreated the page Deeper Life Bible Church and I hope this solve a little of the problem right now. Everyone is invited to have a look at it and make edits they deem necessary. Shalom.Mahveotm (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeper Life Bible Church.
Keep, although moving/renaming the topic is possible (and can be handled by a normal wp:RM process). This was renamed from "Deeper Life Bible Church Lagos" to "Deeper Life Bible Church, Lagos" during this AFD? And then also this was improperly copy-pasted to Deeper Life Bible Church, as an improper attempt to move/rename the article during this AFD (improper because it causes confusion and loses edit history in the article). If the title of an article is imperfect, it is usually best to open a wp:RM Requested Move and have it discussed and fixed. The Requested Move process at Wikipedia usually works very well. Many times something gets opened as an AFD, which by its nature is threatening and negative and contentious, when a simple Requested Move is what should be done instead. --do ncr am 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article meets notability standards although as doncram said, a rename may be in order via normal processes. -- Dane ^talk 02:03, 17 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Alice Band

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

Delete. Band with no strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; as written, this amounts to "band who existed", and is sourced entirely to primary sources and WP:BLOGS rather than real media coverage. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed and had a Myspace page; RS coverage supporting an NMUSIC pass must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is poor, but please start looking at something other than the article itself before bringing things to AfD. This group had three minor hit singles and a top 60 album ([10]), and at least some of the coverage that they received is still online, as well as coverage of the duo they became when one of them left: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see here: according to that chart archive, the album debuted at #55 on the charts in its first week, declined to #78 in its second, and then bellyflopped off the charts never to be heard from again after just two weeks. And the singles all did the same: two made a quick debut at an unimpressive chart position in the 45-70 range, fell to the 80s in the second week, and then gone gone gone — and the third didn't even manage that, starting in the 80s in its first week and then immediately dying without a second week. This is hardly impressive chart performance we're talking about here. And, as always, WP:NMUSIC explicitly states that nominal passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not confer an inclusion freebie in and of itself — regardless of what NMUSIC criterion an article can claim that its topic meets, it's the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim that determines whether it passes or fails NMUSIC, not the mere assertion of the claim in and of itself.

So let's actually look at what you've shown for sourcing: #2 = 80-word blurb, not assisting WP:GNG because not substantive. #3 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about the head of their record label, not assisting GNG because not about them. #4 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about a songwriter, not assisting GNG because not about them. #5 = 78-word blurb, not assisting WP:GNG because not substantive. #6 = glancing namecheck of their existence in an article about a related band that formed after the band that's the subject of this article broke up, not assisting GNG because not about this band (notability is not inherited) and because it's a Q&A-style interview which represents Nugent and Belle talking about themselves. #7 = the closest thing to a substantive source that's been shown, but it serves only to verify that they exist rather than actually offering any noteworthy information that would actually pass NMUSIC — so while it counts toward GNG more than any other source does, it doesn't carry GNG all by itself as the article's only GNG-worthy source.

Not for the first time, I remind you that we're not after "reliable sources have provided one-line acknowledgements that the band existed"; we're after "reliable sources have published substantive coverage about the band accomplishing something encyclopedic". This is far from the first time I've seen you try to argue that a musical artist or band had to be kept because it was possible to find blurbs and one-line acknowledgements of their existence in articles about other things or other people — but we're looking for substantive coverage, not cursory verification of existence. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They had two singles and an album that made the top 75. We're looking for encyclopedic relevance, backed up by evidence - the GNG isn't everything. Personally I feel that an artist that made the top 75 in the UK is highly likely to be worthy of inclusion. If you don't think these are enough for notability, that's your opinion, but given that you found absolutely nothing, or more likely (as your deletion rationale suggests) didn't even look, it's a bit rich to be criticising me for simply listing what I found from a web search. --Michig (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GNG is everything. SNGs do not create an exemption from having to source the article over GNG, but merely serve to clarify what kinds of things can get an article kept if they're supported by GNG-qualifying sources. NMUSIC explicitly states that nominal passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not confer an exemption from actually having to get the topic over GNG — it's the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim that determine whether the claim is passed or failed, not the mere assertion of an NMUSIC claim in and of itself. Peaking in the low end of the Top 75, for instance, is not compelling enough to exempt a band from having to be sourceable to more than just glancing namechecks of its existence — it's high enough if the article is sourced properly, but if the band isn't the subject of enough substantive coverage to pass GNG, then NMUSIC is still failed as NMUSIC explicitly requires that GNG is also being passed in tandem. And no, my deletion rationale does not "suggest that I didn't even look"; it suggests, because this is the truth, that I did look, and in fact found some of the same weak sources you proffered above, but utterly failed to find anything substantive enough to actually satisfy what's required (which your sources above also fail to do.) Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading Wikipedia:Notability (which states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline"). --Michig (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misreading anything whatsoever. NMUSIC explicitly states that its notability criteria cannot be passed merely by asserting passage (music being one of those areas where PR flunkies have a marked tendency to inflate the publicity hype well past the actual reality, such as by claiming "hit" status for any song that ever got played on the radio at all even if it got played once and charted nowhere), but are passed only when a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of coverage exists to properly verify the truth of the claim. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V does not require WP:GNG to be satisfied. Verifiability and finding a lot of significant coverage are two entirely different things. --Michig (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that WP:V requires GNG to be satisfied; I said that NMUSIC requires GNG to be satisfied. The ability to nominally verify that a band exists is not what gets them into Wikipedia; the ability to reference the article to "a lot of significant coverage" is, and NMUSIC is failed if that significant coverage isn't there. Regardless of what the article claims to be true about them, NMUSIC is not passed until significant RS coverage can be shown to properly support the article — NMUSIC explicitly says that very thing right in its own introduction, in fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says nothing of the sort. It says that satisfying the criteria must be reliably sourced. Reliable sourcing of facts does not require significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it most certainly does say something of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading through the above debate, it is clear to me that WP:NMUSIC doesn't save this article, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified charting satisfies WP:MUSIC which is sufficiant to satisfy WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than the aboility to nominally verify that an NMUSIC criterion has technically been passed for an article about a band to be considered notable under NMUSIC — no matter what criterion a band claims to pass, it's the depth and quality of reliable sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article that determines whether the notability claim passes or fails NMUSIC. The sources are what we measure, not how impressive the unsourced or poorly sourced claims sound. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Michig provided a quality source that supports the notability claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not. "Unimpressive chart position, sourced only to that chart's self-published database of its own chart positions" is still an NMUSIC fail if the band aren't the subject of enough substantive coverage in media to pass WP:GNG. NMUSIC #1 is the one criterion that every band or musician always has to satisfy without exception; criteria 2-12 are only considered to be passed if they're supported by the volume and quality of sourcing needed to satisfy #1, but cannot confer an exemption from having to pass #1. For instance, a band does not pass the "touring" criterion just because you can show concert listings directories, or the primary source websites of the tour venues, as proof that they toured — they pass the touring criterion when media are writing content about the tour. And a band does not pass the charting criterion just because a chart position can technically be referenced to that chart itself — they pass the charting criterion when media are writing content about them having charted. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not true. The guideline states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria..." No mention whatsoever of having to meet criterion 1. And a chart company's own website is perfectly good for verifying chart placings - significant coverage is not required for verification, the criterion is satisfied if the chart position can be verified. --Michig (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig - The band had notable singles and a notable album. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now expanded with more refs. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:17, 16 January 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. The unrebutted copyvio argument dooms the page in its current state. No prejudice against recreation in a copyvio-free form. T. Canens (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Lyubka

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

Page created by George Boydon (talk · contribs · count) with one (1) edit to his credit. I have no doubt, that is was the subject himself. Because the only source of info (i.e. the linked reference) is his own webpage at "Andriy Lyubka - official website". On 23 December 2016, his sock‎ puppet Czytelnik editor (talk · contribs · count) with two (2) edits, removed both tags added by User:Piotrus, including {{unreferencedBLP}} and {{notability}} without a word of explanation. I could not think of a clearer case of WP:YOURSELF. Poeticbent talk 04:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:YOURSELF, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY. Poeticbent talk 04:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~No sources added or that I can find that would help him pass WP:ARTIST.~~ SPA sock displays vanity/promotional behavioral pattern, not cool. But I do see some indication on notability on the Polish Internet: Short description of an event he attended, Polish regional radio interview, Polish national radio interview, Article in Polish about him on some Ukrainian website (not sure of reliablity), Interview in a regional/niche Polish website, Interview in a regional Polish newspaper. There is more, nothing great, but without even looking at (Belo)Russian / Ukrainian sources there seem to be borderline notability due to coverage. I am not sure whether to lean keep or delete without seeing what people can dig from Cyrillic sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Polish Wikipedia the bio of Andriy Lyubka was created by SPA User:83.9.106.171 whose only contribution to Wikipedia was his own bio.[17] The user has absolutely no interest in helping the project, neither here, nor anywhere else. Poeticbent talk 14:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is a vanity autobio, but being selfish and using Wikipedia to promote oneself doesn't make one not notable. In other words, if he is notable, it doesn't matter who wrote his bio and for what reasons. Numerous Nazis may be totally despicable, and that doesn't mean we go around deleting their bios :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment prose writer and translator, too.Xx236 (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Andrew Lyubka has had an article on the ukrainian wik since 2008, see article history here, it was created by an ip, (that ip address has around 70 diverse looking edits on the ukwik over about two years) the ukraine article appears to have a no. of sources, not sure about the reliablity of them, also not sure about the relevance of an article on the polish wik to this person (please forgive my ignorance of this, but happy to receive the big T if anyone is so inclined). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the Russian Wikipedia, the article was started by a user in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was interviewed by the BBC Ukraine. There are thousands of Urainian news articles mentioning his name. One of his books was reviewed by Sevodnya, a newspaper with the circulation of about 700,000 (second largest Ukrainian newspaper according to our list of Ukrainian newspapers). This debate needs competent editors fluent in Ukrainian to assess the sources instead of examining the intentions of the creator. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, seems to be notable [18], [19], [20]--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NowI see that it is copyvio from [21] presumably Google-translated. This means we need to delete the article first, and then it can be recreated based on reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need someone who not only knows Ukrainian, but can also separate the wheat from the chaff. Lyubka writes opinion pieces for the web, that's why his name is mentioned repeatedly, with countless reprints between different websites. But I looked at several of those opinion pieces in Google translate, and I was not impressed. They are not real essays in traditional sense. They are never referenced. They are just opinion pieces. Lyubka is all over the place with his focus, from Poroshenko to Putin and back. An American web journalist like him would probably not have an article in Wikipedia. Maybe he works for BBC Ukraine, I don't know. His only book of poetry is advertised there with an invitation to purchase. I haven't found yet a single critical review of his poetry by a seasoned professional. Poeticbent talk 02:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you would find someone better than me, but best luck.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has published a number of books, some of them translated into several languages, into Polish by Bohdan Zadura. Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks:) Coolabahapple (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Than go ahead, and improve the article please. As it stands, it is deletable; with the only source being his own personal website coupled with strong suspicion of WP:YOURSELF, and nothing else to confirm anything at all. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked 4 texts in Polish in Talk:Andriy Lyubka .Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 14 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GM Capital

