Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 January	16 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article contains a list of references to blogs (not reliable sources, some of them not independent either), none of them contributing to notability in the sense of GNG. There is also some name-dropping listing notable members of the editorial board (but notability is not inherited). Article dePRODded with reason "I think it is notable, was mentioned in NYtimes recently too http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/world/derek-parfit-philosopher-who-explored-identity-and-moral-choice-dies-at-74.html". This was only an in-passing mention. PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Agree with nominator across the board. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRANSWIKI To Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article presents a picture of a reasonably normal journal — 15 years old, good people on editorial boards, some minor controversies — but no evidence of actual notability as a journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- unless it's a predatory journal, I don't see a reason to delete. The article states: "Reviews are commissioned and vetted by the Editorial Board. Only newly released books and anthologies are reviewed, not reprints or new editions unless they contain substantial new material", i.e. it's possible that the journal would be used as a source on Wikipedia. The editor is a notable individual and apparently an expert in the field. I view journals more like publishers -- they are notable for their work and what they publish, so meeting GNG is harder. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not just that it misses GNG (which indeed few journals make), but even the much more permissive NJournals (which currently is highly contested as being too permissive, see the talk there). This has no sources, nothing indicating any notability at all. --Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this sounds convincing. The content is indeed weak. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 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 delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 3822

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

No apparent significance, other than being an object on a long list of galaxies that can be seen in the Hubble telescope. I can't find a published paper that is specifically on this object. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – this is entirely subjective, but I believe being "the brightest galaxy in the lower left quadrant of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field" is significant enough to warrant its own stub article (WP:NOTPAPER), especially because of how famous the Deep Field is. Laurdecl ^talk 02:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Regarding the 'weak keep' vote, the relevant issue is whether it satisfies the criteria established by the community in WP:NASTRO. It fails all four prongs of that policy. It (1) is not visible to the unaided eye and has never been so, (2) is not in a catalogue of interest to amateur astronomers or a catalogue of historical interest, (3) has not been the subject of in-depth attention in reliable secondary sources, and (4) was discovered after 1850. Astro4686 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Astro4686 explanation. Since this does not meet our inclusion guidelines for astronomy, it should not be kept. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 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. There are a few people saying "Keep" here, but they either fail to advance a policy-based reason for keeping, or they rely on crystal ball stuff. On the other hand, the WP:ONEEVENT arguments are well made and not refuted. No prejudice against a bold redirect being made from this title if someone wants to stick their necks out. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Ju Lin

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

Ms Lin is a never-elected political candidate who attracted media attention only due to the perception that her candidacy for Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party was usual due to her ethnic background, and subsequently being disendorsed well before the election. As such, she does not meet the notability criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, WP:ONEEVENT appears to apply her as Ms Lin is only known for her short-lived One Nation candidacy. Nick-D (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong redirect~~ ~~and merge to Pauline Hanson's One Nation for the time being~~ *Keep I have changed my mind, as this story is far from over. From all reports she is still overseas, so has not been interviewed by the media yet. I think it is likely she is going to bounce back as an Independent or with another party. If so, it does not make much sense to merge the article into Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Alternatively, if she is not notable for WP:POLITICIAN, she may just be notable in her own right as a divisive or controversial voice on the political scene. MatthewTStone (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lin also attracted some attention for her KAP candidacy, as seen in the SBS Cantonese-language interview that I tried to add to her page. She's very newsy at the moment, but I'm unsure of her lasting importance. It might depend on what she does next. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely to bounce back as an Independent" sounds like WP:CRYSTAL. St Anselm (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion and opinion page, not an article in WP:Mainspace, where WP:CRYSTAL is meant to apply, so it is perfectly valid. I would say this is an unfolding event, that is still taking place in the media, so it is up to editors to keep track of it MatthewTStone (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No it isn't. We don't have articles on people who might become notable in the future. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is very well reported. Torygreen84 (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. These people fade quickly from the scene and have no lasting significance. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Banister for a similar case (and note how non-notable she seems a few years later!). Frickeg (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong redirect and merge up to Pauline Hanson's One Nation similarly to 2013 Stephanie Banister interview. This person has been extremely widely reported BUT for a single brief event, which is hence very notable but very brief in nature. TOOSOON for any standalone notabilty in their own right. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. St Anselm (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand, please! I saw an article referring to her in the paper today, and wanted to find out more about her. Was pleased that there was a Wikipedia page for her, but disappointed that it had so little information, and also disturbed that it had been tagged for deletion. Whatever her individual level of fame/importance/notability is, she is certainly very interesting at least as an example - an Asian (born) person who has lived in Australia through Pauline Hanson's first rise, and her recent resurrection.

Some more personal details would be useful, such as what sort of a teacher she is, and what sort of school she teaches at. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete she is only getting coverage for being a (controversial} candidate. previous consensus has shown that only elected politicians should get an article. she'll disappear from the news cycle if she doesn't get elected. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a one-day story about a disendorsed minor party political candidate and a BLP nightmare if kept. WP:ONEEVENT was created to discourage exactly these kinds of articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Timmyshin (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:One Event, the guideline suggests it may sometimes be appropriate to cover the event not the person. To quote: ...If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate..... As a Taiwanese person, joining a notoriously anti-Asian party (If you go by Hanson's maiden speech, One Nation was virtually founded on that platform); Lin's joining the party was a highly significant event within Australian culture. Note that she wasn't ejected for being Asian, but rather for other reasons. Also, she seems to have disappeared overseas for the time being, and the media were having trouble tracking her down, so her plans will become clearer once she returns. MatthewTStone (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say there is no way in the world this is a significant event. St Anselm (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you may be right – which kind of illustrates the point – there seems to be a bit of subjectivity allowed for in the WP:One Event guidelines, as to what constitutes 'significant'. MatthewTStone (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:POLITICIAN. No enduring significance. I would say there are about half-a-dozen similar candidates every election cycle who get similar amounts of coverage, don't think we need to cover them unless they actually get elected (or have some other major impact). IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:18, 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 Move to Evil corporations in fiction. Consensus is to keep, and it appears that the rename is favored. My interpretation is that this is not intended to be list article of such corporations because at present it difficult to see the inclusion criteria, so the article may be subject to further editing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evil corporation

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

This is an assemblage of pop-culture references that in no way indicates that the topic is itself encyclopedic. If it is, should we also have articles to list examples of other tropes, such as the evil politician, evil attorney, and evil used car salesman? ~T P W 21:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe this should renamed to "Evil corporations in fiction" instead; that's the subject now, and it would prevent this from during into an opinion article about real-life institutions later. --Closeapple (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above: it could be renamed. --Fixuture (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are good references from reliable sources. It is a well-known theme in science fiction featured in popular movies such as Alien, Robocop, Total Recall and Avatar. Someone Not Awful (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great topic. Agree with the rename. Jeff Quinn (talk) 16:44, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. Hari Prasad

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

Not notable doctor and business person with no notable improvement since previous deletion Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I contributed to the previous discussion which was just six months ago. At that time I noted there appeared to be very little by way of coverage of this individual in reliable sources. I still can't see any particularly credible claim to notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The person has been elevated from CEO of a particular region to the president of the entire group for deletion. More importantly, like mentioned in the article, he heads the biggest chain of hospitals in the entire country and he is the person who actually brought the concept of emergency medicine to the country. Also, one cannot say "At that time I noted there appeared to be very little by way of coverage of this individual in reliable sources". A supporting article from The Hindu, Bloomberg News, Deccan Chronicle, Fiji Sun have been provided. These are the most reputed publications nationally & globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My description of my contribution at the previous AfD was accurate. What has changed? The Deccan Chronicle article from March 2016 looks like a lifestyle feature for 30th anniversary of his marriage. The Bloomberg link does not work but was likely a listing. The Fiji Sun article is new since the last AfD nomination, but it looks like a tabloid regurgitation of a press release linked to a conference he was speaking at. While he was interviewed by the Hindu for their piece published in November 2015, this is in his capacity as the president of the hospital chain. So, it appears that this article has been recreated with enough extra references added in to avoid speedy deletion. But, while the Deccan Herald article is interesting, I'm still not convinced that there has been a significant change in a depth of coverage of this individual that would demonstrate that he meets WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is zero evidence that this person meets WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG. With all due respect for a friend who was an anesthesiologist, they are not inherently notable. In fact, they are often discriminated against in the ranks of academic medicine. Every medical doctor, by dint of their social status, eventually gets into the newspapers, so local coverage, even in reliable sources, does not prove notability. That he runs a big chain of hospitals is not remarkable in itself, if there is no source that attests that he did something notable. We are not a LinkedIn for doctors. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I strongly contest this deletion, and both the reasons mentioned above.

While "Not enough credible/reliable sources of information" is one of them, the other person says, he is not remarkable enough -

Here are atleast 30 reliable sources of information about the same person, varying from listings in global business databases like Bloomberg to national media-houses of 5 different countries such as Times of Oman, Deccan Chronicle, The Hindu, Arabian Business, NDTV, Trade Arabia, Times Of India, Fiji Sun, Business Line, Mint_(newspaper), The Economic Times, The Hans India, Nigeria CommunicationsWeek, The Financial Express (India) & So on :

1. http://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/hospitals/ola-joins-apollo-hospitals-for-road-safety/56626099
2.http://www.ndtv.com/hyderabad-news/apollo-hospital-performs-8-spine-surgeries-using-mazor-robotics-1449097
3.http://www.livemint.com/Companies/v4rtTLlQyRaEr9Pz9wC6qJ/Apollo-Hospitals-signs-deal-with-Ghana-on-health-services.html
4. http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hyderabad-Tab/2016-08-24/Mazor-Robotics-spine-surgery-performed/250129
5. http://www.apollomedicaljournal.net/content/edboard
6. http://www.arabianbusiness.com/company-news/details/?pressReleaseId=51639
7. http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Gallery.aspx?id=18_01_2017_005_011_003&type=P&artUrl=Quality-crown-Hyd-hosps-in-hall-of-fame-18012017005011&eid=31809
8. http://www.tradearabia.com/news/HEAL_268782.html
9. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=144288680&privcapId=8888162
10. http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/battling-doctor-shortage-indian-hospitals-offer-intensive-care-from-afar/208687/
11. http://sapienbio.co.in/about-us/board-of-directors/
12. http://www.nigeriacommunicationsweek.com.ng/other-business/apollo-hospitals-airtel-offer-nigerians-access-to-doctors
13. http://www.medicaltourismcongress.com/speakers/dr-k-hari-prasad/
14. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/sex-and-relationship/200316/i-always-knew-she-was-the-one-doctor-hari-prasad.html
15. http://www.ficci-heal.com/programme/pdf/28/HariPrasadd.pdf
16. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/apollo-group-to-open-250bed-hospital-in-visakhapatnam/article8520187.ece
17. http://www.aherf.org/governance.htm
18. http://ehealth.eletsonline.com/2009/07/apollo-city-one-stop-healthcare-dr-k-hari-prasad-apollo-hospitals-jubilee-hills-hyderabad/
19. http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hyderabad-Tab/2016-04-01/Support-for-TB-treatment-goes-Hi-tech/217986
20. http://www.pharmabiz.com/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=98414&sid=2
21. http://www.orissabarta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24336:apollo-heart-institute-bhubaneswar-implants-first-s-icd-in-odisha-and-apollo-group-of-hospitals-in-india&catid=35:top-stories
22. http://www.cancerci.org/
23. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/apollos-rs100cr-hospital-in-city-by-monthend/article7860566.ece
24. http://www.bgr.in/news/after-uber-ola-partners-with-apollo-hospitals-for-road-safety/
25. http://www.livemint.com/Companies/v4rtTLlQyRaEr9Pz9wC6qJ/Apollo-Hospitals-signs-deal-with-Ghana-on-health-services.html
26. http://www.apollomedicaljournal.net/content/edboard
27. http://news.franchiseindia.com/Apollo-Hospitals-to-invest-Rs-600-cr-in-FY17-13121
28. http://apolloemergency.com/content/leadership.html
29. https://www.imtj.com/news/apollo-hospitals-looks-gulf/
30. http://www.newsvoir.com/release/apollo-hospital-launches-a-novel-healthy-heart-challenge-program-1807.html

He has also been quoted in multiple books that have been listed on Google Books :
1. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HC0UAQAAMAAJ&q=hari+prasad+apollo&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
2. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=OSHTyfd_I3cC&pg=PR14&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hari%20prasad%20apollo&f=false
3. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=S2gbU6Ax69wC&pg=PA208&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hari%20prasad%20apollo&f=false
4. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yGySzwPXXp0C&pg=PA41&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hari%20prasad%20apollo&f=false
5. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7ekJAQAAMAAJ&q=hari+prasad+apollo&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