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

With the exception of [22], sources look like passing mentions, quotes, PR, and social media. Not enough notability to pass WP:CORPDEPTH Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable business concern. When looking at the title, I had assumed it was the financing arm of General Motors, but as a real-estate development company, this is non notable. The article is also heavily advertorial, so WP:PROMO applies. Separately, Marco Antonio Garza Mercado article was recently deleted, so this appears to be part of a walled garden and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks unsatisfactory by various means. Light2021 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 14 January 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 Fantasia (Fantasia Barrino album). czar 07:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only One U

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

Even though this song was released as a single from a major recording artist and did chart, there is limited evidence of independent notability. A merge/redirect to the parent album may suffice. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fantasia (Fantasia Barrino album), the song's parent album. While the single reached a pair of Billboard charts, I can find not find significant coverage to support a standalone article. The chart positions are already listed within the artist's discography page. Gongshow talk 17:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, a redirect is probably the best course of action for this one. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirecting to the album it comes from is standard practice when the individual songs do not pass the GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 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. Softly. T. Canens (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fingazz

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. - TheMagnificentist 22:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a lot of Google news results in Korean, as he has worked there, so this discussion would benefit from some Korean editors input to evaluate them Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 1 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, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Men (film)

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

Delete. Plot-only summary of a film, with no indication of real-world context and no reliable sourcing to support it. I can't find any stronger sourcing to repair it with on Google or ProQuest, either: even its profile on Rotten Tomatoes, often the first place to check for the critical reviews that can salvage an unsourced article about a film, lists zero reviews at all, and all I can find on ProQuest is two one-line acknowledgements of its existence in "what's playing at the film festival today" calendar listings. As always, every film that exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article that's sourced only to its IMDb profile -- reliable source coverage in media, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NFILM, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 03:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a Variety review. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. DVD Talk isn't the greatest source in the world, but I did find this review. There's also a trivial mention here about the DVD release date. It's hard to find reviews for this film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources to establish an article. I also found a source from a Buffalo LGBT newspaper, "Outcome": http://www.outcomebuffalo.com/film-2006-3-22-003099.htm. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weak keep, but the review in Variety clinches it for me. I also found short reviews in the Halifax Daily News and Video Business using proquest/lexis-nexis. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per meeting WP:NF. Really sad that the artcle is in poor shape but under WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST that would call for improvement for a sourcable topic, not deletion. Sorry nominator, but perhaps you might reconsider your stance? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Xanth characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorceress Ivy

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Minor characters of Xanth. Quis separabit? 23:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Xanth characters, which should be restructured. Seems like a major character, no need to delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Xanth characters. Now that the page is being restructured, it seems like an appropriate place for a merger. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:19, 14 January 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 Merton College, Oxford#Societies. T. Canens (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bodley Club

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I see some mentions in passing, including in books, but they are in passing. Few sentences in Vincent O'Sullivan (2011). Long Journey to the Border: A Life of John Mulgan. Bridget Williams Books. pp. 111–. ISBN 978-1-927131-32-9.. A bit more in Northrop Frye Newsletter. R.D. Denham. 2002., republished at [23], but even that suggests that the best this organization has going for it is a paragrpah in a very minor outlet - Northrop Frye Newsletter doesn't sound like a particularly mainstream nor peer reviewed publication; as the "newsletter" in the title indicates. If anyone wants to argue we should keep this as an important historical organization, we need more than a paragraph in a newsletter to prove it is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page has now been fully updated, and is now referenced from independent sources as well as the Merton College website. The Bodley Club was clearly a group that contained a large number of significant individuals in the early 20th Century, and its continued association with high-profile speakers is not to be ignored. --165.120.25.199 (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, it is to be ignored, per Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Notability_is_inherited. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was developed considerably since AFD nomination. Now it appears to be a sourced, solid article about an historic organization. --doncram 23:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doncram: Yes, the article has been developed, but I am afraid it still fails GNG. Please look at the new article and the references. We still have the history, with no discussion of significance, and the history is not based on any in-depth sources, it is cobbled together from mentions in passing, usually such as 'Mr. X, who in 19XX was a member of the Bodley Club, blah blah'. The club has not received any coverage, its mentions occur only because some of its members were notable, and the club gets mentioned in half a sentence as something they did while at Oxford. Let's keep in mind notability is not inherited by association - having some notable members is not enough to make the club notable. I am afraid the article still fall foul of GNG, not to mention OR. At best the club can be mentioned in some article on Oxford University clubs or such, we could have a list - but it does not seem to have standalone notability. If you disagree, please tell me which sources discuss it in depth, and how it meets WP:NORG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merton College, Oxford#Societies as that will suffice. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merton College, Oxford#Societies; anything useful (not much) can be picked up from the article history. There are some WP:SOAP undertones in the article as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Autobots. The underlying consensus of this discussion is that the subject of the article is not suitable as a topic for a standalone article on Wikipedia for lack of notability. There is an additional consensus that the content within the article is unsatisfactory and therefore should not be merged. I believe "delete and redirect" is the outcome that best reflects these consensuses. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scattorshot

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

This does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if preferred. Article's a mess, no indication of notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. Non-notable character, already present on the master list of Autobots, no sourced content worth merging. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Autobots. The usual overly detailed, poorly sourced transformers fancruft. None of this content would be useful to merge. Reyk _YO! 10:15, 16 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Karr

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

Fails WP:GNG, acting roles were sparse and unnotable. Also at present unsourced. I looked around for some, could not locate any, especially in regards to the creator's claim she has passed away. I asked them if they had any sources and they simply ignored me and deleted my question. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 26 mentions in the New York Times alone, all related to her theatrical career, and some of those appearances as a headliner, so she clearly is notable. But the article as it now stands mentions none of those appearances, or much else, for that matter. I have removed the claim about her death as uncited, and given the timing, highly improbable unless the author was in the hospital when death occurred. Kablammo (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in an article doesn't equate to being notable. Especially when it's just her name being mentioned. Nothing biographical wise, just about whatever she was starring in. Not concrete enough. Rusted AutoParts 03:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her IMDb film and TV credits are not very strong. She did appear in a large number of Broadway productions, [24] but the best of the lot seems to be as a replacement Fastrada in the original run of Pippin, which doesn't quite make the grade. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of a Phoenix Tour

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

This article is about a concert tour that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article fail to establish notability nor can I find anything beyond short press release rehash type articles or simple announcements of the concert and links to ticket sites. Whpq (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability under WP:NTOUR or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lanshou Xianggu

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

Neologism with no indication of notability or suitability for an encyclopedia. Unsourced. I did find [www.chinadaily.com.cn/trending/2016-10/14/content_27065364.htm], but this is a single source and I'm unqualified to judge the reliability of it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC mentions it here, although they use the anglicized term "skinny blue mushroom". Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese for it is 藍瘦香菇 which I’ve added above. Google says it finds over 10 million results. Here’s Baidu’s entry on it, not in itself a reliable source but may be useful for finding them: [25]. It’s mentioned on the Chinese WP on the page for the Nanning dialect of Mandarin: zh:南宁普通话--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The Jan 7 AFD log hit the transclusion limit, so here's hoping that another relist will help. T. Canens (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete — It's an Internet slang/meme that is only funny (to young teens) in Chinese; while I'm all for presenting Chinese topics in translation, I don't think any non-Chinese speaker will learn anything from reading about this in English. (Not to mention the writing is so poor it probably requires WP:TNT.) There's also no evidence this meme is ever used in non-Chinese speaking cultures, unlike Om telolet om. Timmyshin (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It now has a Chinese WP page at zh:藍瘦香菇, but the one ref seems far from a reliable source, not the sort of thing we could base an article on. Absent proper sources, or anything worth keeping per Timmyshin, I have to come down on the side of delete to.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:02, 16 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Dillon

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP Article. Supposed media personality, but can't see how he is notable. Looked at it several times. Reads like a puff piece. Meida personality on youtube but few followers. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not the nominator, although the log will show that I am. I only did some clerking to fix the format of the nomination. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Unless I'm missing something. I looked at the first half of the sources (no obvious reason to keep going), and they seem to be mostly directly to YouTube, or the most passing mention possible with the exception of this, which is very local coverage, and makes his claim to notability that...basically he's gotten 150k views on the internet.

~~For a person who is supposed to be a famous YouTuber, it seems that this is his channel, with all of four videos, three of which failed to break 1k views.~~

There's not been a single keep vote in three deletion discussions, and I don't see any reason that this should have changed in the past 10 months. Salt the title. Next time the author make the case for the article instead of us having to rehash a deletion discussion for the fifth time. TimothyJosephWood 14:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be fair, he is quite a well-known interviewer and prior to that a decently well known youtuber, as the article says his interview of Daniel Radcliffe was cited on the Graham Norton Show, and to be fair he has had some pretty major interviews including Will Smith, Bridget Jones among others. However, I have found some further sources in major publications including The Independant, [teneightymagazine.com/2014/11/14/craig-dillon-thomas-corbett/|Ten eighty Magazine] [www.dailydot.com/upstream/craig-dillon-youtube-sex-abuse-allegations/| Daily Dot] and Sky News. I can't see much sense in deleting this article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dillon is a notable journalist in the UK and interviews many celebrities. His Daniel Radcliffe interview ^[1] received widespread international coverage, which have been referenced in the article. ^[2]^[3]^[4] ^[5]. As AlessandroTiandelli333 pointed out, he has also interviewed celebrities like Will Smith, Bridget Jones and many more, interviews which have all been referenced in the article.

I see "TimothyJosephWood" seems to think this article is about a "famous YouTuber", which it is not. Dillon started as a YouTuber, but deleted his videos after becoming a Sky Journalist. He claims that "the first half of the sources direct to YouTube" when in fact only 3 out of the 22 sources referenced are YouTube links, the rest are reputable news sites including Time Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, The Independent, The Huffington Post, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and Sky News.

I too can't see much sense in deleting this article, Dillon is a well known journalist and is worthy of a wikipedia article.