Having said that, he is not just an anesthesiologist, he has been instrumental in bringing the emergency medicine concept to India, which has had a very positive impact on the healthcare system in this country on a macro-level . He is also the first doctor in the history of, not just this country, but outside Europe to be honoured with a fellowship of the College of Emergency Medicine, UK and the first in India to receive a fellowship of the International Federation for Emergency Medicine. In addition to this, he has also played Ranji Trophy cricket which is the highest level of national cricket in the country. Moreover, the very fact that he has been covered by numerous diverse media houses multiple times across various 5 different countries is an indicator of his stature and achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is an alternate spelling. Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still concur with my earlier analysis and the sources offered here are all trivial and unconvincing, including ones that are simple announcements, listings and mentions, hence nothing new has occurred. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Simons

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

A biography of an Assistant Professor that fails to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources other than a Q&A article in the Tucson Weekly. A Google search provides no information to pass WP:PROF. Article created by WP:SPA with a total of 3 edits all of which are to this article and may be a COI. CBS527^Talk 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not a significant figure with what's needed to show for it. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability non-existent. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We very rarely include biographies of living assistant professors in our encyclopedia. While this academic is up and coming, we can't be certain that he passes our tests of notability, either generally or for faculty. FWIW, I've had family members whio attended Mercy College and/or Fordham University. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emre Engin

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

A biography of a violinist that fails to establish notability. A google search provides no information to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Article created by WP:SPA who may be the subject of the article. CBS527^Talk 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This is a 25 year old classical musician from off the beaten path, who has won very minor "young person" awards in a field that favors older performers in major venues and festivals. When he is older, has won actually prestigious awards, and has performed in more visible venues and festivals, then we can see if he meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearian has it right. If subject becomes notable in future, let's have this article back, but I also found current evidence to be lacking. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:59, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Pontius

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a person whose claim of notability involves the word "aspiring" rather than on his actually having achieved anything that actually passes a notability criterion as of today. His "multi-award-winning work" involves local high school and college science fair awards and university scholarships, and he has not won any award notable or significant enough to constitute an automatic WP:ANYBIO pass on the basis of the award win. The sources are almost entirely primary ones, with the exception of a smattering of local media coverage in his own hometown media market. And there's a likely conflict of interest here as well, as the article was created by an editor whose username was "Stemprodigies". No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger claim of notability and much better sourcing to support it, but nothing present here as of right now is enough to already get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He has not yet achieved significant accomplishments, and it was written by the subject himself. This is merely a carefully worded advertisement for him and his LinkedIn profile. Nonnobissolumnatisumus (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He is a rising star in the scientific community, and I would hate to see his flame extinguished by trolls on Wikipedia who would like to see his page deleted. ISEF is a big deal! Just kidding, please extinguish his uncontrollable flame of narcissism. Ssssiwiki (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability must not be self-proclaimed. Dantelins (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Awards lack any real substance and links to LinkedIn profile. There is no mention anywhere of any scientific peer reviewed work, which makes it unlikely that there is any WP:NACADEMIC-qualifying contribution to the scientific community, since Wyatt Pontius is clearly not a professor of any sort (at this time). Scarca (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this autobiography of a living person is a freshman in college, so this page is far too soon. The coverage is local, or from unreliable sources, or in a few cases is not even about the subject and is merely an insidious coat rack. This appears to be a classic prodigy -- who may end up doing nothing for the rest of his life. Many a privileged suburban White kid has done the same things; my older brothers at The Bronx High School of Science did the same things he did (boy scouts, awards, military, etc.), but from a working family in the South Bronx while it was burning down around us. I remind the gentle reader that we are a charity whose tax-free status could be in jeopardy if we were a free resume host for well-off kids. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I note for the record that the creator and presumed autodidact has been unwilling to discuss this matter thus far. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bearian described the reasons as much as need be. Purely a promotional autobiography with nothing notable even on the science end. This isn't a place for posting resumes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:32, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Honeycutt

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sourcing to support a WP:GNG pass. Of the four sources here, three are primary ones (his own website, the promotional site for a non-notable film he participated in making, and a first-person essay on a PR blog), and the only reliable one is a purely local piece of "local teen makes an album" coverage in his local newspaper. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every musician in existence gets to have an article the moment it becomes possible to verify that he exists -- reliable source coverage, sufficient in volume and geographic range to pass GNG, has to support a claim of notability that satisfies NMUSIC for an article to become earned, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable references. No significant independent, third party sources. Clearly promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:19, 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) 10:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Johnston (writer)

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer, which just asserts that he exists and wrote stuff, and sources that exclusively to his own website and IMDb with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, verifying at least one specific accomplishment that would satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. st 170e 11:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. st 170e 11:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a New York Times bestselling author and has written books in the widely known Enders game series Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is an automatic WP:NAUTHOR pass in the absence of reliable source coverage about him. Wikipedia notability criteria are not passed by simply asserting that they've been passed; they're passed by properly sourcing that they've been passed. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He passes per no.3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." He has co-written many novels in the Ender's Game (series)Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person passes #3 when reliable sources are covering him in that context, not when his passage of #3 is merely asserted without reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Ender's Game (series) page. "The first two novels in the series, Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, each won both the Hugo[1][2] and Nebula[1][3] Awards, and were among the most influential science fiction novels of the 1980s."

Which constitutes reliable source coverage about Aaron Johnston how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He passes Wikipedia:Notability (people) "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." As mentiloned above, he is a New York Times bestselling aurhorApollo The Logician (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting how this works. No notability criterion can ever be passed just by asserting that it's passed — regardless of what the article claims, the notability criterion is still not passed until RELIABLE SOURCE COVERAGE IN MEDIA is supporting that passage. Nobody gets, for any reason ever, an exemption from having to be reliably sourced just because some impressive-sounding accomplishment has been claimed. There is no claim of notability that any person can ever make which exempts the article from having to cite reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the above link states that has to be the case Apollo The Logician (talk)

That's because "the above link" is about defining what is or is not a reliable source, in the context of a reference to reliable sources. The basic notability rule is where you'll find it explained that coverage about the subject in reliable sources is a base condition that has to be met before an article is allowed to even be started and that people cannot be exempted from having to be reliably sourced just because coverage of a notability criterion has been claimed but not sourced. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Herald is a good start, but not enough all by itself — but his own website and his "our authors" profile on the website of the books' publisher do not assist, because coverage has to be independent of the subject to count as reliable source coverage for the purposes of satisfying Wikipedia's inclusion rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one is a bit tough. He's co-written several entries in the Ender's Game series, which is a notable series overall. However that is ultimately all that he's really known for and there hasn't been a lot of coverage of him as far as a writer goes. There's been precedent on stuff like this before. Jobie Hughes was an author known for ghostwriting a well-known series, but that's all he was known for and there wasn't enough coverage to justify him having a standalone article, so it was deleted and turned into a redirect. If he'd been writing the series solo then that might have gone differently, which is probably why Andrew Neiderman has an article outside of the VC Andrews stuff. This is what makes Johnson so difficult to really decide - he's well known for working with Card, but anything that is written about him tends to be predominantly about Card or the series, with him as more of an afterthought. There's so little out there that he could just as easily be covered in a subsection in Card's article, honestly. He definitely needs to have something about him somewhere, but the question here is where and how much. If we could show that he did something in the Ender's Game series solo, that would help out a lot, as well as coverage for anything he might have done independently of Card as a whole. It's kind of surprising that there isn't something out there, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a comic and tv writer as well. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue though, is that none of the stuff he's put out independently of Card is really notable. The only things that have been notable have been the Card/Johnson works, which is why I'm leaning towards giving Johnson a subsection in Card's article and redirecting there. He's just not really independently notable because even when he is mentioned in RS, it's always in passing because the main focus is on Card and the work he's done with Card. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of ten books, important in other media. No pretense of compliance with WP:Before. Article, content and referencing can be (and will be) improved. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obvious signs of Notability present. --Tarzany (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closer: This account was created today, and it's only edits are to AfDs. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the sources currently in the article. The heraldextra.com helps a little towards WP:GNG, but it´s not enough. I don´t think Goodreads is something that shows WP:NOTABILITY, it seems largely usergenerated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A redirect to Ender's Game (series) could be helpful to readers, he´s mentioned there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads isn't considered to be a RS - the vast majority of content there is user generated, as users can create and edit information on books as long as they have librarian status, which is not difficult to achieve. The author's pages are debatable, as they're either created by the author or they were added by a random user. In the first case it'd be at best a primary source and couldn't show notability and in the second it's a non-RS. In the case of Goodreads, his author bio is also available on the author's official website, which should be the primary source used when backing up basic information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mega problem his name is spelled wrong above, leading me and probably others to fail to be able to find him. it's Johston with a "t".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly moved this discussion to the proper spelling: Johnston.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

probable keep Searching with keywords turned up reviews of some of his books, which I added to the page. A few more sources should put it over the top.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)@Bearcat:[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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since "Enders Game" and "Speaker for the Dead" were fully the work of Orson Scott Card they do not confer notability on Johnston. This is not to say he is or is not notable, it is just to say that writting later works in a series that had earlier works win major distinctions does not make someone notable on its face.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources are presence that I think he passes notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on reviews and sources found by E.M.Gregory. ABF99 (talk) 03:21, 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 redirect to Mattress Firm. Consensus is that the article's subject is not notable. I've acted on the suggestion to redirect as 1. Redirects are cheap, and 2. this will give searchers some chance at locating information about the company. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattress Barn

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

fails WP:NCORP. No indication of notability. The article as it existed merely states it existed and was bought by another company. Not seeing anything in google searches that would establish notability. noq (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial. Jacknstock (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless I am reading the sources wrong, it is the subsidiary (Steinhoff International) of a subsidiary (Mattress Firm). It has mentions in various sources [1] but nothing to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Alternative would be to merge/redirect into the page for Mattress Firm. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mattress Firm. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. I've put a mention as a predecessor company in Mattress Firm to make that a valid target for a redirect. MB 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company that was bought by Mattress Firm, and was not a company that eventually changed names to Mattress Firm. I don't see the need to redirect non-notable acquisitions to notable companies. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 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 of the discussion was procedural close - article already deleted per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pony (YouTube Channel)

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

Absolutely no coverage in independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:23, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Morikawa

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards or nominations. No nontrivial pertinent GNews or GBooks hits. Negligible independent reliable sourcing -- aside from a single review which apparently comments mostly on whether the actress should be described as "pudgy", the sources which actually mention the article subject are databases and vendor sites. Survived 2007 AFD based on long-deprecated version of PORNBIO, under criteria that today don't establish notability The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Japanese wiki page says that she was the first major Japanese BBW pornographic actress and is responsible for the genre's success in the country. If true, that would suggest potential notability and contemporary media coverage. Practically speaking, however, the relative scarcity of easily accessible Japanese media archives in general and the fact that she became popular before the popularization of the Internet in Japan means that such coverage would likely be quite difficult to find. --Cckerberos (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ja-wiki page is also entirely unreferenced, and we have no idea whether the claim is promotion, fancruft, kayfabe, or legit. The actress's name isn't even mentioned in the book that's been touted in other discussions as a definitive text on the subject.[2] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a book on the history of Japanese pink cinema (softcore pornography). Morikawa was a hardcore actress who only appeared in a single pink film, so it's not surprising she wouldn't be mentioned. --Cckerberos (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Loh

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

Patently fails WP:BIO for independent notability; reads like a self-promotion page. PerfectProposal 17:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN applies here, I think. Timmyshin (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an entirely promotional page. Most of the coverage is actually not about the subject but rather, are by the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear misuse given all information and sources published and republished PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan Timeline of Presidents of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania

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

I'd like to open this discussion so that we can see if this is inherently a notable topic. There are plenty of similar graphical lifespan timeline articles and I'm looking to see if they meet the criteria. I personally think that they fail WP:GNG; there do not appear to be reliable sources comparing the lifespan of presidents of the chamber of deputies in Romania. Please note that this article is concerned with how long these people lived rather than how long they were in office. I also can't see any justification for a stand-alone article rather than being incorporated into another article. Spiderone 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This duplicates (in an alternative form) President of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania, a list article of the normal kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to President of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania I think it should be included into the President of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania article. Laurentiu Popa (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to President of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania There's nothing notable about the topic. The graphic is pretty but that isn't grounds for inclusion. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of U.S. Presidents and wars they started and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical list of chief ministerial tenures and important events of Tamil Nadu‎, and has similar issues. In all cases, the material might be better kept at commons and used somewhere else. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless trivia. Nobody is analyzing the lifespans of these officeholders. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources on the lifespans of the Presidents of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania can be added, this as a stand-alone article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted under WP:DEL8. I'm not convinced the idea of including the graphics in President of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania will make that article better. — Sam Sailor 16:56, 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 keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Die Berg Komt Er

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

"Die Berg Komt Er" was a media campaign and not a real movement or serious proposal for anything. The campaign has been removed time and again on NL.WP. Proposing removal per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC) gidonb (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which type content as described in WP:NOTSOAPBOX would apply here? – Editør (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editør Thank you for the question! Most significantly 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment 4. Self-promotion Advertising, and 5. marketing or public relations, but there are elements also of some other WP:NOTSOAPBOX and other WP:NOT. To strike a balance and also be specific I generalized to WP:NOTSOAPBOX. gidonb (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article is aiming at either self-promotion or advertising/propaganda/marketing. – Editør (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe is not always the strongest basis for educated opinions. Please study this media campaign in its local context as the Dutch folks do who keep removing it from NL.WP for very good reasons.gidonb (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation was unconvincing. Furthermore, Dutch Wikipedia policy and standards often differ from the English Wikipedia; only English Wikipedia policy and standards matter here. – Editør (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to convince you. There is or can be a discussion below the inclusion messages. I have nominated this media campaign for deletion under WP:NOTSOAPBOX as a service to the Wikipedia community and look forward to read all opinions. I may react or not. If you wish to express your own opinion, you may do so at the appropriate place. Saying that there can be differences between the Dutch and English language Wikipedias is stating the obvious. Fact is that I have nominated this article under our rules. You even asked me to specify. Still, the repetitive removal of this media campaign by the WP community that know its sociopolitical context can be relevant information. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:NOTSOAPBOX does not apply. – Editør (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the folks at the Dutch wiki have roundly deleted this gives me pause -- are their rules for this really that different? I also agree with Editør that WP:NOTSOAPBOX is a poor rationale -- the article is neutrally worded and doesn't appear to be promotional in tone. We do of course have many articles on things that are only proposed. There was a flurry of coverage in 2011. Then, this article appeared in early 2012. My concern is that there may not be enough WP:LASTING notability here, despite multiple sources. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and I'm seeing refs on the article, such as Wired, that are dated 2013 even though if you go to the link they are in fact 2011, as well. Not sure what that's about and my guess is it's an honest mistake, not an attempt to give a misleading impression the coverage lasted longer than it did. The science publication link that I provided above was mistakenly tagged by Google News as "2014," even though was published two years earlier. I suspect that's what's happening here, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:LASTING seems relevant, but it's a bit too soon to tell really. The project was initially covered in 2011 and 2012, but there are also later mentions and discussions, such as this 2015 article and this 2016 article (note that The Berg, a somewhat similar plan, was also discussed in the latter). – Editør (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw those. I couldn't read all of the Volkskrant piece due to the paywall but it seemed to me that it was a column about upcoming books, including one by the cyclist who had once (jokingly) suggested the idea? Did I get that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the story as an entrance point to discuss Dutch books about cycling on mountains. – Editør (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether referring to the deletion history on the Dutch Wiki is relevant in this case. From the discussion history here and here, it seems their entire discussion was whether the article was 'encyclopedia worthy' (also referred to there as 'relevant'). However, a reading of Wikipedia:Relevantie and its talk page reveal that the Dutch WP:REL (upon which the entire discussion is based) is a de facto-guideline, serving a similar purpose to our notability requirement, but the precise guidelines are much less clearly defined on the Dutch wiki. Based on their 'relevance'/'encyclopedia worthyness' guideline, the discussion about "Die Berg Komt Er" on the Dutch wiki revolved around whether coverage of the event by (reputable) (inter)national news sources for a non-insignificant period, followed up by feasibility studies, were sufficient to merit an article on the Dutch wiki.

Therefore, instead of going by the Dutch wiki history of this page, I think we need to assess notability and verifiability based on our own criteria. Of mention are e.g. WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING, WP:DIVERSE, WP:NOTNEWS. --talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 11:33, 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) 17:04, 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 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The proposal itself is absurd, but it is verifiable and notable - we thought it notable enough to put it on the Main Page! I think the Dutch are removing from their wiki out of sheer embarrassment. The fact that a structure of 2,000 metres (7,000 ft) was proposed and studied merits an article. Jacknstock (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jacknstock. The amount of serious study makes the proposal significant. The tense in the article needs to be changed from "is" to "was" as I don't believe it is still under consideration. MB 05:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is another proposal for construction of a mountain, in the UAE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:22, 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 redirect to XBIZ Award. Clear consensus the subjects are not notable, but the redirect position is better supported in policy. I have protected the redirect. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet

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

No reliable, independently sourced coverage. Little more than an image gallery with minimal associated prose. XBIZ awards are less notable than AVN awards, and the parallel AVN award articled has been deleted for the same reason. Deprodded on the theory that repeated consensus, deleting and/or redirecting a dozen comparable articles for the same reasons, was somehow insufficient. See

and more. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect them all under WP:ATD to XBIZ Awards, as like them or not, the topic is sourcable away from organization itself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe general practice has been, rather than creating redirects, to convert the wikilinks to the form XBIZ Award for Best Whatever. It's a bit more efficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but redirects are cheap and would then properly send readers to the one place where "general practice" and "common sense" would have us send readers to where they may read of the topics in context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable award - No point keeping around just so some SPA can revert the redirect & thus create mayhem, don't see much point redirecting either, Better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough to the porn genre even if not the mainstream, but I am not arguing for a 'keep'. And a redirect can be protected from being overwritten. Quite easy actually. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree I don't believe it is notable at all, Could be but it's just wasting admin's time. –Davey2010^Talk 08:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting response... similar to someone claiming academy awards are non-notable to the film industry. I do not claim that the various sub award categories are notable, only that an award considered important to one particular film genre need not have any note outside of that industry. if a reader wishes to be informed (our base duty here) of the awards themselves, the parent article is the place if separate sourced articles are not wanted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance for a stand-alone article. Primary sources are insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect As per WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and MichaelQSchmidt. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as it's clear these are not automatically inherited notability and none of these have been solidly convincing for bestowing people their own article either; any information can easily be merged without keeping history as the information is still so simple and can be remade. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2011 GCC Games

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

Non-notable sports event, violates Wikipedia:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2011 GCC Games, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical list of chief ministerial tenures and important events of Tamil Nadu

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

No evidence of WP:LISTN. No clear inclusion criteria. What makes something an important event as opposed to just an event? At the moment I think that it should be deleted rather than merged into History of Tamil Nadu. Spiderone 16:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- I cannot see the merit of a time-line in this form. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non encyclopedic table that does not warrant a stand-alone article. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very similar (in that the page is a graphical representation of a timeline of historic interest) to another recent AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of U.S. Presidents and wars they started, similar issues. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Useless and a pain in the neck to update. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value. Mélencron (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Similar graphs already present in List of Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:01, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 2

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

No apparent significance, other than being an object on a long list of galaxies that can be seen in the Hubble telescope. I can't find a published paper that is specifically on this object. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: subject isn't notable alone but it could be merged into a list such as List of the most distant astronomical objects. DrStrauss talk 16:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all notability criteria of WP:NASTRO. Astro4686 (talk) 00:27, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 7556

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

No apparent significance, other than being an object on a long list of galaxies that can be seen in the Hubble telescope. I can't find a published paper that is specifically on this object, though it is briefly mentioned in two. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: (as with WP:AfD/UDF2) subject isn't notable alone but it could be merged into a list such as List of the most distant astronomical objects. DrStrauss talk 16:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion, for this and other UDF objects that have individual articles unless they are more specifically noteworthy. The mere fact that a galaxy happened to be observed by Hubble isn't sufficient reason to consider it noteworthy. A database such as NED is better suited for containing basic data such as redshifts and magnitudes for all galaxies where such data are available. No reason to add this to a list of the most distant astronomical objects, because this galaxy is fairly nearby compared with current record holders for distance. Aldebarium (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all criteria of WP:NASTRO. Also, Aldebarium makes a good point about why WP shouldn't merely duplicate information from astronomical catalogues. Astro4686 (talk) 00:14, 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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Scrabble Championship 2007

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

Non-notable event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it is notable because it is the world championship. All global contests pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. DrStrauss talk 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: major global event with significant prize money, endorsement from the game's manufacturers etc. calr (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, it was a major world championship of a well-known competition. Passes WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time table of punk rock

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

No evidence of reliable sources on this topic. There is an unusual inclusion of songs in this timeline (e.g. You Really Got Me) which have been mixed in with bands. I'm not sure how this works? Which authority decides that these are the most notable punk rock bands/songs? Spiderone 16:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unref'd, non-notable WP:OR. How has this article survived for 10 years?! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and it appears to be original research. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Completely unencyclopedic table that has no purpose of being a separate article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:59, 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2015 National Games of India

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

Non-notable sports event, violates Wikipedia:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Are you serious? The guideline you bring up is for an individual game or series. These are individual tournaments! The football events at the National Games of India are their own tournaments at the national games. Also what makes these not notable but say Football at the 2014 Asian Games or Athletics at the 2014 Asian Games notable? Fine, there should be some more referencing but there is plenty of coverage on the football tournament for example. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am serious. The guideline is per event and the football tournament is one of many of the larger Games. This tournament is not-notable and was played by a bunch of non-notable athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A bunch of non-notable athletes? Fine, maybe for athletics cause I don't follow that but I can tell you for football that there were plenty of notable footballers that participated in the tournament. From Sandesh Gadkari, Mohammed Irshad, Vijith Shetty, Abhishek Ambedkar, and Marcus Masceranhas, many former I-League players were part of it and even ones in the league now who were scouted while representing their state. At the same time, literally every India women's international player was in the women's section. It wasn't just amateurs. The football tournament pretty much represents a major part of the footballing calendar for Indian football that season. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having sport-specific articles is fine for a worldwide tournament such as the Olympics; more debatable when it's regional/continental such as the Asian Games; but completely unnecessary when it's national such as this. Giant Snowman 17:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your basis for that is what? Just because it is a country based athletic tournament and not a regional one? That is ridiculous. The only basis these pages are notable on is WP:GNG which they pass if you Look at the coverage it received (football specifically) during the time period the tournament occurred. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. Where is the non-routine coverage that would allow sourced prose to be written about this? Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:Sports event doesn't speak to tournaments. Indian football tournament got significant media coverage [3] - meets WP:GNG. Articles need improving, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to 2015 National Games of India. Articles nominated for deletion serve little purpose other than proliferation of statistics. Ajf773 (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2015 National Games of India, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2016 Sukma Games

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

Non-notable sports event, violates Wikipedia:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Adding more for the same reasons: Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tournament isn't notable enough for individual articles like this. Smartyllama (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable sporting event and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2016 Sukma Games, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:09, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Central Jutland

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

See WP:NRIVALRY. No evidence of WP:GNG being met; the claims made in the article are not backed by reliable sources. I can't find anything more than a list of results between these two sides. Spiderone 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:GNG for a sports rivalry. Although the term 'ærkerivalen" (archrival) is used in news sources about matches between these 2 teams, my search of RS Danish news sources found no significant coverage about the rivalry itself nor any established use of the title "Battle of Central Jutland." In fact, "Slaget om Midtjylland" (Battle of Central Jutland) is used for matches among several Jutland soccer clubs. Without any specific significant coverage in reliable sources for this rivalry or term, the article fails WP:NRIVALRY. This should also apply to the recent article Battle of Eastern Jutland (Denmark) as well. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:24, 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 per criteria A7 and G11 Nick (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biswajit Mukhopadhyay

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

Non-notable author, self-promo. Fails WP:NAUTHOR Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably was worthy of a CSD. Just pure spam. Jupitus Smart 06:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approval Suggested Should appearent famousness be the ultimate yardstick to evaluate notableness, then this article might have been prone to deletion. But otherwise, if we value truth and its readily-verifiableness, plus the purpose for which the truth is being presented, then this article should find a strong ground in Wikipedia.

The references available with this succinct article, including a Google-verified physical address, demonstrate nothing more than factual information, all of which can be verified in minutes. This evidently supports the claim noted by user 'AuthorBM'(vide 'View history' of the original article) about the purpose with which the page was created. And above all, could any biased blank promotion at all stand in Wikipedia?—— people would keep editing and improving it, thereby making it further informative and reliable in the coming days.

Therefore, requesting all respected admins to remove those deletion tags stamped above and honour the article-matter with its due scope.

49.203.62.215 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is eligible for both WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Brad v 16:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Objection on Delete Let us recall 'Wikipedia:Five pillars' [referred: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars]

The article under question satisfies all the fundamental ethics on which Wikipedia is established. It owes mostly to the fifth pillar ('Wikipedia has no firm rules') that Wikipedia has become an information-ocean today. I quote from the page I just referred to, 'Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time'

Time has come. Why not we come ahead generously to broaden the scope of allowance? If we use policies as rigid tools to screen authentic verified contents, we are trying make Wikipedia stagnant. We should reconsider.