References

^ "Radcliffe muses Trump-Voldemort comparison".
^ McCluskey, Megan. "Daniel Radcliffe Compares Donald Trump to Voldemort".
^ "Daniel Radcliffe Assesses Donald Trump/Voldemort Comparison".
^ "Daniel Radcliffe weighs in on the Donald Trump/Voldemort comparison". 28 September 2016.
^ Editor, Lee Moran Trends; Post, The Huffington (1 October 2016). "Donald Trump Gave Daniel Radcliffe Some Not-So-Magical Advice". {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not terribly swayed by the notion that Daniel Radcliffe saying something controversial really lends notability to the guy holding the microphone, especially when it amounts to celebrity gossip, and the coverage is mostly about what was said and not who it was said to. But if you approach the interview like a creative work, it isn't meaningless to notability. Combined with the other sources that are actually about the subject and it's enough to change my vote. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:14, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere Boys (Hong Kong band)

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

Fails WP:BAND. Refs which work, note them as new band. Single trade source in Esquire HK is interview with new ref. scope_creep (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Leung, Melanie (2016-03-26). "Nowhere Boys: meet HK's most unique live band". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  When Van Chan formed his band over a year ago, he decided Nowhere Boys would be the perfect name. “We’re not well-known in Hong Kong, but we’re working hard,” he says.
  The quintet – Chan on vocals, guitarist Kenneth Angus, keyboardist/violinist Fisher Kan, bassist Hansun Chan and drummer Nate Wong – describes their sound as “cinematic rock” genre – music inspired by movies.
  ...
  In July last year, they released their self-titled debut EP, featuring six songs mostly recorded in their homes with their own equipment. They spent HK$70,000 on mixing, printing and making music videos, yet saw it as just a passion project and didn’t expect any commercial success.
  To their surprise, it landed a No 5 spot on the iTunes and No 4 on Apple Music Canto-pop charts within its first week.
  Their songs were played on local radio, and the 1,000 copies they printed were gone in three months. Soon after, they got signed to Frenzi Music.
2. Leung, Eric (2015-09-25). "專業碟評｜Nowhere Boys Cinematic Rock眼球盛宴". Esquire (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  成立半年就已經出碟的Nowhere Boys把自已定位為Cinematic Rock，這張全在成員家中錄音的專輯，每首歌的編曲都像編劇在說故事，起承轉合讓你目不睱給。他們的隊名也跟講述John Lennon的電影《Nowhere Boy》有關，電影有一幕提到John Lennon年少時曾被老師大潑冷水，向他說:「You are going nowhere.」當時John Lennon回應：「It’s nowhere full of genisues.」主音Van覺得這句對白洽似他們樂隊的精神，希望五位寂寂無名的成員有一日可以到達「full of geniuses」的目的地。
  開場的〈狂想曲〉把Hip Hop、Church、西班牙結他、Baroque Classical、搖滾和蘇聯式行軍音樂共冶一爐，是碟內最花功夫的一首歌，雖然五花八門，但這首講他們音樂理念的歌毫無違和感；這種塔倫天奴式的瘋狂延續到〈4, 3, 2.5〉，把你帶到美國西部一個婚禮現場，遇上瘋狂鎗手大肆破壞，成員Fisher還在錄音中途忽發奇想，把私伙汽鎗掏出來，即席把扳機的聲音加進歌內；有人說電影是逃離現實的出口，主音Van就在〈The Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up〉中，跟著Peter Pan，在無憂的節奏中在夜空翱翔；靈感同樣來自卡通的〈Castle In The Sky〉本來是Van講述童年時想逃避欺凌的作品，但上年雨傘革命為這首歌添上多一層意義，他們參考了《天空之城》主題曲的Chord Progression，希望大家能乘著翼動的節奏離開欺壓，去到像天空之城的理想彼方。
  From Google Translate:
  The six-year-old Nowhere Boys has positioned itself as Cinematic Rock, a full-length album recorded in a member's house. Each song's arrangement is like a playwright who tells stories and lets you turn. John Lennon said: "You are going nowhere." John Lennon responded by saying: "It's a lot of fun. Nowhere full of genisues. "The vocalist Van felt that the dialogue was like the spirit of their band, hoping that the five unknown members would one day be able to reach the destination of" full of geniuses ".
  Hip Hop, Church, Spanish guitar, Baroque Classical, rock and Soviet marching music is a song of the most effort, although the variety of music, but this song about their musical ideas The Tarantino-style madness continues to <4, 3, 2.5>, to take you to a wedding scene in the western United States, the crazy gunmen wantonly destroyed, the members of Fisher also recording midway suddenly whim , The private gas gun pulled out, impromptu trigger voice added to the song; some people say that the film is to escape the reality of exports, vocal Van in <The Boy Who Would not Grow Up>, followed by Peter Pan, The inspiration also comes from the cartoon's <Castle In The Sky> Van was originally about childhood want to escape bullying works, but the umbrella revolution last year to add a layer of meaning for the song, they refer to the "sky of the City "theme song Chord Progression, I hope we can ride the rhythm of the wing move away from oppression, go to the ideal city like the other side of the sky.
3. "新進樂隊Nowhere Boys主打電影式搖滾". Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2015-08-07. Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  新進樂隊Nowhere Boys於今年初正式成軍，成員包括主音Van、鍵琴手魚佬、結他手Ken、鼓手Nate及低音結他手Hansun，雖然樂隊歷資尚淺，但五位成員嘅音樂功力深厚，有成員大學時期主修音樂表演，亦有成員自小學習各類樂器，五人來自唔同嘅背景，但最終一拍即合，講到樂隊組成契機，Van話：「一次喺電影音樂騷上我識咗Nate，咁啱就jam咗首歌，佢就搵我組隊band，於是我喺我識嘅人裏面搵到呢班人。」
  要喺云云樂隊中突圍而出，Nowhere Boys有明確定位：「我哋玩『電影式搖滾』，因為成員本身玩音樂嘅風格唔同，同一時間玩live都有好多唔同聲效，希望做到每一首歌都有唔同嘅故事，聽完一首歌就好似睇咗一套電影，而我哋嘅音樂都比較大眾化，希望任何人聽到都會喜歡我哋。」問到家人對全職做音樂嘅睇法，建築師出身嘅Van笑言其他成員一早同家人「傾掂數」，身為唯一「半途出家」嘅成員，佢大方分享：「因為我已經完成咗佢哋想我做嘅嘢，都做咗好多年正職建築師，所以好想做一啲自己想做嘅嘢，咁啱有一班樂手好夾得埋，於是我同家人講辭咗呢份工。」
  From Google Translate:
  The new band, Nowhere Boys, was formed early this year with vocalist Van, guitarist Ken, guitarist Nate and bassist Hansun. Although the orchestra is still in the limelight, the five members But the final hit it off, talked about the composition opportunity of the band, Van words: "a show at the music of music on the show. I am a student of the music scene, Knowing Nate, I just found the band, so I got it out of the box. "
  Nowhere Boys has a clear positioning: "I play" film rock ", because the members themselves play music style is different, at the same time have a lot of play live sound different, hope to do every A song has a different story, listening to a song like a movie, and my music is more popular, I hope anyone will like to hear me. "Asked his family to do full-time music Van, the architect of Van origin, other members of the family early in the morning, "dumping count", as the only "halfway home" members, Drainage generous to share: "because I have completed the channel I want to do, I had to work as an architect for many years, so I wanted to do something I wanted to do. I had a good band of music players, so I went to work with my family.
4. "Music: Nowhere Boys". Baccarat Magazine. 2015-10-02. Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Hong Kong band Nowhere Boys has been on a high lately. Since releasing their first EP Nowhere Boys in July, the five-piece cinematic rock outfit has performed at Freespace Happening in the West Kowloon Cultural District, Backstage Live (which closed down this summer) and Orange Peel, and alongside the likes of Eman Lam and Supper Moment. Consisting of Van Chan, Nate Wong, Fisher Kan, Hansun Chan and Kenneth Angus, the band is playing at Swire Properties’ Crossovers – Thursday Live at Via Fiori in Quarry Bay on November 26 and will be promoting their Music Bee crowdfunding campaign for their upcoming album at the Fringe Club on November 20.
  Baccarat Magazine has editorial oversight according to http://www.baccarat-magazine.com/about-baccarat/.^WebCite
5. "【專訪】Nowhere Boys玩「電影式搖滾曲」　用曲風征服觀眾". zh:香港01 (in Chinese). 2016-10-02. Archived from the original on 2017-01-02. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  樂隊Nowhere Boys隊員分別是負責主唱Van、鼓手Nate、結他手Kenneth、琴手Fisher和低音結他手Hansun，他們的全新音樂概念能將5子的特色都展現出來，「最開始夾的時候，沒有想過會玩什麼類型。大家一玩起來，發現都很有特點，感覺就像是電影的背景音樂，那次之後，就覺得玩什麼的音樂都可以。」
  ...
  對於Nowhere Boys來說，舞台就是他們最享受的地方，因為和觀眾一起玩，「其實我們有很多歌詞和故事都有現場感，就像一個音樂劇那樣，有些位置會有對白，可能會讓人覺得有些老土。但是我們並不這麼覺得，在說對白的那一刻就將觀眾帶入故事中，知道會發生什麼事，將音樂現實化。」除了加入對白，他們還會思考有什麼動作配合歌曲，或者會即場表演，其實早在創作歌曲的時候，已經有這個考慮，「其實我們每做一首歌，第一件事就會想，在Live的時候如何做，有什麼位置可以玩。」
  From Google Translate:
  The band Nowhere Boys is the lead singer Van, drummer Nate, guitarist Kenneth, Fisher and bass guitarist Hansun, their new music concept can be 5 sub-features are displayed, "the beginning of the folder, We did not think about what type of play.We all play up and found very characteristics, I feel like the background music of the film, after that, I feel what music can play.
  For Nowhere Boys, the stage is where they enjoy the most, because with the audience to play, "In fact, we have a lot of lyrics and stories have a sense of the scene, like a musical, as some locations will have dialogue, may make people But we do not think so, in the dialogue that moment will the audience into the story, know what will happen, the music reality. "In addition to adding dialogue, they will think about what action with Songs, or on the spot performances, in fact, as early as in the creation of songs, have this consideration, "In fact, each of us to do a song, the first thing will think, how to do when Live, what position can play . "
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nowhere Boys to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned above, I believe the band has received sufficient coverage from multiple independent sources. In addition, two prominent Hong Kong news outlets also ran pieces on them: Apple Daily and Oriental Daily. --Rhapsodic (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what's simply available are announcements, listings and interviews, and this is all for a barely 1 year old band hence nothing but said triviality as sources. I concur with the nomination in that none of this established the needed substance and simply because it's a major publication name is not automatically bestowing them notability. At best, all of this still suggests it's too soon. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the comment by Cunard reinforces my point. Large coverage doesn't automatically confer notability. There must be substance. All the links merely show is that marketing skits have been sent out successfully by PR, to get the band noticed. They show the band is exceedingly young and fails WP:BAND. scope_creep (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cunard's searches above persuade me that there is already sufficient biographical coverage in independent reliable sources. Deryck C. 12:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:12, 14 January 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 Battlestar Galactica characters#Galactica 1980. Any useful content may be merged at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cy (Cylon)

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

Article consists of plot summaries. Single episode wonder and though reprogrammed, is no different to other Cylons. Why is this allowed to have it's own article Cylon B (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate! Exterminate! per nom. Daleks are the true cyborg masters of the universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