Contents presented must not contradict decency, etiquettes and policy-guidelines. But neither should we confine Wikipedia by coining policies as barriers. Policies might rather be modified to accommodate inclusion of factual statements, even if it is a self-declaration towards some authentic purpose. One can modify or add to the content for betterment, but deletion! Sorry, it is not something meaningful as per Wiki-principle. To sum up I repeat, prompt routine coining of policies as screening-tools would someday turn the ocean of authenticity into stagnant table. Administrators may kindly review and delete delete-tag(s). Thank you. 49.203.158.192 (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justified Article

Hi all, please note in the article "Biswajit Mukhopadhyay" we did not find any big claim of accomplishments or unverifiable praise about the person concerned. If you still find any phrase objectionable go ahead and purify it by editing the same. Please don't blindly follow the tradition of using policies as scissors to cut off each and everything that seems unconventional. Bye.14.194.215.83 (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Memo:India today, like many other developing countries in Asia and Africa, demands generous initiatives to spread IT awareness in mass. This article would present a living inspiration. It has that potency to take notable role in digital revolution in India. Wikipedia authority should inspire this honest effort. That's all.27.107.130.124 (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please see WP:NOBLE. Same thing applies here. Just because its a good cause or the person works for a 'good cause' doesn't mean they or the cause are notable. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Bradv Sario528 (talk) 13:25, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2016 Malaysia Para Games

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

Non-notable sports event, violates Wikipedia:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS (or leave redirect). Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Non-notable sporting event. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overthrust (band)

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

Can't see anything that suggests any notability outside the heavy metal community. TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the band got coverage in magazines like Rock Hard, Metal Hammer, newspapers like Hamburger Morgenpost, DerWesten and radio station Deutschlandradio Kultur? --Goroth (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think internationsl notability in the heavy metal community in notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough for WP:MUSIC#1 with Hamburger Morgenpost, Der Bund, Botswana Daily News, The Voice, Weekend Post and "Overthrust - Botschafter des afrikanischen Metal", Deutsche Welle, 13 August 2016. Smaller mentions turn up in multiple countries and they are even turning up in Mother Jones [4]. (The Voice and Weekend Post share a bit of the same material so may be a bit too much PR rehash for some but the band satisfies GNG without them.) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:13, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN Civil Service Games

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

Also:

Non-notable sporting event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for good measure – Fails WP:GNG abysmally. A sporting event for civil servants with no references apart from the official website. Laurdecl ^talk 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – even the official website doesn't load. Laurdecl ^talk 01:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per NOTSTATS Spiderone 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main article meets GNG as coverage from multiple national Asian outlets [5][6][7]. Note that as an Asian-centric event that most coverage of this will not be in English sources. Request merge for 2015 edition as individual editions likely not notable. SFB 23:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:31, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lemco

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

Delete. WP:BLP, based mainly on primary sources, such as YouTube videos and content where he's the bylined author, of a writer and internet personality. While there is a bit of reliable source coverage sprinkled in among all the junk, all of the legitimate sourcing covers him exclusively in the context of the single non-notable event of posting "campaign" signs in last year's Canadian federal election which read "not running for anything, I just wanted a sign" — which means the media coverage here just makes him a WP:BLP1E. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a person becomes entitled to have an article just because he exists — it's an encyclopedia, on which a person must be the subject (not the author) of media coverage which verifies one or more specific achievements that quantifiably pass a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too many primary sources to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, most of the sources are primary or links to own youtube videos. The best secondary sources are a couple of human interest stories (which look like local coverage). There is nothing else which proves that the subject is notable and notability cannot be inherited from a youtube show. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:01, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disentomb

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

Ok, I love this band and all, but does this really need to be on here? There doesnt seem to be any sources on google or elsewhere that makes them stand out as a notable brutal death metal band to be on Wikipedia. Nothing shows that they're eligible to pass WP:BAND. Again, these guys are amazing, but still there's only one source on the page and googling "Disentomb" brings up practically nothing but blogspots and webzines with the occasional metal website talking about their US tours Second Skin (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is not a huge amount about the band itself but their two albums seem to get reasonable coverage, not necessarily the most IRS but certainly by volume sufficient of which seems to be not just promotional and is also independent as one can be in a niche market, reviews for example which also talk about the band. I think this one does scrape over the bar. Aoziwe (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no denying they are HUGE in death metal but they still pass nearly nothing in WP:BAND. No charting album and no big credible sources of them being interviewed or covered.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NBAND#1, 4 and 5. I've added new content and references.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from just a quick search it would appear that they have toured Europe and the UK in February/March 2016 and toured the US in support of The Black Dahlia Murder in April/May 2016. There also appears evidence of earlier tours of both Europe and the US - satisfies #4 of WP:NBAND. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearview (album)

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

May not meet notability guidelines for music. Okamialvis (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and not delete, until more third-party sources and coverage can be found. As I say all the time when notified of these, I think editors should send the nomination for deletion to the creator of the content (Nuhr (talk · contribs), in this case), not just the redirect. These pages just end up being recreated as a redirect all the time if they are actually deleted, and so therefore if it truly fails WP:NALBUMS it should be turned back into a redirect. Ss 112 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If an album by a notable artist may not meet the notability guideline, the thing to do is to look for sources to determine whether or not it does, and if it doesn't, merge it to the article on the artist, not start an AfD. --Michig (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant review by Sputnik is enough to demonstrate notability in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:54, 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. Article fails to claim notability per WP:BIO. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Eric Kaufman

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

Minor blogger and adjunct professor. No indication subject satisfies either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unless I greatly misjudge, the subject passes GNG. I'm sorry for not explaining my declination of the prod, I didn't mean to be rude, I'm just busy and this got sent to the back burner. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. A small amount of coverage about subject's death but little else. CBS527^Talk 16:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The obituaries in the refs are about the subjects life, I think. There are articles about the subjects final illness and death, mostly blog posts, although one short mention in the Boston Globe [8]. None are referenced in the article, but, as you suggest, a number of notable bloggers have written about his illness and health care financing difficulties. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smmurphy has, again, greatly misjudged. Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO. I give no weight to sources for which the subject worked. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about him and his work are cited in the article published by wired.com (in 2006), Inside Higher Ed (in 2012 and 2016), the Chronicle of Higher Education (in 2008), and thinkprogress.org (in 2013) and about his scholarship published by the academic journal Colloquy (in 2010). He didn't work for any of those, although his writings may have appeared in those publications. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. I still don't see GNG, and the issue of independence is still there. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree.

I'd also like to point out that blogs written by experts can sometimes be used as reliable sources. While I don't really go that route, and don't recommend it, his film criticism work is covered in many highly regarded blogs, from washingtonpost.com blogs [9] to rogerebert.com [10]. Similarly, as a blogger-journalist he is discussed on blogs from brad-delong [11] to Crooked Timber [12]. I don't mean to argue that being mentioned in blog posts makes someone WP:Notable, only that highly regarded bloggers and experts in the fields of media criticism write about Kaufman and his work. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 article in the Inside Higher Ed website , a site that he was a contributor to, is a trivial mention of a comment on his blog. The 2016 article is an obit. The 2008 the Chronicle of Higher Education article is a trivial mention about a Youtube video. The reference in thinkprogress.org was in a friends blog, hardly a reliable source. The mention of Scott Eric Kaufman in the online journal Colloquy was in Daniel Wood's 17 page article about Zack Snyder’s Film Adaptation of Watchmen and consisted of 4 sentences. The Washington Post and Roger Ebert blogs are not about "Kaufman and his work". He is just one of many bloggers mentioned. The brad-delong and to Crooked Timber articles are obituaries. None of these seem to provide significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 03:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 Inside Higher Ed article links to Kaufman's blog, which was where the protest started, and is about the protest that Kaufman made. Kaufman is a significant figure in that article, even if he is only named three times. The 2016 article is an obit, what's wrong with that. Fair point on the 2008 Chronicle article, although the panel was discussed in a few places, and the Chronicle seemed to be the most significant. Also, he was discussed by the Chronicle a number of other times between 2005 and 2008 [13]. Alyssa Rosenburg, the writer of the thinkprogress article, has written for many of the same outlets as Kaufman, including DailyBeast and Salon. She is an East Coaster, while Kaufman is from the West and South. While I am sure they are friends, it seems that their friendship is professional. I think the friendship is mentioned in the thinkprogress article as a vote of confidence for Kaufman's writing, and not meant as a signal that her recommendation and description should be discounted. As for Colloquy, 4 sentences in an academic journal is a lot of ink about a blog post, but fair point. The WaPo and Ebert blogs are similar, in my mind, to the Colloquy coverage, as they represent more ink than is commonly given to bloggers. The brad-delong and Crooked Timber links I provided were to searches on their blogs, whose results show more than just obituaries.

For completeness: you didn't mention the wired.com article and neither of us mentioned the AV Club and Salon obituaries, which covers all of the sources currently in the article not written by Kaufman and the 4 blogs I mentioned above. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually like phrases like this, but I've added to the lede that Inside Higher Ed described him as a "leading first-generation, graduate student blogger" in an obituary, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree the wired.com article is a good reference. Obituaries tend to be questionable as a source. Generally they have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight or may have a conflict of interest. I'm still having a hard time with the subject's notability. I checked the Google Trending tool, but it wasn't much help in establishing notability. The number of times the search term "Scott Eric Kaufman" was used average slightly under 3 times a week from Jan. 15, 2012 to October 29, 2016 on Google. The period around his death (Oct. 30, 2016 - Dec.30, 2016) the search average went up to slightly more than 17 per week. This year the average search went to 1 time per week. [14] The Google Nviewer shows the search term "Scott Eric Kaufman" at less than one billionth of one percent. Sadly, I still find that the subject lacks the notability for an article. CBS527^Talk 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert in the metrics you are talking about, but Kaufman tracks pretty well with Daniel W. Drezner, Chapati Mystery, and isn't far behind 3 Quarks Daily, three of his peers in the academic blogosphere, I think.[15]

Also, I'm surprised you would discount obituaries. They are often written before a subject dies (possible in this case, as his death was not unexpected) and are always heavily scrutinized (by readers and by editors, I think). Also, the superlatives given are similar to those in articles before his death, such as in the chroncle of higher ed in an article about his illness which isn't in the article or yet come up in our discussion, and can be read here. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although comparing articles won't establish notability or lack of notability, the article on Daniel W. Drezner was tagged two weeks ago for notability issues and the article on Manan Ahmed Asif seems to have the same issues as well. I don't see how 3 Quarks Daily compares to the subject -It's a minor news aggregator like Google News or The Daily Beast. I appreciate your comments but we just disagree on this article. Regards, CBS527^Talk 16:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment prompted me to go remove the notability tag from Drezner, a rising scholar whose books are widely reviewed in major newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had already removed teh tag form Asif; appropriately so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't mean to compare articles, just to point out that google trends should be used comparatively. In my opinion, 3qd is as much a blog as an aggregattor - or at least it was a decade ago when SEK started blogging. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added another (academic, independent, peer reviewed, published) source which I believe discusses Kaufman in depth: "Old English, New Media: Blogging Beowulf," The Old English Newsletter 41.1 (2008): 42-46. http://www.oenewsletter.org/OEN/essays.php/essays/hurley41_1. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: This link is broken, here and on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure, here is a link to the entire issue, does it work for you? Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article is written by a doctoral student rather than a PhD and Kaufman isn't the subject, his work on blogging is mentioned. I still don't see GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manifest Density

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

May not meet notability guidelines for music. Okamialvis (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The six first Adolecents album have a wiki page, included their 2013 album. Why should the 2014 and 2016 albums not have one? JPGR69 18:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, things do not "have a wiki page"; this is an encyclopedia, and these are encyclopedia articles. There are standards for what articles Wikipedia should and should not include, the most basic of which is Wikipedia:Notability. For albums, the specific standard is Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings. At minimum, the album needs to have been the subject of coverage in multiple non-trivial published works appearing in reliable secondary sources (note that discogs.com is itself a wiki; its content is user-created, therefore it is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards). That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Secondly, "these other articles exist, so this one should too" is not a compelling argument for inclusion. If the most coverage you can gather together to launch an album article is an infobox and track listing, it is probably not a great idea to create the article as it will very likely end up being nominated for deletion (as in this example).

All that being said, I've been working on the various Adolescents (band)-related articles for several months and have managed to substantially improve the articles about their albums released between 1981 and 2005, some of which were just stubs when I started working on them. However, I stalled out a bit while working on The Fastest Kid Alive. It seems that after the excitement surrounding the band's reunion and OC Confidential wore down, coverage of their activities in reliable secondary sources became scarcer. I haven't been able to find much in the way of substantial coverage of their albums since they moved over to Concrete Jungle Records, which is based in Germany; coverage of the band in U.S.-based sources seems to have lessened quite a bit since then, although the band has remained active, releasing 4 albums in the past 5 years and consistently touring, at least in California where I've seen them perform several times in recent years. However, I do know that their activities have been covered a bit in several southern California publications such as newspapers and area music magazines; I've read some articles in recent years about singer Tony Reflex's activities and the inspirations for his lyrics on the last few Adolescents records. So I'm fairly confident that, in time, I can meet my goal to improve the articles on the Adolescents' most recent albums at least past stub class, hopefully to C or B class at least. It would be just as easy to start from scratch, though, which is how I planned to go about it (starting in userspace), so I have no objection to stubs being deleted in the meantime. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a passing mention of the album in relation to a specific song [16], but not enough to expand on this stub. IllaZilla just wanted to say I applaud your rationale, it truly is one of the best comments I have read at an Afd in awhile.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst (The Blank Theory album)

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

Non-notable album by a barely notable artist, with zero valid supporting references. One reference is to the bands Wikipedia page, and the other 3 are too discography sites, hardly significant coverage. A quick google search brings up nothing substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator that there is no notability to this album (or probably in fact to this band) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not even sure if the band is notable here. But clearly, the album is not - no charting or significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 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 redirect to Beetle Boy. Those who !voted keep acknowledge that it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON for her to have her own article and those who !voted delete acknowledge that the book itself is notable, so redirecting there and maybe merging a few facts about the author into the article seems the accepted way to go (cf. WP:ATD). So Why 18:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M G Leonard

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of this article does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. It's still a case of WP:TOOSOON. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a note, I imagine the notability here may be somewhat dependent on the outcome of her newly created book's page as well, per WP:AUTHOR. I haven't reviewed the sources to see if they focus enough on her, not just her works, to pass GNG, however, hence my withheld vote. Yvarta (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the book does pass the AfD discussion, it's just one book. WP:ONEEVENT would apply. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine there are quite a few authors who have passed notability with only one released work. That said, if none of the coverage is on her, a redirect for now to the book (if it survives) might be a perfectly fine solution. Yvarta (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep A cursory Google News search brings up lots of stuff. Most of it is about the book, but some of it is about her writing process (par example: https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/nov/03/how-to-write-a-book-nanowrimo-national-novel-writing-month-top-tips-mg-leonard) or other things she's done (http://www.broadwayworld.com/uk-regional/article/ART-OF-MAKE-BELIEVE-STAGING-CHILDRENS-STORIES-Exhibition-on-View-at-the-National-Theatre-Gallery-20161222). The article definitely needs improvement though. Not sure it's a matter of WP:TOOSOON, would counter that WP:NORUSH may be a more appropriate way of thinking about it. Missjastersgarden (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON and auto-biographical. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added some external sources, of which there are many. It's pretty clear to me that there are ample sources to support an article. That said, the autobiographical nature of the article is somewhat more troubling, and I hope more neutral parties will contribute to editing this entry. Missjastersgarden (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book may be notable, but as of now the author isn't, IMO. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, but this article's main contributors are clearly more interested in that rather than in Wikipedia's real purpose. If it's kept, I'll be pruning it severely. —SMALL JIM 14:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep It is awfully early career, but the sources do support notability. I don't think this [17] review from The Hindu has been added yet. Making an unusual splash for a 1st novel, juvenile market. I hope User:Smalljim will cut some of the primary sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beetle Boy The book may be notable, but that doesn't make the author automatically notable as well. There needs to be material about the author themselves. I don't see enough to pass WP:AUTHOR here as well, so a redirect works fine. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the obvious solution given there's still not the genuinely convincing substance but, while there's sourcing, it's not enough for a currently convincing article of its own. As for the "Keeps" above, they themselves still emulate the acknowledgement of this not being enough; as for the 1 review then cited above, it's a publication known for accepting payment, so that alone is a concern. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger Dungeon

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

Unremarkable game. Google search shows no third-party coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:VG/S RS search engine returns are a bit weak. Delete. --Izno (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No results from WP:RS beyond game announcements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:16, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Ried

AfDs for this article:

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

A biography of a living person that lacks reliable sources that discuss it directly and in detail. Awards listed are not significant and well-known; the AVN awards are scene / group related. The article thus does not meet WP:PORNBIO.

The first AfD in 2007 closed as "keep" based on the awards, but PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then and it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claimed award is marginally significant at best, and referencing the article to low-grade sources like Fleshbot the "Qlimax Times:, and a batch of industry PR copy underscores just how badly this BLP fails GNG standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which has been basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards in the past) "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. There is no restriction against fan-based awards under our inclusions guidelines, and all of the references currently used in this article here are reliable for what they are trying to cite. Guy1890 (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You added three references to the article: a self-published book, the "Qlimax Times Online", and a duplicative cite to an awards announcement. How do any of these qualify as significant independent reliable coverage under BLP standards? Also, the comparison to the People's Choice Awards was cited to the award's own page, so that it counts for nothing, and has therefore been removed from the main article, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- recent edits have been minor and have not addressed the notability concerns: diff. The article is still not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, none of this substantiates notability and the WP:PORNSTAR standards apply. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 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 delete. I see consensus to delete Ornella Sizzi, but limited discussion on the others. With respect to them, I'm afraid a separate AFD may be needed. Go Phightins! 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Sizzi

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

Appears to be a run-of-the-mill academic, failing WP:NACADEMIC. The society she is a member of does not appear to be a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC {I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be part of an advertising campaign on wikipedia created by the WP:SPA editor related to The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons and its members:

Thomas Lyons (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hugo Ribot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

'Weak delete part of a group of advertisements, and could be deleted on that basiss, but he has a citation nrecord with two publications having been cited over 200 times (and then 70, ,...) DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sizzi is a very well known Italian Surgeon, though not as well known in the USA. Perhaps article would be better in Italian version? Weird to go after this article thats been here since 2010 right after she died. Is notable contingent on survival? drewmonda (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2017 — drewmonda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see you've twice created the advertorial article on the society and created the articles on several members. What's your connection? Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with concerns that the article's creator is associated with The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons. All edits suggest promotional intent and WP:COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:38D2:7218:4D4F:2BC5 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks coverage in reliable sources. The external link that appeared when I reviewed the article is for a doctor who's unrelated to Dr. Sizzi (I have commented it out to make it invisible). The remaining reference is not about Dr. Sizzi, it is an article she co-authored. PK T(alk) 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Subject fails notability guidelines by lacking independent coverage in reliable secondary sources.--John Cline (talk) 22:04, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Chai Maloney

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

This reads like a paid vanity bio. The article has been previously deleted. Sources include press releases, which is probably a bad sign in itself. Someone might want to take a closer look at the editors involved in this article and Sean Maloney (technology) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of independent, reliable and in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. GAB^gab 20:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete my gNews search on "Chai Maloney" turns up 4 hits, all as one of a number of donors to a political campaign. a Proquest news archive search turned up 3 press releases; zero news stories. She is notale neither as an author nor as a philanthropist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Tappis

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

Puff piece article. Looked at it about 2 dozen times trying to extract value from it. Is he a surfer, music producer, business man what. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOT for promotion. scope_creep (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "BLP spam". 'nough said. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely self-promotion, no indication of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:51, 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. The (correct) removal of copyvio also removed a RS, which might explain Robert McClenon's !vote. The keep !votes are correct that the show probably meets WP:NTV since it started broadcasting and there is some coverage now. That said, please remember that adding sources is not somebody else's problem. So Why 19:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.I

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

Cites no independent sources - and there aren't likely to be any, as it's about a TV series which has not yet begun transmission. Maproom (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted, no independent sources. Only real purpose of article is promotional, and that isn't what Wikipedia is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see that most of the contents of the article has now been deleted as a copyright violation. Maproom (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National shows are generally notable per WP:NTV, and this Singaporean show features an international cast. Search for "Karylle" + "PI" and there are lots of mainstream results from the Philippines. Timmyshin (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being - Compared to other shows, this one actually might be more notable due to a cast member from Philippines which is unusual for a local Singaporean production). (See [18]). However, if there is no more coverage in the future, I might be OK with redirecting/merging to a list. But let's keep it for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Licauco

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

fails WP:BIO. almost all the coverage comes from one Filipino newspaper. I do not see multiple sources. Also his claims for notability are questionable. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my domestic partner of two years forces me to watch Filipino TV, and I just flew back from two weeks in the Philippines to meet the family. Anyway, this person is not famous there, and I could find only a single news paper source about him. Appears to be a run of the mill go-getter, one of millions in Manila. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I've searched via Google Books and Google Scholar and found that he is a prolific writer. However, I can't find any links that discusses his works thoroughly. Most mentions are "Licauco is a occult writer" or a "psychic surgeon". Google search just shows his columns and the occasional ad for his seminars. I think he falls short even as a notable academic as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:28, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesauce

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is centered on a non-notable magazine/website. All it mentions is an interview with John Romero and that's it. Not to mention that the creator of the article admitted to being part of the magazine when making the page. Obvious self-promotion in doing so. GamerPro64 15:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the citations on the page are in depth coverage of the magazine. My searches turn up only trivial mentions of the magazine, but nothing discussing the magazine itself. Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 09:51, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Culwell Flange

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

Article creator contested PROD. Non-notable branded toilet part that fails WP:GNG. Some promotional language here too, but not enough for G11 in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make this notable? Everything I have written about is from an outside source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleaggie2018 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, a word to Kyleaggie2018 about the phrase: "make this notable." That is always going to sounds like nails on a chalkboard to AfD editors. We as editors don't make something notable, we indicate that others have made note of something. That is, notability is an externally-derived quality, not something that we can add. That said, the sources, although published by others, are really not independent. They are really repackaged marketing materials in trade publications. That means that there isn't significant coverage in independent sources, as the guidelines request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Closet flange. This is a poorly sourced and promotional article about a specific brand containing non-neutral language such as "It is the only closet flange that seals the floor, creating an impenetrable watertight seal. If installed it can save property owners thousands in water damage." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; I don't see a need in a redirect as the content is strictly promotional and the article history does not need to be preserved. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Number

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

This article should be deleted because it is not notable. This is because it does not have any coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. The only sources at all are Facebook posts and their official website (not independent of the subject) which fails WP:SIGCOV. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 18:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 05:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are social media and the company's own website. Seems promotional. At best it's WP:TOO SOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material; no indications of notability or significance. Content is advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 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 redirect to List of Autobots. So Why 18:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flareup (Transformers)

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

Non-notable Transformer character. With the exception of some blogs, sources (in article and in searches) are all in-universe or non-RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. Minor fictional character with no reliable sources showing notability. Nothing but fancruft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Without any sources to establish notability, there is no need for this to exist. TTN (talk) 02:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Desktop

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

Seems rather obscure and not all that notable. Needs a pretty extensive rewrite to even become sort of encyclopedic, and hasn't had a single news blurb or update for the last 8 years. K_arunamon ^✉ 04:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, I'm thinking I should have just PROD'd this one. I've never seen an AfD go this long without a single third party comment.Karunamon ^✉ 15:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never caught on enough to meet notability level. As for above, not surprising: there are few volunteers given the number of junk articles on software on WIkipedia, sigh. W Nowicki (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be nothing more than an interesting idea for using existing software that never caught on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:33, 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. It's unclear what "those references" are that Ashbeckjonathan refers to. Sandstein 09:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Amin

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

Does not seem to be notable per the GNG, and there's nothing innately notable about being one of many play callers for ESPN. That he does his job can be verified easily enough, but none of the reliable references I found discuss him in any kind of detail. There's some detail in blog posts like this, but these are just that--blog posts. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sportscaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those references should make him notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 24 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. No prejudice against userfication if requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie with a Shotgun

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

Per WP:NFILM. Non-noteable upcoming film. Cannot WP:INHERIT notability from the "comic and web series of the same name." Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per NFILM not appropriate for an article now, and maybe never appropriate for an article. But it hasn't been released yet so who knows, maybe it'll win an Oscar. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No objection to userfying this is the creator requests it since there is a possibility this will be notable once released. As it is it fails WP:NFF. There are claims it has started filming (or even finished) but I see no reliable sources to show that "the production itself is notable." The references are just IMBD and what appear to be film fan and blog sites. The sources I have looked at in detail have not even properly supported the claims they were sourcing. For instance, the IMDB site says nothing about an expected release date of May 2017, and the Horror-Movies.ca site did not contain the quote if was supporting and teh page was not a movie preview at all. I've removed those two claims, and I won't waste my time looking at the rest of the sources in detail unless this survives AFD. Meters (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

type:(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)

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

Delete for now per being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. Okay with userfication. The article can be undeleted if or when WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:07, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indycar on BT

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

Not much evidence that this particular coverage of this sport is notable. The sport is notable, the different instances of the TV coverages aren't independently notable themselves. Moreover, WP is not a directory of all broadcasts of motor races. T v x1 22:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would agree with nom. This is yet another WP:TE draft by an editor well-known to the F1 and other motorsport projects who has been advised previously that pages of this nature are not what Wiki requires per WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Some similar pages have already been deleted or are under discussion and although IndyCar has notability, coverage by individual broadcasters, of which there are many, in various locations, probably does not and to create pages for all would be excessive. Eagleash (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It works because of the history of the broadcast company on a sport.92.21.250.68 (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: 92.21.250.68 (talk • contribs) using a dynamic IP is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep It works because of any broadcast company on sports. (e.g: Football on Sky, NBA on BT, Formula One on Fox, NASCAR on Premier.) Rowde (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote: Rowde (talk • contribs) while logged out has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I imagine this is just BT Sport airing the main NBC/NBCSN originating broadcast from the US with minor changes in graphics, their commentators, and surrounding programming; nothing unique about their presentation at all; this isn't the reverse, where NBC in most rights has their own commentators, camera angles, hosts and graphics for their Premier League coverage. Here, it's just a simulcast of existing US coverage without anything unique. Nate • (chatter) 07:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a contract until 2022 and can be updated during the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.113.197 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 79.78.113.197 (talk • contribs) using a dynamic IP is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