To answer the rhetorical question, because it's been covered in multiple, independent, non-trivial places, such as Finding BSG and BSG and Philosophy. Keep and this and other unfounded nominations from this editor are getting ridiculous. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think two mentions in one paragraph and three in another satisfy GNG? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're asserting that that's all there is extant, then I am afraid you (and J Milburn and Aoba47) appear to have mistaken 'examples' for 'an exhaustive list'; as an aside "such as" is a good clue that I'm citing examples. this is inaccessible, this mentions the episode in 14 separate pages in the index, but I can't see the pages with preview. There's the usual suspects of episode reviews and fan commentaries which aren't RS, and a few other books that I can't find definitive references to this episode in using Google search, but probably have about the same level as what we have here. That's a few minutes of searching. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if preferred, merge somewhere. I am not convinced that the sources Jclemens has identified are sufficient for this topic to meet the GNG. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a site for a merge can be located. I agree with Josh Milburn. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- (sigh) Anyone who's invested any time in reviewing the topic should readily identify our article on Galactica 1980 as the parent for this fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then, I vote to merge this to Galactica 1980. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article has no character list and no mention of this character at the present time. It doesn't come across as a particularly inviting merge target. List of Battlestar Galactica characters and Cylon (1978) appear to be at least as viable. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, the article should merged to either one of those two as they appear more viable than the previous one. Thank you for clearing it up a little. I am more learning to the List of Battlestar Galactica characters as Cy is already referenced there. Aoba47 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ redirect. A few trivial mentions aren't enough to warrant an entire article. A character like Starbuck gets significant coverage in the sources listed above, but a couple episode recaps that mention Cy? No, I don't think that's enough. Wikia is a better place for these in-universe biographies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll soften my stance to redirect, but I'm not what there is to merge. If someone really wants to merge it, though, go ahead. I won't stand in the way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list List of Battlestar Galactica characters -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters#Galactica 1980. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:24, 18 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arcadian Singers

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirement. I cannot find anything better - sources are limited to self-published, and few mention in passing in regional/university media. I cannot even think of a good target for merger. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Arcadian Singers has been broadcast on BBC Radio 3, a national classical music radio station in the United Kingdom, so I believe meets Criterion 12 of WP:MUSBIO. I will try to find a reference for this and other independent reviews. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being broadcast on BBC 3 should not be sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. In pointing to Criterion 12, Mr Bowen misses the words "featured subject" and "substantial segment": something like a programme dedicated to the ensemble. What we need in lieu of that is charting albums, reviews in reputable music publications, etcetera. Nothing in the article shows that the group is anything other than an amateur local ensemble. The request for deletion should be accepted. Syek88 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I added mention of reviews in national/international magazines for notability. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be more accurate, you added links to a web forum, a song lyrics website, and iTunes. Syek88 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, these reviews may be relevant - salvator mundi review, another review in American Record Guide, Jubilate Agno review in BBC Music Magazine, Cantatas no. 4 review, Cantatas no. 2 review. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oh, and amazon show 3 more reviews for salvator mundi, although amazon is not counted as reliable, if any musieditor can confirm them as genuine than the cd appears notable enough for its own article. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crossrhythms - your first link - has a page on how to become a volunteer reviewer for them: just send them your details and you're in! http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/becomeareviewer/ The website also charmingly has a prayer room: 'Get close to God, be extravagant in declaring your love for Him in our Prayer Room'. This low-quality venue for internet commentary is likely to produce little better than an Amazon customer review. After seeing that as your first link I didn't even bother to look at the other links you mentioned. Find a review in Gramophone Magazine or a major broadsheet (Times, Guardian, Telegraph) and then we will have an indication of the group's significance. Syek88 (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note i said "may be relevant", also that i "commented" not "keeped", with your comment - "After seeing that as your first link I didn't even bother to look at the other links you mentioned.", i hope the closing admin gives your "delete" and responses to other editors' inputs to this afd appropriate weight. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – some quotes from reviews in national/international music magazines according to [26]:

BBC Music Magazine: ‘The Arcadian Singers display dedication, accuracy and insight into the composers' idioms.’ (Performance **** Sound ****)

Cathedral Music: ‘The Arcadian Singers tackle the music very well, nicely balanced throughout, tempi neither too fast nor too slow where it matters.’

Choir and Organ: ‘There is a wealth of talent in our universities as shown on this CD marking the 25th anniversary of The Arcadian Singers of Oxford.’

Sadly these don't seem to be freely online on the relevant websites. They are still relevant for WP:GNG. Does anyone have more complete references? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the BBC one which is available at [27], the review, with regards to the Arcadian Singers, is limited to the single sentence you quote. If they are all that long, I have to wonder if this constitutes significant. WP:BAND does that they are the subject of the review in question. If we get 3-4 sentences, all in passing, I am afraid it may not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The review is actually of one of the Arcadian Singers' CDs. Note that the choir also organizes music composition competitions. E.g., see a national Women Composers Competition with the British composer Cecilia McDowall on the panel [28]. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:09, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adonijah Bidwell

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

I could not verify notability. Reads like an essay done by a descendant with sources to match. Has been tagged for notability for over 8 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a very interesting story glancing through the articles, but there isn't enough scholarship to pass GNG, based on my google searching. Maybe someday a page for the Bidwell family at large would warrant a mention of his name. Yvarta (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the level of scholarship to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Bidwell is the namesake of the Bidwell Museum and his sermons were written in a code which has received some publicity (here and elsewhere). The sermons themselves are carried by a number of libraries, this library holding includes a brief biography. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not an essay and GNG does not have a standard of scholarship. An eight-year old tag without any discussion on the talk page would be a reason to contact the person who added the tag, who is still active on Wikipedia. Nor has the nomination discussed the red links that would be created by the discussion, which is WP:BEFORE B5. WP:BEFORE C1 states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." The WP:BEFORE D1 "minimum search expected" on Google Books includes:

Smith and Cushing, History of Berkshire County, Massachusetts: With... 1885, "...Adonijah Bidwell, who was the first pastor of the Congregational church, the first church established in Tyringham, now Monterey. Rev. Adonijah Bidwell was of English stock and his heirs have the family genealogy from King Egbert the Great..."
Cooke, Historic Homes and Institutions and Genealogical and ..., 1906, "Adonijah Bidwell, while a resident of Stockbridge, served as one of the early treasurers of Berkshire county and also as attorney-general of Massachusetts. Adonijah Bidwell (2) had a son, Barnabas Bidwell, who also followed agricultural ..."
Drew, Henry Knox and the Revolutionary War Trail in Western..., 2012, "Adonijah Bidwell (1716–1784), Township No. 1's first settled minister, in 1750 was assigned a lot on which to build a home in the original town center, on the Great Road. Stone ruins not far from the present dwelling were probably his first, ..."

The arguments that "somebody should improve the writing", "somebody should improve the level of scholarship", and "somebody should do something about the notability tag"; are arguments for someone else to improve the encyclopedia. AfD is not cleanup. WP:SOFIXIT is an editing guideline, and it relies on WP:5P and WP:PRESERVE. Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the research, thanks for bringing these books back. However, would I be correct in ascertaining that the mentions of Bidwell within those books are very short? Despite being mentioned in several sources, which proves he did exist, I worry that there isn't enough significant coverage to push this biography past WP:GNG (plenty of old-timey Americans were old British nobles and preached from pulpits, but I wouldn't argue all are notable by default). I still think a page on the Bidwell family might not have the same issues. Yvarta (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: Do you agree to a merge to Bidwell family? If you do, I do. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I do. I've been too busy to get to this, but I still think the subject is suitable for an article. If the article hasn't been deleted by next week, I plan to expand it a bit, and will ping around then and see if I can meet the Heymann Standard. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to the page. The references: Franklin 1885, Terry 1892, Smith and Cushing 1885, Dooley 1900, and Clute 1993 are all non-genealogical, independent sources which discuss Bidwell for multiple paragraphs. I only can see the first page of Clute 1993 at proQuest, and suppose that the later pages of that source may include more details (if anyone can access the full thing, I am curious). I do not find a published version of John Demos' research, but Demos is a respected historian who gave a talk about Bidwell (a related talk is available on youtube). Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the Clute paper [29]; pretty much the whole thing (22 pages) is about Bidwell. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectas not independently notable and what's here is unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, a related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Devotion Bidwell. Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to be clear, there are now a number of sources which are independent of the subject and of the museum dedicated in part to the subject which cover the source in depth included in the article, and thus I believe the article passes GNG. Many of these sources have been added since people added their !votes. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Autobots. Mz7 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Aid (Transformers)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The sources cited actually aren't terrible, but they are not enough to support a whole article. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Big Brother Brasil 16. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Claudia

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

Bio article that fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. BLP-Prod was placed on article on 23rd December but removed. Article was reduced to a redirect by 189.105.100.94, the reverted by new editor 186.216.187.176. Slim notability. Additional references added, but translation show usual mix of reality star gossip and news. scope_creep (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets NACTOR #1 & #3 as well as meetd GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother Brasil 16- I've just noticed the "invited" bit on her filmography and it makes no sense and according to IMDB she's only been on Big Brother so may aswell redirect there. –Davey2010^Talk 13:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only best known for one work, that's not significant for notability at all and there's no actual substance apart from the trivial entertainment news hence nothing for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial, non-notable. Yintan 10:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having it as a redirect means the history would be preserved and so if she ever does become notable then the redirect can be reverted - WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP & all that. –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 17 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Sahgal

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

His novel Pool got a poor review in Publishers Weekly,[30] but that's about it. He hasn't accomplished anything particularly notable as a screenwriter, director or producer. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 20 January 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. Softly. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Leitru

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

Only one ref that discusses the subject at length seems reliable. I can't find other RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I found a few more interviews with Ryan, and now with Nothing Left, they will probably be doing more interviews with Ryan. Metalworker14 (Yo) 1:18, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

So a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2005 Mediterranean Games – Results

Unnecessary stats directories. The main articles (Athletics at the 1991 Mediterranean Games, Athletics at the 1993 Mediterranean Games, Athletics at the 1997 Mediterranean Games, Athletics at the 2005 Mediterranean Games, Athletics at the 2009 Mediterranean Games, Athletics at the 2013 Mediterranean Games, etc etc) already cover the list of medalists. More than that, the detailed results should be left to dedicated databases. They don't belong at Wikipedia. It may be noted that all these articles were created by the same editor. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The results of athletic competitions, including the final standings, are appropriate content for Wikipedia; per the five pillars, Wikipedia "combines features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Results such as these (full standings, not just medalists) are the sort of content I'd expect to see in a sports almanac. (It might be more appropriate to split the results onto pages for each event rather than placing them all on the same page, but that's not a matter for AfD.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are allowed and sourced. I see no reason to delete. Also per TheCatalyst31. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable enough international competition that these articles are appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a notable international competition and the articles are very well sourced MATThematical (talk) 01:52, 16 January 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. The discussion failed to coalesce around a particular position, and while the sense of the discussion is that the delete camp had a bit more force, it is stretching things too much to hold the article in its final form fits into WP:NOT, or claim to lack of notability. I will say the sources are more notable for their volume than their quality, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion. I also agree that the article's editing history shows signs consistent with undisclosed paid editing; such articles tend to be watched closely. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Abrams

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

WP:NOT policy still applies, this is still questionable for actual independent notability and substance because there's still only inherited claims of significance and notability from the events themselves, and even my own searches found nothing but a mere announcement in a 2014 Bloomberg and then a republished story about the event in 2010's Forbes; none of this amounts to substance and there's enough to suggest this is an advertising campaign, and in fact, the sign the only major news were for the one event shows there's no significant attention apart it. See also my Draft comments when it was at AfC. We never negotiate with our highest policies WP:NOT because they allow removal of anything, regardless of "But it has sourcing". My comments even show below what the article contains, what's been removed and what exists in other sourcing, something no one else has cared to state yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an article specifically about this person in Bloomberg here and another one in the Independent here. I found these just looking at the sources given at the article. I should add that this article is still very new, and it's doing pretty well so far. How about giving it a little more time before going to AFD? Brad v 00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article has been significantly expanded since it was nominated, including several more sources. If you have a chance, please take another look. Brad v 01:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See below for my explanation of WP:GNG and, also, please cite which Wikipedia pillar policy allows notability in this article.