With what, which announcers? That information is already in IndyCar Series on NBC. There's nothing to update since it pretty much grabs NBC's feed, rebroadcasts it, and maybe has some British continuity here and there. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and WP:TOOSOON. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:41, 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 no consensus with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divided Skies

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

Band that doesn't quite meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Pichpich (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 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 07:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local garage band with no WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 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 CFRO-FM. Merging content at editors' discretion. Sandstein 17:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy North

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

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a single-station local radio program, whose only substantive claim of notability is that it was once named "Best Local Radio Program" in an alt-weekly's annual "best of city living" reader poll. That does not constitute a WP:NMEDIA pass in and of itself, but there's no evidence of reliable source coverage being shown here -- the references are entirely to primary sources, such as content authored by the program's host rather than about the program's host, and even that reader poll claim is sourced to the program's own website rather than to the publication that conducted the reader poll. So there's simply no grounds for inclusion here, as neither NMEDIA nor WP:GNG has been met at all.
I'm also batching the separate standalone BLP about the program's host, which isn't sourced any better — four of its six sources are the same sources that aren't cutting it in the show's article (you don't make a person notable as a writer by "citing" his book to itself), and the other two are a press release on a journalism trade organization's website and a WordPress blog, so there's no reliable sourcing being demonstrated there either. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the program is an award winning journalistic show, and the page includes adequate sources. It seems to be a major big city (Vancouver) investigative journalism show, a rare breed nowadays, and its guests, including First Nation advocates, seem prominent. All of these aspects, taken together or separately, make the program notable. Randy Kryn 15:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article include any "adequate" sources, exactly? Four of the five are primary source content written by the program's host, not reliable source coverage independent of the program, and the only other source is a deadlink still on the program's own self-published website about itself. Exactly zero of those sources contribute anything toward notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CFRO-FM (the originating station) though admittedly the details about this show on that article are thin. Nate • (chatter) 07:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Democracy North. I can't source it. Sources 1., 2., and 3. are about a book written by someone described on this page as a producer at this station; I cannot see that they talk about the show or confirm that he produces it. Source 4. links to another book. but listing a book without giving the page # or a quote from the book is not definitive sourcing. Source #5. is a dead link. Which leaves us without a single usable source (unless someone can find a substantive discussion of this program in one of those books that supports notability)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Derrick O'Keefe. My searches found a number of press releases that appear not to have been picked up by any media. Also a number of of articles that he wrote. Where there may be notability is in the fact that he helped write ("with") a political; autobiography , listed as by "Malalai Joya with Derrick O'Keefe." And he wrote a book about Michael Ignatieff that got a couple of reviews in mainstream places. But not sufficiant to establish notability for O'Keefe. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC) To me, both article appear to be WP:PROMO, but feel free to ping me if someone can source it. I cannot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Took another swing at sourcing it. The number of hits on searches for "Democracy North" + radio looks encouraging, until you realize that after the first self-sourced page to this small radio program, the hits are to radio interviews with a political organization called Democracy North Carolina and to radio interviews containing sentences like "on our democracy," North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources now in Democracy North
Source #1 is a book by O'Keefe
1. 2 is an interview by O'Keefe on a website/small magazine he edits
2. 3 another article on the same interview by O'Keefe in the same mag Rabble.ca
3. 4 is a different book by O'Keefe
4. 5 is a deadlink to coopradio.org which broadcasts Democracy North.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy North is a non-notable podcast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CFRO-FM after adding some of the content here to that article, which currently doesn't even link over. Matt Deres (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, is there a reliable, secondary source connecting this program to CFRO? ( I understand Democracy North as a podcast with an assertion of being a joint venture - perhaps only briefly, or only proposed) Also, there would have to be secondary source coverage of Democracy North to justify a redirect. I haven't found any.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:39, 26 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budgie (record producer)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. This BLP contains no secondary sources; unable to locate any secondary sources longer than two sentences to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - confusing too. I initially thought this was the Siouxsie and the Banshees drummer. Not notable at all, fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we almost always delete articles about producers, who are dime a dozen. There is nothing on this page that might indicate otherwise. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Munyankindi Francois

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

Was deprodded with the following rationale: "contest WP:PROD deletion - mayor of cities or districts with a population of 300000+ usually turn out to be notable, so this shouldn't be deleted without discussion."

However, this particular mayor does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there happens to be anyone commenting here who believes in looking for sources before giving an opinion I note that the name order in the article title is reversed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note to AfD closer: The page under discussion has been moved to Francois Munyankindi (different name order). EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~To correct the de-prodding: I think he was the mayor of a city with a population of 30,000 people (source).~~ Zero hits in Newsbank or LexisNexis searches. The sources appear to be: The New Times source cited, a self-published book about soy, this Africa Intelligence piece, and there are 8 other hits in the New Times, but only two can be said to be substantive content about Francois Munyankindi (note: most of those sources identify him as district mayor. But not all do--noticably so, but would not be surprised if UNHABITAT source I used above is wrong). Will be following discussion and can change, but based on these sources, I think delete is appropriate. ~~Final: Even if we ascertain that he was the district mayor, the sources found do not pass GNG for me (nor NPOL).~~ Add: Appears most likely he is district mayor, but that still doesn't pass GNG or NPOL. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidushi Roma Rani Bhattacharya

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in WP:RS/ All I was able to find is a couple of passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I am unable to found any reliable sources. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:37, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt (worker)

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

In the absence of either references or explanation, there is no evidence that this character is notable, and we already have an article on the book. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added valid references to this page. NewRefs (talk) (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article looks nothing like it did when nominated - more comments needed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. I think the information is good and useful. I just don't know that it needs its own entire page. I think merging the content back into The Principles of Scientific Management might serve better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 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. The film has not been released yet, but the Google search with the Chinese title shows that sources are available in Chinese (it would have been convenient to present a few specific sources in the AFD itself). The comment about the director (having previously directed 2 notable films) also indicates that there is a good chance that there might be more coverage after release. Consensus seems to be towards keeping it right now. (Note that for films, it is usually practical to wait for a month or two after release, before deciding to nominate it for deletion. By that time, most newspapers would have already published reviews and it would be easier to determine if the coverage is adequate.) (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Ride the Winds, Break the Waves has already been histmerged, and currently redirects to the title. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duckweed (film)

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

De-prodded without explanation by the creator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Also, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closing admin This article confuses me. I have not yet settled in my mind if I think it should be kept or deleted, but I would like to note here that if it is kept, the history from Ride the Winds, Break the Waves needs to be merged, as it was the victim of a cut and paste move. If it's deleted, that redirect should be too and it doesn't matter. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have history-merged Ride the Winds, Break the Waves to Duckweed (film), except 5 late edits which were WP:Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search with the Chinese title returns 79,000 results. Sources don't have to be in English per WP:GNG, and the filmmaker is well regarded and has two other notable films. All of that combined makes me think this is a notable work and satisfies the GNG. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's WP:NOTTVGUIDE to do with this article? Timmyshin (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If delete, then also delete Ride the Winds, Break the Waves, which redirects to Duckweed (film). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep per WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST. Even though in Mandarin Chinese, inclusion criteria WP:NF is met. Needs improvement, not deletion. And by the way nominator, we do not use inappropriate criteria in deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 The Galaxy war

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

Non-notable film, no independent secondary coverage BOVINEBOY2008 01:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM currently, probably a case of being too soon Spiderone 09:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per being (at kindest) TOO SOON. Announced that filmmakers wish to release in eleven months, we do not even have a confirmation of filming. If or when the topic ever meets WP:NF the article can always be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:38, 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 Decepticons. So Why 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruticus

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Transformer character. Sources (in article and in searches) are all in-universe or non-RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Yet another minor Transformers character with no notability, no reliable sources, and no information other than fancruft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:GNG. Longevitydude (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as unoriginal research and established notability. Character appears in toys, comics, etc. worth hundreds of dollars per such sources as this, which discuss the character and its value. --24.112.201.254 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock. Reyk _YO! 05:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source, it just mentions Bruticus briefly. It's not about him per se, a merge might be appropriate though. Longevitydude (talk) 04:07, 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 redirect to List of Decepticons. So Why 18:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stormtroopers (Transformers)

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

Non-notable group of Transformers characters. Sources (in article and in searches) are all in-universe or non-RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Minor fictional group, no reliable sources, pure fancruft, etc. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as above. The title is unambiguous, so I don't see any harm in a redirect. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article. If notability isn't established, an article is not necessary. TTN (talk) 02:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Brass Company

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

Does not meet WP:N, at least not in a verifiable manner. Prod removed, so procedural AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NBAND. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Grammy Award is easily verified from a Google search, and there's other coverage around, though not a lot, so the article would need to be trimmed significantly, e.g. [19], [20], [21], [22] and a few newspaper articles that I can't currently view. --Michig (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Having won a Grammy, the subject clearly passes WP:BAND #8. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment phew, about time. Nomination withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 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 redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: 737 (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Blake

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actor & model, Can't find anything on Google that establishes notability , Fails NACTOR, MODEL & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: 737, the reality televisionshow, on which he appeared and was eliminated, per our usual practice here. Every one of his other appearances has been on talk/variety shows or reunions of the original show. His appearance on Gandang Gabi, Vice! (more properly translated as "Good night, Vice Ganda!") is entirely run of the mill amongst Filipino "celebrities", since Ganda is such a media hound and loves to be seen with attractive men. My Pinoy partner forces me to watch that show. In any case, we can safely assume that somebody at some point in time will be looking online for this name, and a logical redirect is to where he's had his only star turn of 15 minutes' fame. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Bearian suggests. No notability aside form that reality show. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:33, 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 (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghna Vincent

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

Non-notable actress. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the news link above shows multiple coverage in International Business Times as well as Malayalam news sources. Has had a number of prominent roles in very popular television series over an extended period, winning four notable awards. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in International Business Times[23] to justify notability as substantial and independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:25, 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 redirect to Constitutional Court of Korea. There seems to be a general agreement that this doesn't warrant its own article. As the entire content in the article is limited to one sentence (and that too copied and modified from Constitutional Court of Korea), it seems fair to redirect it. Any subsequent content can be added to the appropriate section in the target article. This close is without prejudice to creating a standalone article, should enough references be found in the future and should there be enough content to justify a split from Constitutional Court of Korea. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Impeachment (South Korea)

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

This article consists of the introduction line of Constitutional Court of Korea changed to past tense. According to Constitutional_Court_of_Korea#Adjudication_on_impeachment the Constitutional Court of Korea rules on impeachments as outlined by the constitution. I cannot find a single reference to this supposed court anywhere on Google and I believe it could be made up. Laurdecl ^talk 01:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned here and there's a doopedia article about it so it's not made up. Siuenti (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it did exist, but I don't believe it warrants its own article. It could at best be one or two sentences in the History subsection of Constitutional Court of Korea explaining the former name of the Court. The article as it stands is literally a direct copy of the Consitutional article intro with the words changed to past tense. Laurdecl ^talk 02:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete let's pretend it was WP:PRODded, if someone wants to bring it back with references then think again. Siuenti (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Constitutional Court of Korea, the apparent successor court. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:30, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recon Team

AfDs for this article:

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:39, 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 06:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to List of Transformers: Cybertron characters. Surely the appropriate place for it. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, on second thoughts, this is a plausible search term for someone looking for information about real-world practices. I would have no objection to a redirect from Recon Team (Transformers), but perhaps this page should redirect to something like special reconnaissance. I am unsure; perhaps someone who knows a little more about military topics could offer a view. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to special reconnaissance. This is yet another badly sourced, excessively detailed, crufty Transformers article. There is no worthwhile content to merge and, as Josh Milburn points out, the title is a little misleading and would be more useful as a redirect elsewhere. Reyk _YO! 15:53, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood (Finnish musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. Hakken (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 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 06:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete previously deleted. Fails WP:MUSICBIO . No significant awards. No notable albums. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant improvement in coverage since first deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:46, 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. There are still concerns about notability, but the content concerns are gone per WP:HEY and I think a slightly consensus is in favor of having a separate article rather than merging into Protestantism in France. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon and Protestants

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

Appears to be pure original synthesis and hasn't been edited in months, thus there seems to be little chance of improvement. CapitalSasha ~ talk 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- This has all the feel of a bad essay, all built around one quote, which is in fact irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Article has been rewritten. Srnec (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on Google and Google Scholar hits this does appear to be a notable topic (cf. Napoleon and the Catholic Church and Napoleon and the Jews), but in its current state this article adds nothing to Napoleon#Religious emancipation. Looks like a premature content fork and, as it's unsourced, I don't think there's any point in a merge. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Article has been rewritten. Srnec (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Smec's improvements. – Joe (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I'd be happy to change my !vote if something was done to improve the article and its sourcing, as this could be notable. But as has been pointed out, notability isn't obvious, and the material included doesn't add much to existing Napoleon articles. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: Article has been rewritten. Srnec (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its a good start, good work! Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable. There is room for lots of improvement. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