They are only about his taxi event though and thus WP:1E applies. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg article contains a lot more information about this guy than just the taxi information, if you read it all the way to the bottom. There's full background information about his time at Titan, and his role as a hedge fund manager. Brad v 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Profiles, yes, which can basically amount to "interviews", still not acceptable in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Pro-delete individuals citing policies that do not make sense/are not applicable/faulty logic and argument. Grasping at air. A reading of their comments, in my opinion, does not seem convincing. Thus no policy is violated and GNG is clearly met. This man is noteable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.64.117.95 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly, as the person who accepted it from AfC. I evaluated the two Bloomberg sources and the Independent source, and determined that all three provided significant coverage and thus that Abrams was notable. I don't know what else there is to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article author), I wrote the article and am a programmer trying to become an editor, not a paid person to do this. I will also point out that these articles about him are from 3 major indpendent sources(profiles of him) and other articles and awards over a 15 year time period, not some one off event. There is no conference of notability from association, what is noteable is the person. The guidelines are met from the Wikipedia: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" Lastly, you pointing out 2010 Forbes article and 2014 articles are on different subjects regarding the man, which somewhat bolsters case of notability as it adds an additional source that says he is worthy of coverage. I agree and think we should let the community dig in deeper as they are finding more and more articles: I vote taking it out of AFD? Faberdasher (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW Article contains reliable sources, good work improving this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy states "reliable sources" are enough for an article? SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a who's who entry, showing no particular accomplishment at anything. Disciple of a notable financier, which does not make their student notable. Lives in a famous apartment house, ditto Co-head of a firm--no indication of the relative role. 2 of the funds did well--no information about the number of their funds that did not. Member of a minor donor's group at the NYPL--not even a major contributor. Now runs (or a least finances) a taxi firm in Argentina, described as a gamble. Anyone trying to write and article or profile out of this is building fluff on air. It seems the write for bloomberg managed to do this, which is good evidence that their article is PR and not a RS--Bloomberg contains both. (In my experience those devoted to individual people are almost certainly PR, those devoted to individual relatively minor companies likely to be PR, and only those devoted to famous companies of industries or general business or economics likely to be actual independent reporting.

That WP people are willing to support this article represents the blind faith that a naive interpretation of the GNG, ignoring such inconvenient adjective as "independent" has some connection to the real world. Fortunately , the GNG is a guideline, but NOT WHOSWHO is fundamental policy.

A good working definition of who's who is something the person might as well have written themselves.(tho in this case it seems to be a spa working for a family of capitalists). That editor expressed a wish to let the pros handle it, seemingly convinced that WP is a top down organization run by professional writers, which is what they are apparently used to. We don't have pros, of course, and all editors are equal--except spas. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "fundamental policy". Please explain how it relates to what you are saying.

===Wikipedia is not a newspaper===

Shortcut

WP:NOTWHOSWHO

As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what an Italian business news outlet based in Milan, originally founded in 1865, Il Sole 24 Ore, says, using Italian-English online translation from PROMT of [31]:

Besides, the history about Abrams also without taxi is already worthy of a film. Assumed in Goldman, it asserts of having studied strategies on the derivatives with Fischer Black, the famous American economist that it has invented the equation of Black&Scholes to calculate the price of the options. After a passage to Merrill Lynch, in 2001 there melts his hedge fund, Titan Capital Group. In the 201st one it will be cited in judgement at a client's, convinced of being being deceived on the strategies hedge of Titan and on the risk level, but the court will give reason to Abrams. Ah, among other things in 2009 Russel had already been cited in judgement for sexual nuisances at two employees', forced to print photo of the wife in topless. Last year the closing of the hedge and the beginning of the new adventure. This time in taxi.

So while DGG says by way of WP:NOTWHOSWHO that this is a one event about a taxi company, an Italian newspaper says that the rest of the biography outside of the taxi story is "worthy of a film". Unscintillating (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Discussion

Extended comments moved to the end of the talk page in order to provide clarity. They can be viewed in their original order in the history. Brad v 19:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles contain PROFILES of Abrams himself, there are 3 of them from major sources. The articles contain indepth info about the man and his career not just the taxi thing and information about his notable headline scandals even. 1E does not apply really to the articles themselves, but in addition to the articles themselves there are profiles of Mr. Abrams over extended time frame - all the way back to 2003 - from established industry publications, and other newspapers such as Forbes and Business Insider. Regardless if the headlines flag the taxi item as his latest venture his previous ventures and himself have received coverage from independent sources over a period of almost 15 years. Faberdasher (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Swister. Profiles are not basically "interviews" as you claim. We do not consider profiles to be interviews at Wikipedia. A profile is an independent source or sources examining background and objectively reporting on it. There are many things in these articles I am sure Abrams would object to having been reported. An interview is defined as most of content coming from the source him/herself and is thus not reliable. These articles are thus profiles from independent sources and fits WP:BASIC. If we establish that it fits WP:BASIC then #2 of WP:ANYBIO (which is enough for inclusion) fits with regards to his taxi empire. WP:1E is not intended to be applied in the manner you are applying it - a person's significant contribution is not a "on off event." Rather WP:1E is meant for mostly news events and other events, usually one off events. It does not apply to WP:ANYBIO since it is that single contribution for which the person is known for. Lastly, the WP:1E would additionally not apply since the articles cited in the wiki here are over a sustained time frame on Abrams himself and MULTIPLE events in his career, e.g. the man himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:810D:E100:11B:3DC6:58F9:4EA0 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is met so he is presumed notable, Looking deeper WP:BASIC is met, and WP:ANYBIO #2 is met. Your claim about WP:1E is not applicable - in your definition inventing rabbies vaccine would be WP:1E whereas WP:1E is mostly applied to people in news events not individuals being profiled because they themselves are notable WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated - there are multiple notable events because he himself is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:810D:E100:11B:3DC6:58F9:4EA0 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its necessary, not sufficient. It meets WP:GNG which means it passes the sniff test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's no speedy keep because the sources themselves only show actual significance for the event itself therefore WP:BLP1E applies and even improvements in the history couldn't improve this and it's sourcing hence enough to take here to AfD hence why we need to evaluate this closely. There's no policies here that immediately accept any article simply for being "sourced and informative". Also, simply stating "Let's take it out to AfD to improve and hope others also join" is not based by policy but the fact it was reworked and still became advertising makes it inapplicable since no one else was able to actually improve it. Also, the fact any persistent article about a promotional businessman is quickly resubmitted and the account focuses with absolutely nothing else makes WP:SPA apply, and thus why we are here at this AfD. As for "People are presumed to be notable", it's a suggestive guideline, not policy, and the guidelines also say "There must be significant coverage not from interviews and the few news listed here include interviews, hence not even fully satisfying WP:GNG. In all this, WP:NOT still applies. Take example While at Titan, Abrams made strategic investments in Argentina culminating in his founding of Russellcar. Mr. Abrams pledged to invest over $100 million to expand his fleet of sustainable vehicles providing modern efficient transportation, while providing full-time employment with full benefits for his union workforce....Abrams leveraged his expertise under Fischer Black to start one of the first dedicated volatility arbitrage funds, achieving notoriety in the category over its lifetime....Titan earned numerous awards as one of the best performing hedge funds in the world with significant gains in all of its funds during the Financial Crisis.... The last part is a vague "Why, where, which and when?" because it simply claims it was "one of" which instantly is not significant and, two, "numerous awards" is as equally vague since it never cites anything, they could've even been paid awards. Take also Abrams himself was recognized as a leader in volatility trading in both developed and emerging markets which is itself sourced by 3 interviews all in questionable publications as it is, that alone is questionable enough. Even then, the awards listed are simply that: Business awards, and there's absolutely no policy to suggest accepting them, especially not as PR-vague as "best value fund manager award", and there's never been an article in which we've accepted a business award like it. :Also, from above, it's stated that Lastly, you pointing out 2010 Forbes article and 2014 articles are on different subjects regarding the man, which somewhat bolsters case of notability as it adds an additional source that says he is worthy of coverage - Which is actually not the case because 1 PR 2010 and 2014 article that merely state him, is not coverage at all, since it was so far apart in time and so trivial. If he was "worthy of attention", wher are the other numerous news? Therefore, no one can honestly consider this "major reliable significance" since it couldn't even be sourced by significant publications with an honest history. Given all of these concerns, there's no "Speedy Keep". SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 10 superlative awards of this man on Google, 2 of which are cited here in the article. They are not paid awards. So why are you saying they are not cited?Faberdasher (talk)

Your facts are not correct and I do not know if this is some sort of rouse or lie: Hedge Funds World, Best Hedge Fund Manager Awards, 3.10.09. That is not a paid publication and it is not an interview, it is simply an award. Same with all the other awards there such as this where he is quoted, not interviewed and it is said that he was voted by his peers to receive it: http://www.hedgeweek.com/2012/07/12/169677/titan-capital-group-%E2%80%93-best-relative-value-fund-manager or this one: www.shariahfunds.com%2Fpubs%2Fawards%2Fhfwmec2009.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHU4Q4Y_LQvf15eZNWDditw3PWt6A&bvm=bv.142059868,d.eWE

These are not PR articles, are you suggested he paid to have bad PR in 2010? This is clearly independently written. Your claims are not credible. It is relevant he is in two major pubs(he's in more, but you brought up 2) because this guideline states from WP:GNG: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

Comment - The above comment is factually incorrect, so please do not assume Swister is saying accurate depiction of the article, or myself. Again, per the above keeps and speed keeps mentioned, the policies are met and meets the definition of notable. Again, this is my first article and I am not promoting anything despite Swister's accusations. There is "signficant coverage" from interviews and not interviews, both types, although Swister only mentions interviews. All of this merits a Speedy Keep and allow others to work on the article as there are further sources out there with CNBC etc and even the Forbes article Swister found on his own but chose not add to the wiki(we had to figure out what he was talking about), but people are hesitant to work on a possibly deleted article. Thank you. Lets move past. Faberdasher (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a guideline, not a policy as I stated above. Also, "There is "signficant coverage" from interviews" is exactly what makes it unacceptable and the GNG itself states: Interviews are not independent of the subject and are not established for notability. I also wasn't going to add the Forbes because it was not only one trivial article but simply about his business activities. Our policies have established that even CNBC is common host for PR, as equal as a Today Show interview would be, because they're simply news stories. I myself could get a Today News story or two, but that wouldn't make my own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment of mine - Wikipedia 5 main pillars is that it has no firm rules only guideliens: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. So not sure what you are saying Lastly, There is not significant coverage from interviews - there is one interview out of 10-15 sources. And additionally - we meet all critera for notability and do not violate any of the DO NOTs. So I dont understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To specify, while the pillars state "There are no rules, only guidelines", WP:What Wikipedia is not explicitly states it is in fact a non-negotiable policy, and it's in fact the highest policy we have. Something that we always use for any AfD or any examined article and that itself states that Wikipedia is not a business listing or otherwise business webhost nor is it a collection of business information for clients, services or anything else. This current article has the signs of it and, therefore, no claims of "He's worthy of coverage and attention" will convince against this policy, especially when there's no actual major coverage. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but 4 of your editors disagree. I have told you many times it is not a business listing or collection of business information for clients. The accusations are simply baseless and happy to talk over the phone about it - but while you can assume such things I am telling you right now - you're wrong. This is also why I had to warn people your statements are inaccurate in my post above. I am happy to talk about notability and would rather have the professional editors get involved in that - but please stop saying it is PR. It's not. I will let the pros handle it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated - there are multiple notable events if you just Google him or look at the citations here.

Comment I think your diminishing his accomplishments. He was disciple of a famous economist which should be included in the article, then founded one of the first volatility funds on that expertise which was $1 billlion dollar fund(which is automaticlly notable) and he himself was notable since he received awards against every other hedge fund manager(11,000), and then used his money to create the largest taxi company in Buenos Aires and the largest eco-friendly one at that(all vehicles are renewable energy according to the articles) And has been profiled over a period of 10 years and the profiles are about the history of his work and person on both subjects - finance and taxis and personal matters by Bloomberg and the Independent and more. This is an independently written wiki on an individual, not paid or PR, and the guy has been a pioneer in both fields of US finance overall and now the metropolis of Buenos Aires - which is why many newspapers in Argentina and internationally call him the Argentinian Taxi King. Also, theres no doubt people would want to know all this information. However if the award listing is not important we can do without it but the awards are notable because it was against all other US hedge funds, 11,000. The profile of the guy can not be underestimated.( Faberdasher (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the first" is not a genuine claim of significance as it could be like a "He founded one of the first companies for computers" (hardly a significance, since there were numerous). Also, once again, our notability policies explicitly said: Inherited notability won't support an article simply because of his job involvements, so in this case, "The profile cannot be underestimated" goes against our policies because it's an act of attempting to change them. Also, As before, please show us, for the sake of everyone, where he has been in major newspapers because my own searches found nothing but those 2 trivial articles from 2010 and 2014, which if that's all Google cared to show, it shows he's not consistently "profiled" as you say (Google also showed nothing from the past 10 years). "Disciple of an economist" is also attempting to inherit his involvements with someone to accept this man's own article; I could've worked with 10 of the living billionaires but I wouldn't get an article simply because I worked with them (no one ever would), hence it's not applicable. Please list all of the available newspapers here and add these newspapers to the article and we'll all consider them. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not every fact in the article is meant to establish Wikipedia's definition of notability - some things are just information such as being recognized as "one of the first" by independent and reliable sources or that he worked with someone famous. This is also relevant to the notable person's background. We are determining if he himself it notable and your harping on background information. The information you cite is relevant to the article since independent sources are citing him as "one of the first." and not meant to establish notability. For an understanding of why it's notable I am reposting the above: WP:GNG is met so he is presumed notable, Looking deeper WP:BASIC is met, and WP:ANYBIO #2 is met. Your claim about WP:1E is not applicable - in your definition inventing rabbies vaccine would be WP:1E whereas WP:1E is mostly applied to people in news events not individuals being profiled because they themselves are notable WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated - there are multiple notable events.

Comment I do believe there needs to be guidelines on what makes a financier notable as it has became a major thing in our age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) does not include that category leading to confusion it seems like. Who wants to start? Faberdasher (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My question is still unanswered about seeing other news that exist, because the Forbes was once again a trivial minor article from 2010 and that's all. WP:NOT#Advertising and WP:NIT#Listing is still violated because of this and the fact there's still no signs of other coverage, despite the assertions it exists. By finally showing the news, we'll all see them because my searches are again not finding anything. As of today, no one still hasn't improved the article. Also, adding SURVEY at the top is unsuitable given WP:AFDISNOTAVOTE, something our core pages mention. SwisterTwister talk 18:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)*Comment and analysis of sources :[reply]

1 is simply a July 2014 story about his taxi event
another for the July 2014 taxi event
3 is the award in which the website claims it's a "everyone involved" award thus not stating if the award can be requested or paid for, hence not independent; further, it states that anyone can be involved, thus questioning its genuine "business" validity
4 is the company website
5 and 6 is the company bio again
7 is simply a mere citation and claim he's mentioned in the same PR publication
8 is the same source as earlier
9 is simply a business "numbers" listing and is not significant, especially news-wise
10 is another claim asseration with URL, from the same trade publication
11 is simply a "Hedge Fund 100" listing, it's not major news
12 is another company-business listing
13 is the same
14 is the same
15 is another hedge fund "award" listing, it's not news
16 is the same
17 is the same
18 is the same
19 never actually mentions him by name
20 is the same as 11-18, an award listing
21 is the same source as earlier
22 is the taxi event story again
23 is the Bloomberg link for the taxi event story again
24 is the taxi event story again
25 is a local "fiction literature" award

Therefore none of this has been significant news, since they were either the same trade business awards, the repeated sources (the Bloomberg and Hedgeweek taxi events), so the assertions: "It's about his major career, business achievements and life" is not supported since none of this mirrored it; by searching once again for sources, I was unable to find anything. The applicable pages for this is WP:COATRACK and WP:PUFFERY. SwisterTwister talk 19:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PUFERY and WP:COATRACK is wrong because my statement that "the articles are about his major career, business achievement and life" is supported and your statement that the articles are "just about the taxi event" are not supported: Here are direct paragraphs from the articles - it is not just about the taxi "event" as you call it:

The fund was sued in 2010 by an investor claiming it was misled about Titan’s strategy and risk level. An appeals court dismissed the case in 2012. Titan was also sued by two former employees in 2009 for sexual harassment after Abrams asked them to print topless photos of his wife, according to court documents. A New York court dismissed the complaints in 2011. " Is that about the taxi?

At Goldman Sachs in the early 1990s, Abrams says he researched derivatives strategies alongside the late Fischer Black, one of the co-authors of the Black-Scholes equation used to calculate options prices. By the end of the 1990s, he was co-head of U.S. equity-derivative trading and convertible arbitrage at Merrill Lynch.

Is all of that about the taxi event? It is not. And these articles about him are mirrored on Bloomberg, Forbes, Independent, Business Insider etc? Some are smaller than others and 4 of them, Bloomberg, Forbes(as you cited and found, not me), Independent, and an Argentinian newspaper have profiles of the man in 2014 - and coverage of him goes back to 2003, with some years being more high profile than others as is normal in ones life. This is not WP:1E as you keep saying since there are other notable achievements - taxi, finance, scandals, being covered over time and although taxi is the significant contribution (renewable energy largest, title called Argentinian Taxi King, etc) that satisfied the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #2, his coverage has been beyond that in non trivial manners and on substantive issues. WP:ANYBIO #2 is fit, as is WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. WP:PUFERY is wrong and sort of insulting to him because there are too many sources mentioning him over 15 years, since 2003 infact, and many of those sources going into depth with his background and life. It is not WP:PUFERY which is for "fleeeting celebrity" He has has significant press since 2003.

And yes there are some articles like the awards or the fund size that are there to prove facts, not to prove notability - e.g. founding partner of $1 billion hedge fund that beat 11,000 other funds for awards through peer review and non-peer review awards. So stop citing them as reason for him not to be notable just cause those alone are not according to wikipedia definition. They are significant facts relevant for a notable person.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zppix, sorry about bugging you, but which parts of the nomination do you agree with, given that the two keep votes from (relatively) uninvolved editors directly contradict it? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he can confirm he means the nomination and then my analysis above, as this is what he told me offwiki and he also acknowledged the same concerns, including as has DGG above. SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed with above statement Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks for clarifying! Enterprisey (talk!) 23:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis- The Keep comments still haven't substantied themselces with countering our best policy WP:NOT and instead only say "Sourcing is enough". However, examining the current article now as of today, I see only 4 other sources have been added, and they are still only published and republished business announcements. If that's honestly the best we have, then all chances of actual improvements have been exhausted. The information itself is still the same aside from a few cosmetic changes. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but WP:NOT has been countered: WP:NOTWHOWHO says "unless news coverage goes beyond a single event our coverage should be limited to a single event" - as Abrams has had BOTH coverage of a single event - the taxi thing - PLUS many other events dating back almost 15 years - his business success, Forbes article, NYPOST, Business Insider coverage of him and his funds, WP:WHOWHO is thus not violated. Also you refer to "business announcements" but nothing here is a business announcement or is promotional in nature, all the articles 3-5 that profile this noteable man

have various degrees of favoritism but all are reliable, independent, and fit the criteria. If I am missing something here please let me know but what you are saying is directly contradicted by the facts ::and many others comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faberdasher (talk • contribs) 04:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a news site to retell the exploits of unremarkable subjects. It's not a resume hosting service either. Nor is it a tabloid to feature minor controversies. None of this amounts to encyclopedia notability just yet, so WP:TOOSOON applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was thrown off for a while by the two negative legal news stories prior to the taxi story, but the Italian newspaper has put the negative news in perspective, which is also the default for Wikipedia...that negative news adds to notability. The one event, toosoon, 1E, and NOTWHOSWHO arguments are all broadly misapplied. Also note that interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability. This is an ordinary GNG keep. Unscintillating (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing still applies since it's clear that's only what this has existed for, along with the fact the account then started a similar business listing for this man's brother, hence WP:SPA. As it is, the Keep comments earlier never advanced their keep beliefs especially once I analyzed all of the sources above. "Also note that interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability" is not what even the general notability standards say, since it says "Coverage must be significant, independent and substantial and must not be trivial". As stated, earlier, if all we have as available sourcing is actual published and republished announcements, there's nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Keep Comments advanced their keep beliefs after SwisterTwisted posted his source analysis, but the page history shows SwisterTwister removed them because they were improperly placed in the column. SwisterTwister did not replace them after he deleted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.64.117.95 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, please look at this diff of 4400 characters of analysis removed. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note SwisterTwister has WP:REDACTED the above comment at 2017-01-15T05:50:45 without following talk page norms to avoid changing the meaning of subsequent comments, see [32]. Here is the post to which I replied:

The policy WP:Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing still applies since it's clear that's only what this has existed for, along with the fact the account then started a similar business listing for this man's brother, hence WP:SPA. As it is, the Keep comments earlier never advanced their keep beliefs especially once I analyzed all of the sources above. "Also note that interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability" is not what even the general notability standards say, since it says "Coverage must be significant, independent and substantial and must not be trivial". SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing is a red link, not a "clear" policy. Your proof that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding interviews fails to show any relationship between the "interviews" and the text you've cited. Nor does WP:N use the word "substantial". WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". As I said, interviews contribute in varying degrees to notability, and one of the best cases is when the publication prepared a bio for the interview. Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although you've now created a Wikilink for this conversation, [33], that points to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory, you haven't explained the relationship of the Wikilink to the conversation. As stated at WP:VAGUEWAVE, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand." In this case, you've also yet to explain which part is relevant, and it is a long section. I found two sentences that use both the words "business" and "list".

"Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings."
"7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances..." That section goes on to say, "Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose."

Do you agree that there is (1) no list of patent filings in the article, and (2) no listing of business alliances without supporting sourced prose?

Unscintillating (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:DGG has not responded, nor does he have a duty to do so, but the problem remains unremedied.
Two basic rules when editing other editors talk-page comments are (1) We are here to build an encyclopedia. (2) Don't change the meaning.
Note also the agreement editors make when they submit to talk pages, "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."
Here is the disputed edit, from [34].

Comment and analysis of sources :

1 is simply a July 2014 story about his taxi event

It is about his entire life, a profile on him. The clickbait headline is not the whole article as your statement suggests - e.g. the taxi "event". As another user said above it goes deep into his background, failures and succeses. In depth even back to the 1990s, even his scandals. How can you say this is not independent or trivial?

another for the July 2014 taxi event

This is an Argentinian Newspaper calling him the Argentinian Taxi King, if you speak Spanish. So it's not just PR fodder.

3 is the award in which the website claims it's a "everyone involved" award thus not stating if the award can be requested or paid for, hence not independent; further, it states that anyone can be involved, thus questioning its genuine "business" validity

This is totally wrong. Hedgeweek -states the awards for managers were based on a shortlist of top performers during the year produced by Preqin[object data intelligence firm on performance], which was put to vote by Hedgeweek readers, who include both investors and managers as well as other industry professionals at firms This is NOT PR and not bought. Stop saying that. Its not different than any other election such as the Academy Awards etc.

4 is the company website

5 and 6 is the company bio again

These two are meant to prove facts stated in the article not for notability

7 is simply a mere citation and claim he's mentioned in the same PR publication

This is not a "mere citation." It's a full on article in a newspaper. Stop calling it a PR publication. Would journalist appreciate that??

8 is the same source as earlier

9 is simply a business "numbers" listing and is not significant, especially news-wise

This is to prove about the fund having a $1billion size which is automatically notable according to editors. It's not about news. Not evertything in the article is going to be notable,some things are there just to prove facts.

10 is another claim asseration with URL, from the same trade publication

Please reference the material.

11 is simply a "Hedge Fund 100" listing, it's not major news

Again, if the awards are a problem we dont have to have them, but there are a lot. Hedge Fund 100 out of 11,000 IS MAJOR achievement in Wall Street Journal for Titan, his firm. It is not encyclopedia worthy but it is worthy as background information on this notable subject.

12 is another company-business listing

Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.

13 is the same

Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.

14 is the same

Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.

15 is another hedge fund "award" listing, it's not news

Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.

16 is the same

Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.

17 is the same

Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.

18 is the same

Again this is not notability for the subject the subject has notability independent of this, this is just helpful information about his performance which is clearly significant! And because he is notable its relevant information for the reader.

19 never actually mentions him by name

THis is to prove the 11,000 figure of hedge funds which is why awards are significant. This is not what he is notable for at all.

20 is the same as 11-18, an award listing

A bit different - this gives HIM an award instead of his fund.

21 is the same source as earlier

A bit different - this gives HIM the award instead of his fund.

22 is the taxi event story again

No - have you read the whole article? The article is about him and his life. It is not the taxi story.

23 is the Bloomberg link for the taxi event story again

24 is the taxi event story again

This is not about taxi event story - its about Argentina and not even about him. It is not meant to convey notability but rather show that he created the largest taxi cab company and the largest eco friendly taxi cab company in all of Buenos Aires. Thus the Argentinina Taxi King name which he is known as in Buenos Aires.

25 is a local "fiction literature" award

This is the largest library in the United States next to the Library of Congress - e.g. the largest public Library in the country. It is not local at all. That's like saying the Library of Congress is "local" cause its in D.C. The award appears to be given to lots of people all over the country.

Unscintillating (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading the above and also looking at sources already on the page, I ran my own search on a news archive, which clearly established notability by showing articles in major media covering his activities over about 2 decades (coverage may go back somewhat longer - but I did not attempt to discover if some old stories about a college student was this Russell Abrams). He is covered both as an investor, and in at least one instance as the subject of prurient tabloid interest in activities exhibiting poor judgment on Russel's part, but I really cannot find an argument for deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, what policy states this is acceptable? The fact there's been classic exhibited signs of paid advertising violates our policies (worse when it's unconfessed) and the shown defense of it, also violates our policies. Not only is this sufficient basis for deletion, but the fact no one else including the Keep above, has offered any better substance, after (1) the article was still never improved but then the added sourcing was mirroring the concerns. In all fairness, I will state that the first Keep voters expressed their doubts in an offwiki message. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 23 January 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. Will move to Ivy League men's basketball. (non-admin closure) + (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League Men's Basketball Champions

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. A list of a conference's men's basketball champions does not need to be stand-alone. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament. That's where this information belongs.Rlendog (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The two articles are both quite short, so splitting the two isn't required. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be clarified here that the Ivy League didn't have a basketball tournament until this year, while the list of men's basketball champions should be completed back to the formal creation of the league for basketball in 1956. [35] (We already have a separate article for the Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League that preceded it.) So this list of champions needs to be completed, and won't be as short as it looks now. If it is going to be merged with an article about the new tournament, it still seems to me that the title of this article, Ivy League Men's Basketball Champions, would be the more appropriate one, since the vast bulk of the merged article's content will not be about the tournament. So I think we should keep this article; editors can consider merging Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament into this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The article Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament is one of a series of all NCAA Division I men's basketball conference tournaments, all on {{NCAA men's college basketball tournament navbox}}. The actual tournament itself is notable but the list of champions is secondary and should be merged into the parent article. Most, if not all, of the other conference tournament articles are formatted this way and it makes a lot more sense IMO. Jrcla2 (talk)
  - What parent article? Where would you put this? It won't fit very well in the existing 109,651-byte Ivy League article, especially not when the list of 60 years of champions is completed. I suppose we could rename this article to Ivy League men's basketball on the model of Pac-12 Conference men's basketball--the Pac-12 being another conference that long avoided the post-season tournament, and another article that's essentially a list of season champions. See also List of Big Ten Conference men's basketball regular season champions, for another conference that didn't use a tournament for many years. But I have to say, it's strange to me to think the league tournament is notable but the league champions somehow aren't, given that the point of the tournaments is to identify the champion, and tons of sports coverage every year is devoted to league championships. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament is the parent article. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, that just doesn't fit here. Based on the precedents from the Pac-12 and Big Ten noted above, this article should be kept; rename is optional. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It does fit though. Merging this content into the tournament article makes sense. It can easily be divided into two sections: the first is the pre-Ivy League Tournament era of automatic regular season qualifiers, then the second section is the tournament winners. It keeps all historical NCAA Tournament berth teams in context to one another, and more importantly, follows almost every other conference in existence except for the two you cherry-picked. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Not cherry-picked; these 3 leagues have something in common that explains why these articles are warranted. As noted at Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament: "By the 1985–86 season, the Pac-10 was one of three remaining conferences that gave their automatic NCAA tournament bid to the regular season round-robin champion. The other two conferences were the Ivy League and the Big Ten Conference." These are the three leagues that went the longest without a tournament, and for which lists of the regular season champions are particularly significant. For the Ivy League, we currently have zero years of tournament history versus 60 years of regular season championships. Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament is just not a very descriptive title for that content.

At any rate, it seems we already have a consensus that this is really a merge discussion rather than one about deletion, so I will try not to belabor the subject further. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Ivy League men's basketball. It doesn't make sense to combine past champions that were not from a tournament into Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament. It's not a WP:COATRACK for all champions, when the title is for the tournament. Theres ample sources for "Ivy League men's basketball" to meet WP:GNG, even if WP sports editors are better at creating lists than writing prose. Still, there is WP:NODEADLINE to complete the article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Bagumba. This just makes sense. Jacona (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Rename to Ivy League men's basketball, absolutely. Ivy League Men's Basketball Tournament is fine as a separate article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move per above. Agreed the Tournament article should be separate - they are not the same thing. Smartyllama (talk) 19:35, 17 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zadrozny

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

No indication of notability - does not meet WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources. The cited ones are very weak. Interview by a family member? Really? I was going to say WP:VANITY by WP:SPA but it appears to be a student project (Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UMASS-Amherst/COMM 394RI- Race and Gender in Sitcoms), so instead it seems like the possible failure on the part of the instructor to vet the topic for WP:GNG (through there is still a chance the student is writing a bio of a family member, given the cited source of family member interview...). (PS. I have reviewed other articles created by that course,and they seem high quality; further this article is not listed on the talk page, so this is likely some student side project that didn't get communicated well to the instructor...). Bottom line: Local history is great, but not all of it is encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't find any additional sources, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 17 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasopharyngeal Stent

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

This fails WP:N.
After doing a search, found one article/research paper dated 2015. [36]
The page was poorly created, with no sources, and worded like an essay rather than a Wikipedia article.
lbmarshall (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very untidy article, but it should clean up okay. CV9933 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lack of wikilinks and weird formatting in a substantial text is generally a sign of copyvio. ~~If someone has access to the mentioned paper, could you please check if that is the case?~~ --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm checking; I had not noticed it is already a direct link to the pdf. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to nasopharyngeal airway. I think it is about the same thing, but without a properly sourced description of the stent, I am not completely sure. That said, the stent article seems to focus more on what its advantages are, instead of describing what it actually is. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This was a translation of a section of a German article; see here. If you look at the refs in that section, they are poor quality refs from the company that is developing this. If you search for reviews in pubmed like this, you find no MEDRS refs. WP:TOOSOON/spam. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My initial consideration was this pmid and also veterinary nasopharyngeal stenosis applications.CV9933 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and only consisting of a few paragraphs, it's not the substance for an encyclopedia, and the one Keep simply says "needs tidying". When someone can both substantiate and tidy, then we have better chances but there's currently not the at least basic improvements. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 21 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.O.H.A.