André Encrevé, "Protestantisme et bonapartisme", Revue d'histoire du XIXe siècle, 28 (2004).
Christiane Guttinger, Les protestants et Napoléon, Les Amitiés Huguenotes Internationales.
Patrick Cabanel, Napoléon et les protestants : l'institutionnalisation du pluralisme religieux, Napoleon.org.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless. This page would need a WP:HEYMANN to get my !vote. It could support such an expansion, and possibly a name shift to Protestantism under Napoleon. note that we do have Napoleon and the Jews, and Dechristianization of France during the French Revolution, which, appropriately, is about the Roman Catholic Church. The problem is that this article at present is paltry, often outright wrong ("Although there was really no Huguenot minority to speak of..." is simply incorrect,) and therefore is of no value in its current form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: if you have time to do even a light cleanup, perhaps most efficiently by cutting it down to a sourced stub, ping me to revisit. Certainly this topic can support an article and ought to have one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I rewrote it from one source. It's a start. Srnec (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor please give this one a little more time. Because the topic truly is significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, already at Protestantism in France. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, It doesn't, actually. That article was the first place I looked upon finding this topic at AFD. The article Bertdrunk links to in fact follows the section on Louis XV with a section on Apology to the Huguenots in 1985. More to the point, the Louis XV section is a brief sentence with a "Further Information" link to Persecution of Huguenots under Louis XV. What Protestantism in France needs is a new subhead Napoleon and Protestants as now written, linked from a brief summary of the info now on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN Thanks to User:Srnec for revisions that make this a reliable, solidly-sourced article that can be expanded in future.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now strong keep -- This article is now clear and to the point. The only other outcome that I could contemplate would be a merge. When I first looked at this article, I could see no redeeming features. All that has changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protestantism in France. There's no question that the instant article has been significantly improved since the nomination. But I still don't see why the material here wouldn't fit better in an improved version of the (proposed) target article. And this merge would be a significant step in the improvement of that article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is short; but the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Protestantism in France is a huge topic. That article, once finished, could support several sub-articles. This would be one. I would have no strong objection to expanding this article to cover the entire revolutionary and Napoleonic periods—or even the whole period from 1787 to 1815. Srnec (talk) 13:17, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arriba Juárez

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

Non-notable local television program that only aired in Ciudad Juárez and received very little coverage from non-local sources. In fact, we have five short articles on such shows:

I can't even tell if some of these shows are still on air.

Only ATM might hold up, as its lone claim to fame is an incident of staged sexual harassment in 2015 that led to Televisa firing the hosts — receiving international coverage. Raymie (t • c) 07:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one additional article to this AfD for a total of 6:

The new article reflects just how much time has passed. Televisa's local programming in Juárez has bounced between XHJUB, XEPM and XHJCI over the years, but it hasn't been on XHJUB since 2007. The news programs on all Televisa Regional stations are usually known as "Las Noticias [location]" (The News) these days, and it'd be a section in the XHJCI article if I were writing about it now. Raymie (t • c) 20:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of six articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All non-notable local shows airing on a group of local stations which basically cover the check-off time periods, along with the obvious mid-day advertorial; ATM! doesn't hold up for me as the incident had a minor supernova life that barely lasted the week. Nate • (chatter) 13:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable local shows with no significant independent coverage in RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:58, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6750 Ayala Avenue

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

Just another building. No assertion of notability, and virtually uncited except for the Emporis listing, which simply shows the building exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. WP:MILL. MB 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by any stretch. Glendoremus (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:21, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnacharitmanas

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Totally uncited, article with no assertion of notability. Searches turned up zero hits about this. There were a few hits if you broke the word up into Krishna Charit Manas, including epic poems, but by others. The username of the article's creator might also point to either an WP:AUTOBIO or WP:COI issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very obvious COI. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 13:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reason. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 20:08, 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 redirect to Major R. Owens. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Owens (politician)

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

NN autobio, all non-dead links self-pub, notability is not inherited, and source-tagged for over 6 years, redirect to his father's article Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo: Please give an explanation for this nomination. Thank you. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 13:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er, he already did. I certainly try to provide more detail (some would say longwindedness) in my nomination statements, but Kintetsubuffalo's nomination statement is in no way unclear about why this would legitimately be in question. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat:In fairness, for some reason/glitch, my edit didn't take properly, third time it's done that to me in an AfD. @Mrschimpf: pointed out on my talkpage that it showed up in the edit summary but not on the original AfD. Maybe I am not holding my mouth right?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I noticed it in the AfD log; usually for most of these cases I would drop a procedural keep rationale but since I know Kintetsubuffalo has a long history on AfD I decided a talk page notice to fill in the reason would suffice and in the space between my talk notice and Bearcat's response there was still odd code rather than the rationale for deletion. Pretty rare when the AfD script malfunctions, but it happened here and the nomination was too justified to PK and speedy close and it definitely wasn't one of the regular 'drive by' noms by any means. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person who has no claim of notability strong enough to exempt him from having to be sourced a lot better than this. Being a local political activist is not an automatic inclusion freebie; being a non-winning candidate in a party primary or a general election is not an automatic inclusion freebie; being a local district leader for his political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie. And none of the referencing here is sufficient to get him over the WP:GNG bar either, as it's based almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media — and even the few links which are reliable source coverage in media are not about him, but merely namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else. None of this is good enough to get him over the bar that distinguishes "person who exists" from "person whose existence warrants the attention of an encyclopedia". Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat; poorly formatted BLP that reads as a WP:RESUME, and most of the elections were hardly public but just internal party processes. At best, a redirect to his father's article would be the best course and would be supported. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - arguably, he's notable as a Democratic state committeeman in a district that is over 95 % Democratic, although much of the attention paid to him is because of his father. FWIW, I'm two degrees of separation from the subject - he and one of my older brothers were class mates; I also started at The Bronx High School of Science two years after he graduated, and according to Facebook, we have 16 friends in common. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Dalloshi

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

Non-notable person. Google News search returns zero hits [24]. Two "references" in the article are actually copy-pasted from Adem Demaci article (they are about Demaci). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unconvincing in WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Roberts (American politician)

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

I thought a member of board of county supervisors is below the level we would consider as inherently notable, and evidence of notability according to WP:GNG is required, which has so far not been provided in the article. Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator is correct that the board of county supervisors is not a level of office that automatically entitles a person to an article just because he exists — but the sourcing here, which consists of one primary source and one piece of routine local coverage of the entire supervisor election which namechecks Roberts' existence while failing to be substantively about him, is nowhere near good enough to get him over WP:GNG as somehow more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no inherent notability at this level of advancement. The article is mostly a list of areas that the politician covers and not much else. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hioe

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

Article has 11 sources listed. Several of those do not mention Hioe, most others are by Hioe. That leaves one or two where an article of Hioe is cited. None of the sources discusses Hioe in depth. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting my original comments here ... and have apologised to the editors below, in a separate talk page discussion. MatthewTStone (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please comment on the arguments, not the person. I'm not even going to answer your silly accusation. Thank you also for the useful geography/policy lesson, but I think that ever since Trump's phone call with the Taiwanese president in the days after the US elections, only somebody who's deaf and blind is not aware of the difference between Taiwan and China. In any case, whether I am biased or not is irrelevant. All you have to do to make people !vote "keep" here is to produce reliable sources independent of the subject that show that he meets WP:GNG. Soon as you do that, we're done here. --Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my other comment as per note at the top of the thread MatthewTStone (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article or the argument above that demonstrates notability as outlined in WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. The New Bloom magazine (http://newbloommag.net) is a bilingual blog with barely any readership (most posts in either language have 0 comments/retweets). "It is unusual, being a centre-left publication in a traditionally somewhat right-wing country" is actually an argument for deletion per WP:UNDUE and WP:POVPUSH. Notice the article of Michael Turton, the only "notable" person who has commented on Hioe's work, was also created by the same editor, as was the only "notable" person who has commented on Turton's work, J Michael Cole. Cannot help but suspect some kind of WP:ADVOCACY here. Timmyshin (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete running a throughly minor "magazine" does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amrin Chakkiwala

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: I can't see if she has played any major role in any tv show listed in the article also I tried per WP:INDAFD but failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR Spiderone 14:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for actresess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 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 redirect to List of minor characters in The Godfather series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneo family

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This does not establish a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Do you have any actual reasoning or are you being purposefully contrary? The reasoning for the content's removal is perfectly legitimate, so please provide reliable sources if you think the assertion is false. TTN (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is the one who has to make a case and currently I'm only seeing a vague wave. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're just being purposefully contrary and have no actual opinion. Considering that you've commented on three of my AfDs now, you know full well the position and purpose of the proposal, but fail to actually comment on it based on its actual merit. TTN (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a more suitable Godfather article. Article's pretty short, so if it stays that way, it's reasonable to assume all the pertinent information would be included in any article that this one could redirect to. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:56, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of minor characters in The Godfather series, where the family is already mentioned. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Completely unreferenced article. A quick search only led me to a source which is itself an unreferenced Wiki. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect- Entirely unreferenced article on a subject that's not even notable in the work of fiction, let alone having any real-world notability. The main article already covers this subject in sufficient detail. Reyk _YO! 08:35, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Singhal

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

Non-notable activist; no meaningful external references to indicate notability of this biography. Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a resume intended to glorify its subject. Has done nothing truly notable; mostly won various awards and made general contributions toward the welfare of other people, but nothing to set her apart from others in the same endeavors. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is covered by reliable sources. The Times of India and Deccan Herald are in the article. Also found coverage on Al Jazeera. The article itself is poorly written and sounds promotional, but should be re-written rather than deleted. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:59, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep, notable subject but needs to be rewritten under guidelines of WP:MOS --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable subject. Found relevant citations. Needs to be added. Haribhagirath (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Subject is clearly notable. Article needs editing but its problems are not serious enough to justify deletion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eroart

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

seems to be based entirely on primary (and non-reliable) sources. seems like a neologism that never went anywhere. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like nom, I can't find anything that looks reliable either. Maybe others can do better, but this does look like a failed neologism. Or it may just be a little too soon to tell. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, author of term is marginally notable, mostly a local phenom, his writings are not cited by others.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEO applies here. I don't see any secondary sources analysing this term, not is there any widespread usage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 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 keep. I am early closing this under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Anio Novus

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

No importance Doojdooj (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC) — Doojdooj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator's rationale seems insufficient. How is it not important? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, clearly a notable historical monument [25] [26], sloppy nomination. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "no importance" is simply a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't find a number of celebrities to be of great importance, but they are covered by numerous reliable sources, and therefore are notable, facts about them are verifiable, and thus they meet our inclusion criteria. Likewise, there are plenty of sources that treat the Aqua Anio Novus: this paper, along with a number of others discussing the "four great aqueducts of ancient Rome" is on jstor; this, on Roman aqueducts more generally, appears to be publically accessible. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a short article (jstor again) specifically on the Anio Novus... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have 14 aqueducts in the City of Rome in Category:Classical aqueducts in Rome, and many more in Category:Roman aqueducts outside Rome. There is no reason to exclude this one. Nom simply made a mistake. Mistakes happen. @Doojdooj:, hey, do you wanna just withdraw this one?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I was WP:AGF, but this nom is by a SPA who has made only this edit. There is no justification at all for this deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW Suggest that the next editor who happens long just close it, because there has never been a clearer case for KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is almost certainly a bad-faith nomination as nobody creates a user account and then nominates a single article for deletion. Regardless, this article could use more sourcing and I'd be pleased if an admin put this into my userspace so I could rewrite, clean it up, and then re-publish it and get a DYK out of it. I'm not going to render my opinion on this particular aqueduct's notability as it looks like the consensus is forming to keep, but I'd like to remind those for keeping this article that fire really is the best cleanser. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse User:Chris troutman's generous offerto improve this cursory article. I did add 1 RS to the article, which can certainly support an upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The water supply to a city the size of Rome is certainly important. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't understand why it was nominated.--Pampuco (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator has made precisely three edits, all in the name of deleting this article. Rationale provided by nominator is insufficient. No actual case for deleting this article has been made at this time. Beyond that, keep because other editors have pledged to work on the article and there is more that can be done with it. Only when all this has been said and done should deletion be revisited, and I find it unlikely that it will be deleted even then. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kings N Things

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria established in WP:Music. Owen (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bit of local coverage, but nothing to suggest that subject is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article. Happy to reconsider if substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 05:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to show they are a notable performing group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:19, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Boys Choir

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

Does not appear to meet criteria established in WP:Music. Owen (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 05:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:18, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Aguhar

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

Scant evidence of notability. Best known for a Tumblr blog. Citation in San Francisco Chronicle says subject's suicide received "no media coverage, other than a couple of blogs". Owen (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person was included not only in the San Francisco Chronicle, but also The Austin Chronicle and Hyperallergenic (a large art magazine), as well as others. Mark Aguhar was one of the first artists to address the issue of the "glossy glorification of the gay white male body" and the issues around being transgender femme-identified while this may not seem notable to the mainstream art viewer, in the contemporary art world and in a transgender inclusive society it is notable and she is well respected by her peers. Jooojay (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 05:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 05:15, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nimisha Mehta