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject was previously found non-notable but the AfD is old enough that I don't think it can be cited for CSD G4. That said, I'm not finding much that rings the WP:N bell. Maybe there are foreign language sources? Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable band performing on notable festivals and featured in reliable and independent sources such as [37] Czech Television, [38] [39] Deník, [40] Czech Radio, [41] iDNES etc etc. All the links are in Czech. I'm a bit familiar with the Czech music scene and I can confirm that N.O.H.A. is not an unknown band in my country. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. The links listed above are all adverts for upcoming concerts. That is hardly WP:RS. The Czech entry is similar in content and lack of references. The band appears to have a largely local profile. Not notable. Karst (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is certainly a sign of notability to have concerts "advertised" in multiple national-scale media, such as Czech Television, Czech Radio or iDNES. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one was borderline for me. What finally tipped me to "keep" was learning that, although their more-recent albums are self-released, the first four were issued by German labels and two of them were for what might be considered a major independent (Unique Records, which has been around for more than 30 years). Also, over the band's twenty-year existence they've issued about a dozen singles. I found no evidence that any of their records actually charted, but I was stymied by not knowing how to search the archives for the Czech charts. Taking into account the fairly-well documented fact that they routinely engage in national touring, I think the band does squeak through the guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. I've added some general sources to the External Links section of the article, but I'll leave it to someone else to add sourced content to the article itself. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:16, 18 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Shamash

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

Does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON, which "does not apply to assistant coaches or coaching assistants." Subject has only ever held minor assistant positions. Also does not appear to meet WP:GNG, as all sources that can be found are WP:ROUTINE. Article was also prodded twice, for what it's worth. Lizard (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assistant coaches rarely achieve notability and I see no reason to make an exception here. If I'm missing any articles for GNG, please provide.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches, including newspapers.com and Newslibrary.com, do not turn up significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 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. I also blocked the spamming accounts, and slightly salted the ground. T. Canens (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midbrain activation

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & SALT there's too much activity by WP:SPAs (notably User:Jimee Amin, User:Subh007, User:2405:205:140e:2ec4:7577:b915:5553:4e60, User:Amardeep jaiswal Vande Matram, User:Midbrain.activation, & User:Santosh setty) on this article adding copyvio, advertising copy (Special:Diff/754567546, Special:Diff/753854014, Special:Diff/753525624, Special:Diff/753851941), & spamlinks (Special:Diff/752057756, Special:Diff/751416959, Special:Diff/751255810, Special:Diff/713134107, Special:Diff/712511487, & Special:Diff/712013023) to justify anything but WP:BLOWITUP & preferably add WP:SALT to put an end to this honeypot for spammers. Some action against the spammers would also be welcome. Cabayi (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the measure of notability? I've recently gone to the most elite school in one of the Metropolitan cities in India and saw a copy of a magazine about Mid Brain Activation on the desk of the Academic Director. What's the harm in not deleting the article even if it's not notable? I thought the point of having this article is to educate pseudo-scientific thinkers to the reality of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yathish1618 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to How to Be a Woman#Fifth-wave feminism. T. Canens (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth-wave feminism

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

There is no such thing as "fifth-wave feminism". All of the citations in this article are about Caitlin Moran's book How to Be a Woman which satirically argues for a "fifth-wave feminism". There are no serious academic works discussing a fifth wave of feminism. I tried to redirect the article to How to Be a Woman, but was reverted. Kaldari (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to How to Be a Woman § Fifth-wave feminism. It's a term that the subject coined, but has only received marginal coverage; not enough to qualify a standalone article, in my opinion. Merging is a functional WP:ATD-M in this case. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, per nom. Better to ask for a third opinion than to take the discussion to AfD, generally—there isn't a cause for outright deletion here. czar 20:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to How to Be a Woman. Like the others said, it does not seem to have significant coverage. Perhaps most tellingly, there are no hits at all on JSTOR. A few Google hits do show that journalists have connected the term to the author, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge imho.Fred (talk) 04:06, 18 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Ahrens

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

Does not meet GNG or the notability exception for military people John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Ahrens (DE-575), the ship named after him. He was a hero but is not otherwise notable and brief biographical information is best included in the ship article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject seems to be at least semi-famous for his last words "I guess they didn't know i was a marine", which is even listed at WikiQuote. I am wondering how much coverage this received in newspapers around the time of the subject's death or since, and whether a subject can be notable due to a well-circulated quote anyway (perhaps WP:ONEEVENT shuts that down?). My cursory searches haven't turned up anything I feel is strong enough to go by. I lean to Cullen328's position if nothing else turns up. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like Cullen328's idea. John from Idegon (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search on newspaper.com reveals that the news of his death made the front page news in papers in Ohio and Kentucky like the Cincinnati Enquirer in October 1942. The subsequent award of the silver star in 1943 was also reported. He seems to be of continuing interest eg. [42] [43] There was also a great deal of reportage in newspapers on 6 August 1967 - the 25th anniversary of the battle. The article doesn't get a lot of page views, but it received nearly 20,000 in one day in 2014 due to a Reddit thread. His article receives more page views that of the USS Ahrens (DE-575). So readers are more interested in him than the ship. Our Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo article links to it. Seems that lots of books refer to him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It didn't dawn on me to look at books (after not seeing much news coverage), but indeed his particular war story keeps popping up, like here, here and here. And his somewhat famous quote appears here, here and here. Seems WP:ONEEVENTish but this individual's war actions and dying words each seem to have their own reverberation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree with Stevietheman. The story of the individual's involvement in Guadalcanal, death, and last words seems to have been the subject of sustained coverage. It seems that the best article to cover that has this title. Moving it to The death of Edward H. Arhens or something like that doesn't seem correct. Merging/redirecting to USS Ahrens is a better second choice, especially given the coverage of the individual on the boat's DANFS page, but would really be combining two articles about different things, which isn't really necessary or helpful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per Cullen.--Catlemur (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What's the problem this is supposed to solve? Is Wikipedia running out of pages? —WWoods (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wwoods: Per WP:NOTPAPER, "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". Had you been more thorough in writing this article it might not have been nominated for deletion as WP:REALPROBLEM describes. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pass WP:GNG per the links / sources listed above by other editors. Anotherclown (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still receiving coverage in WW2 history books, so it seems to have sustained coverage. While his last exploits, final words, and death is what he is notable for, i think the article title should be simply his name, rather than The Death of Edward Ahrens. Can anyone find his Navy Cross citation?
Clegs has added it to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 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 created by a sock of a banned/blocked user. Hut 8.5 22:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Listing

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

Contested WP:PROD. Pre-release film with no evidence that the film's production is itself notable. No objection to un-deletion without WP:Deletion review if and when the film CLEARLY meets Wikipedia's notability requirements in the eyes of any administrator willing to un-delete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also likely that this is promotional block evasion by User:MikePlant1, have raised an SPI. --McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MovieWatcher33 has now been confirmed as a sock of MikePlant at this SPI, so I've flagged the article for speedy deletion on that basis (the only other edits have been IPs fixing typos and removing deletion templates). --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts

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

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

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

Delete for at kindest being too soon for an article. In agreement with the nominator, the topic might be undeleted only when or if WP:NF is ever met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:00, 17 January 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. The consensus is that the subject of the article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports persons as the guideline is currently written. Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Ferrell

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment — It appears the user posted their reasoning for contesting the PROD on the articles talk page. Stating that Ferrell was first team All-American. Which he was, but sometimes WP:NCOLLATH is not clear with the notability guidelines. There was a discussion a few months ago about whether or not first team All-American's should be considered notable (see here). However, it doesn't look like consensus was reached. I don't know, this is a tough one to be honest with you people. – Michael (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets point 2 of WP:NCOLLATH – first team NCAA Division I All-American in ... soccer ... by an NCAA recognized selecting body. Agree that if rationale for removing PROD had been given in the edit summary, then we might not be here right now. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 08:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Changing !vote. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 08:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Might meet NCOLLATH but as the nominator states that is a debatable notability guideline, and in any case trumped by GNG. GiantSnowman 09:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: With all due respect, GNG trumps all SNGs, including NFOOTY. How many times have you and I both !voted to keep articles based on the subject barely meeting NFOOTY? Either an SNG allows for an article to exist (even temporarily to allow more time for a subject to meet GNG), or it does not. I won't argue the viability of an SNG here, but NCOLLATH exists, so that's why I !voted to keep. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @GiantSnowman: My mistake, I read the failed proposal above and believed it was the current NCOLLATH. As such, Ferrell does not meet NCOLLATH as presently written, so I will change my !vote accordingly. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated prior, he does meet point 2 of WP:NCOLLATH and, with the lack of consensus on the topic of the viability, it's what I had to work off of when I was creating the article. When I contested the deletion, I forgot to include a comment regarding WP:NCOLLATH, but that was my initial intent. Cmrobinson (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — As it appears there's a consensus, I'll just recreate this in my sandbox and re-promote when he meets notability requirements.Cmrobinson (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My original !vote was based upon having read the failed proposal to expand WP:NCOLLATH and believing it was the current SNG. Based upon the current SNGs, Ferrell fails NCOLLATH and NFOOTY, as well as GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for soccer players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 19 January 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Duran Music Entertainment artists

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

List of NN artists for a music company that has been deleted via AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duran_Music_Entertainment. reddogsix (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of these artists are notable and as per previous AfD Spiderone 10:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination and previous AfD. Non-notable artists and non-notable label. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm1531108/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[2] ttps://www.ispot.tv/topic/actor-actress/AJq/ramsey-bergeron

[3] ttps://eas.com/athletes-who-use-eas

[4] ttp://darkeyesoflondon.blogspot.com/2016/10/new-films-round-up-reviews-of.html

[5] ttps://sonicsmashmusic.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/film-composer-julian-scherle-releases-new-soundtrack-album-lets-be-evil/

[6] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm4477558/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

[7] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt3388090/?ref_=nm_flmg_com_1

[8] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm0785352/?ref_=tt_cl_t2

[9] ttp://csc.cma.org.cn/attachment/2014315/1394884955972.pdf

[10] ttps://www.heartfoundation.org.au/images/uploads/publications/PRO-167_Hypertension-guideline-2016_WEB.pdf

[11] ttps://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg127/resources/hypertension-in-adults-diagnosis-and-management-35109454941637

[12] ttp://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/practitioner-pro/bc-guidelines/htn-full-guideline.pdf

[13] ttp://csc.cma.org.cn/attachment/2014315/1394884955972.pdf

[14] ttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4137642/

[15] "Radcliffe muses Trump-Voldemort comparison".

[16] McCluskey, Megan. "Daniel Radcliffe Compares Donald Trump to Voldemort".

[17] "Daniel Radcliffe Assesses Donald Trump/Voldemort Comparison".

[18] "Daniel Radcliffe weighs in on the Donald Trump/Voldemort comparison". 28 September 2016.

[19] Editor, Lee Moran Trends; Post, The Huffington (1 October 2016). "Donald Trump Gave Daniel Radcliffe Some Not-So-Magical Advice". {{cite web}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]