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Not notable actor, has worked in only one unremarkable film. Most of the information is promotional. Coderzombie (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is created by the user who is banned for promotional content and has clear WP:COI with the subject of the article. Coderzombie (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has starred in two films that have reliable source coverage Days of Tafre, and There will be tomorrow [27] [28] as well as two seasons of a TV series. Passes WP:GNG with [[29]], [30] have access to Highbeam and this is sigcov, also [31], [32]. The article is no longer too promotional in its current state as it has been reedited by the nominator and myself. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The film she has worked in are not very notable. The TV series is also just a web series, not very notable, which is not enough for WP:NACTOR. Also, are two sources enough for WP:GNG? Coderzombie (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be enough to pass WP:GNG and as per Atlantic Spiderone 21:23, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable subject. Roles are not significant enough to pass notability guidelines for creative professionals. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benzion Klatzko

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

Is notable only for shabbat.com and affiliated sites, which has an article. Otherwise the article is filled with unsourced and extremely dubious claims. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to the claim of the nominator, he is also know for the Akiva Trip and his campus outreach work, and both are also sourced. He also received some awards, which is also sourced. Finally, I fail to see what claims are "extremely dubious" in the nominator's eyes. I see no grand claims that seem "extremely dubious" here. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claims of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Any material considered "unsourced" or "dubious" should be corrected or tagged; this isn't justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is easy to find and add sources like this: [33].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That source does not mention anything about being the largest Jewish social networking site. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was meant merely to support notability. I removed the sketchy claim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared out unsourced claims, removed PROMO, sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slushii

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. - TheMagnificentist 08:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appears to have charted here on Billboard Twitter Real-Time, which is recognized by WP:CHART. Has also had significant coverage in various electronic dance music magazines; Edmsauce picked him as one of their "best new artists" for 2016 here, while Youredm did a feature here. Has also had a paragraph or two in the following secondary sources (no interviews): [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. LA Weekly did a paragraph here. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 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 02:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although Twitter Real-Time charts are specifically listed on WP:CHARTS as a "deprecated" chart, per WP:SINGLEVENDOR, the performer appears to have enough coverage within the Electronic Dance Music world to justify notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:39, 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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masa Kobayashi

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

I originally tagged this with a blp prod, which was incorrect due to the inclusion of the musician's own web page, which satisfied the condition of at least one reference. I have been waiting to see if there would be any improvement. Unfortunately, there hasn't. Current sourcing consists of mentions, or non-independent sources. Searches turned up some more mentions of him (was surprised to see how many people actually have this name), however, none of the in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources which would be necessary to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:07, 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 02:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I couldn't find anything in the way of the in-depth coverage needed to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. The sources presented in the article are either passing mentions or non-independent. It's probably too soon for an article at this time, unfortunately. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SpotJobs

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

Sourcing only consists of simple company announcements, mentions, interviews, press releases and other announcements, not one is both substantial and non-PR and that's unsurprising since the company is still obviously seeking funding and support hence a common sign it's not even established, searches mirror this by simply finding business announcements and similar. Deleted once before as A7 and G11 before restarting by obvious SPAs. We explicitly stated that our policies, regardless of sourcing or names, won't accepted advertising of any kind especially when it's as blatant as that, and such no-advertising policies are essential. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Agree with some of the issues raised with regards to how the article is written, but think it is covered well enough in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:10, 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 01:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources appear to mainly be advertorials or lightweight stories that aren't much better, and this is not a large company. As such WP:ORG is not met. Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just enough out there to scrape this one over the bar. I might be convinced otherwise on the basis of still a bit TOOSOON though. Aoziwe (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep agree with User:Aoziwe that this was created a little SOON, but a gNews search [47] seems to show enough notability to keep this company.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically an advertisement; oif notable , it should be started over by someone prepared to write an objective article. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What specific sources do you believe qualify as significant coverage? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable web site; the article does not add value to the project, and its existence here only serves to promote the company. "Google search" is not a convincing argument for keeping, as I don't see sources that provide significant coverage to meet corp depth. Basically, a job site going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a smattering of business pages news coverage of this company, but nothing that I wouldn't consider to be absolutely routine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:22, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corbett Keeling

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

Seems to completely lack reliable sources & notable mentions/discussion in respected publications in any manner (there's a paywalled FT article which does not (according to title and a degree of assumption) confer notability). Created by COI/SPA. Article seems promotional in nature, not encyclopaedic. Rayman60 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-cited corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill financial firm of some kind, but this Press release of a page is so poorly written that I can't figure out how it might be notable. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 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. I recommend starting a WP:RM on Talk:Post-war Britain and pinging Talk:History of the United Kingdom (1945–present) and perhaps the UK and history WikiProjects for input. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war Britain

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

Practically a WP:FORK of History of the United Kingdom (1945–present). --Nevé –selbert 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the criticism incorrectly assumes this is an undesirable "Point of view (POV) fork." The two articles discuss different aspects of British history. History of the United Kingdom (1945–present) runs 101,000 bytes is 95+% national politics, while Post-war Britain (77,000 bytes) is 75% economic, social and cultural history. A clue here is the footnotes: the two articles use quite different sources: POSTWAR is based largely on 80+ scholarly articles & monographs but only a handful of such scholarly sources are used in the 1945+ article (half its sources are BBC journalism). There is indeed some overlap in political topics, but even there the content is different. --the 1945+ article takes the viewpoint of the government and policy formation whole POSTWAR takes a much broader viewpoint of public opinion and impact of policies across society. Merging would produce something much too long and hard to follow. This is allowed by Wiki policies: Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rjensen (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe these articles could be renamed to differentiate them in a more descriptive way. One could be something like Post-war national politics of the United Kingdom and the other Post-war social history of the United Kingdom. Also, we need to differentiate between the nation (the United Kingdom) and the island (Great Britain). It seems to me that a discussion of "Britain" relates more to geography and pre-modern history/prehistory than to modern politics, society and culture. Jacknstock (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good idea. Note that the very first comment on the talk page of the 1945 article made the same point: "Should this page really be called "History of the United Kingdom (1945-2000)" when its purpose seems to be to talk about the Prime Ministers of that period and what their governments achieved? Maybe this page could take a better name, or at least explain that it deals with Politics and not all types of History. What does everyone else think? --Woodgreener 13:14, 27 January 2007" Rjensen (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Post-war social history of the United Kingdom. The content is fine, the name less than ideal. Actually if nom feels like withdrawing the AfD the change can be made at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly not a pov fork. When the article was created in May 2013, a links were immediately made by Rjensen to and from both articles and Rjensen contributions to both articles seems appropriate and neutral. The content of both is very different and this article seems encyclopedic to me. I'm curious what Rjensen thinks about a rename.Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He thinks it "a good idea", See above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, what should the new name(s) be?Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with that--or better we can simply so this: rename both so that we have 1) "Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present)" and "Social history of the United Kingdom (1945–present)" The problem with "postwar" is that nobody calls 2017 "postwar". Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Both seem to be valid, well sourced articles, but their subjects are very similar. The normal solution would be to merge, but both are already long and a undertaking a merger would be a major undertaking. Both are built on the structure of successive governments. I am far from sure that one is really a political history and the other a social or economic history. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is an issue of keeping the subjects distinct with multiple editors. That is one of the reasons for the names of the articles to be clearly differentiated. Hopefully editors will then be more likely to keep on-topic. Also, some clever editing is necessary to further differentiate the text. Jacknstock (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I can see the arguments both for delete and keep, but I think renaming is the way to go for now. History of the United Kingdom (1945–present) could perhaps be renamed Political History of the United Kingdom 1945-present and this article renamed something like Post-war British Culture and Society. Dunarc (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the few weeks has expanded in length by a third with much better coverage of social topics (and less politics). Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per above arguments. These articles complement one another, and together provide a thorough history. ABF99 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If we choose to rename this article, should we make Post-war Britain a disambiguation page? Worth a thought.--Nevé –selbert 18:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes I agree: Rename & make Post-war Britain a disambiguation page. the two new titles can be "Political history of the United Kingdom since 1945" and "Social history of the United Kingdom since 1945". That tells the reader they are inter-related with different approaches. Eventually as time moves on they can be split, say (1945-2015) and (Since 2016) -- which might work if Brexit proves a big deal. Rjensen (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good, I agree, though it's hard to anticipate a future need for a split. Cross that bridge when we get there. ABF99 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the renaming suggestion as above: "Political history of the United Kingdom since 1945" and "Social history of the United Kingdom since 1945" (the article under discussion). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a rename to Social history of the United Kingdom since 1945 as suggested above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:45, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from the Heart Tour

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

Largely agree with the PROD tag placed by TJRC that was removed: No indication of notability, and the only cited source is from the band itself. This level of detail is not required. It would be better to note the tour in the Celtic Woman article in the "Tours" section, summarizing the date range and number of venues. Interested readers can go to the band's web site for details. -- Dane ^talk 02:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NEVENT. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 03:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my earlier PROD noted above. I also note that the PROD was removed without providing an explanation in either the removing edit's edit summary or on the talk page. TJRC (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not separately notable. I would have said merge to one of the "Tours" sections in Celtic Woman, but it's there already. If a redirect is thought useful then it may redirect there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; see related AFD on another Celtic Woman tour, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destiny World Tour (Celtic Woman), created by the same editor, who seems to have several different IDs here. TJRC (talk) 20:01, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Kosta Savich

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

The subject appears to be a secondary school teacher with a personal blog who doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:SCHOLAR, and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources per the WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears on face value that the article bibliography may have been written by the subject (making the assumption that User:Carl savich is Carl Savich), see this and this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the notability and autobiography issues already identified, most of the article is a WP:SOAPBOX for the subject's political views. And the quality of sourcing is really bad...a letter to the editor of an alumni magazine, by rather than about the subject? An unspecific citation to a ten-year date range of a political advocacy web site? Completely unencyclopedic. How is it possible that something this bad has persisted here since 2006? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. How is it possible? Because it is too easy to create an article and too hard to delete one. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Very little coverage in independent reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He seems to have produced a dozen articles on controversial subjects, but probably zero in any academic printed journal. I thus regard him as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Most of the coverage about the subject came about due to the kerfuffle over the Bosniak school named after a Nazi. Subject fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO. As I fellow member of Phi Alpha Theta I'd be happy if the closing admin put this into my userspace so I can rehab it and perhaps re-publish someday. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the article exists, there is nothing to stop you putting it into your userspace yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Moving the article now would be in violation of WP:USERFY#NO and moving an article into userspace in this case sans AfD would violate the spirit of WP:USERFY#YES, in my opinion. This isn't some brand-new draft mistakenly published. I could copy-paste the content but moving the article retains the article history where copypasta does not. I could always ask for a WP:REFUND but I find it easier to make my request to the closing admin now instead of trying to remember to make the request after deletion has occurred. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest move, I suggested copy, which anybody can do. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Strong delete There is absolutely nothing notable about this apologist for the Serbian side in the Bosnian War.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sher.ly

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

A WP:PROMO page on a company that is yet not notable. The article is largely self-cited, while searches provide some "tech sturtup publicity", routine coverage about funding and similar news. The copy is strictly promotional; the article opens with: "an company launched in 2013 to create a smart sync data management platform to enable secure file sharing for businesses..." followed by extensive product specs, "Awards" section and the like.

Article created by Special:Contributions/Magdelena_tr with no other contributions. The article was apparently speedy deleted in December (see Talk:RHaworth#Deletion of Sher.ly) and then recreated in the current version. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Only turned up promo pieces on the web, or PRIMARY sources, or blogs (all fail WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising in our policies which explicitly state against such business webhosting. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student Agencies Inc.

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

A WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable business. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. Sources present in the article are very unconvincing for notability. Article created and extensively edited by Special:Contributions/Saisaf with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only coverage I find is very local, Cornell/Ithaca. While there's some interesting aspects, there isn't a base of reference showing substantial notability required by WP:NCORP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is this one from Forbes staff writer [48] but it wouldn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. I checked some of the individual companies listed on the page and was unable to find anything that helps either. Fails WP:ORG. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession (actress)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No substantive assertion of notability. No awards, only nominations. No nontrivial independent reliable sourcing (the NYT reference does not even mention the article subject). Negligible biographical content, sourced or otherwise. Deprodded with spurious rationale. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a biography, it's a directory listing -- and there's no evidence at all that it has the potential to be more than that. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only real PORNBIO claim is appearing in a "blockbuster" work of porn. Notability does not transfer without support from reliable sources. We have a cast listing on a site that markets the work and a RS article about the work that doesn't even mention the actress. As for GNG, making one writer's greatest list in a pop culture mag is hardly sufficient. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nemanja Kovačević

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

Created as a autobiography. Not notable. Notability is not inherited. Just playing for a team with a page isn't enough and the one source is just a link to the team's homepage which doesn't demonstrate notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Appears to be a vanity article. Re-create when you get on the national team, Nemanja. Jacknstock (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet notability standards advised at WP:FOOTYN. DrStrauss talk 15:32, 15 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) 15:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG Spiderone 15:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:43, 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.