Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 January	21 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Chin Chi

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

Just another entrepreneur owning a nonnotable company. Ref 3 doesn't work, and Ref 2, 4, 5 are all press releases. In Ref 1 he was just being interviewed, not in-depth coverage. Page created by confirmed sockpuppet. Timmyshin (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT & WP:WEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service for unremarkable individuals. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing encyclopedic about the subject even from independent searches online. Xaxing (talk) 15:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rai (Bunts)

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

There is no credible evidence provided that this surname is in any way different origin from the common Indian surname Rai (surname) despite a discussion in talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable castecruft. utcursch | talk 23:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The community is one with royal lineage from South Canara (Carrin, M., & Tambs-Lyche, H. (2003). ‘You don't joke with these fellows.’Power and ritual in South Canara, India. Social Anthropology, 11(01), 23-42. Cambridge University Press) which came to be known later as a farming community (Iversen, V., & Raghavendra, P. S. (2006). What the signboard hides: Food, caste and employability in small South Indian eating places. Contributions to Indian sociology, 40(3), 311-341.) However, in all my literature review, I've not been able to find any evidence of the Rai surname being uniquely associated with the Bunts. Lourdes 07:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PFF Smart U-22 Amateur Football Championship

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

Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the tournament is a tournament organized by the Philippine Football Federation and a tournament used to determine the composition of the national youth teams up to under-22.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - youth/amateur tournaments are not inherently notable; I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG either Spiderone 17:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable youth tournament. Fenix down (talk) 16:55, 25 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Education Instructor of the Year

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

Completely non-notable award, doesn't even try to confer the award's supposed notability from its recipients, if it has any. The references also don't support the article's claims, just are more like background to the organization (barely notable itself) and financial literacy as a topic. JesseRafe (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Not a single mention of this award in any of the references, although it can be found on the NFEC website: [1]. Here is the 2015 winner [2] and 2014 [3] (there is a winner for 2013 & 2012 also). Absolutely no mention outside of this website or a few press releases. No coverage. Not notable. MB 03:14, 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 delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Upasaka Federation

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

All references are press releases, not sure what the notability is. Created by a confirmed sockpuppet. Timmyshin (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some sort of advertisementVictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find any independent sources for this organization so it fails the notability threshold. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:13, 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. Sandstein 09:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Brodie

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. He has not played in an A-League game or against any fully pro teams in the Oceania Champions League. Simione001 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:33, 21 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) 16:52, 25 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Yar Khan

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've checked the notability guidelines and there's nothing in it that says that this person is non-notable. The person has appeared frequently on print, tv, news media to confirm notability, please check references on the article itself. Please explain why non-notable? Veejs7er (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on a quick review of the sources, this one seems notable. Some of the other stubs nominated today by Sportsfan 1234 are flotsam, but this seems to be the one that is trying to carry them away. The articles appear to be good sources that actually mention this person in their headlines. Whether they are significant is debatable, but, again, based on my cursory review, it seems to be good. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources are all in fact clear business announcements, listings, mentions and all in between and they actually show the same consistency in wording and style, showing only one person authored it and that's the PR itself, it's clear that's why this existed too since there's nothing satisfying our policies either. "Whether they are significant" is debatable because they're from websites known for willingly publishing PR hence unconvincing, and our policies never classify articles as notable simply by "good sources" because then there's the important matter of actual notability, one of which here is not sourced by anything else but clear business PR hence deletion. To answer the first commenter's quote above, WP:NOT is the applicable policy here because we're not a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - person is highly cited by several good sources. WP:BLP1E does not apply as sources are varied articles and contexts over period of time. WP:NOT for PR would be meaningful for a business or a product. The sources are high quality and would only cite a substantially notable person on various events and topics. Neozucker (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — Neozucker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to administrators the above account has almost no edits outside this discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrators: I sincerely believe that the person is notable especially in the Indian context as the person is known for important contributions to the Indian startup ecosystem. From making one of India's best known angel investments which led to the cascade of startup activity in India to launching India's first and largest domestic venture capital firm, which culturally changed India's risk capital landscape.^[1]. Just to give some examples to elucidate my point better: the person is better known and notable for contributions made in India than Fred Wilson and Shervin Pishevar are known in the Unites States. All of these are cited by high quality sources as referenced in the article. For example The economic times is the most significant read business news source in India and The Times of India is the world's largest read daily apart from coverage in other renowned news sources like Forbes etc. as mentioned in the sources. The intent of these sources and the article is not PR but genuine coverage for important personal contributions to the Indian Ecosystem. If PR was the intent, the coverages and the article would focus on the businesses run by the person rather that the achievements. Neozucker (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with SwisterTwister's analysis of the sources - I do not think this constitutes significant coverage, and in fact there is nothing in the article that indicates that this is anything other than a run-of-the mill businessperson with access to a good PR department. --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately the sources here are written in the same way as if they had been actual press releases, so they cannot count as reliable sources for notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. G. Mahesh

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks citations to demonstate claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It claims, without citation, that he started on the Internet in 1992. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional in style. He appears to lack notability, has not received any awards, and has not been mentioned in reliable news sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable business person.FITINDIA (talk) 18:42, 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 redirect to Flanaess. Up to editors whether to merge anything. Sandstein 09:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Lords

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, nothing that really stands out to justify a standalone article. Longevitydude (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or very selectively Merge to Flanaess. Its a minor fictional organization that has no sources outside of the official D&D products. As the information presented in the article consists entirely of in-universe plot summary, and there are no inline citations included to know which parts are being even being sourced, I'd personally favor a Redirect, as there really isn't much here to merge. But, I would not be completely opposed if someone chose to do the work to merge. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess given above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 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 merge to 2017 pro-jallikattu protests. (non-admin closure) f eminist 10:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karthikeya Sivasenapathy

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

BLP. The person doesn't seem to be notable enough, and the article is promotional in tone. —Hexafluoride ^{Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk} 21:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person has only recently achieved great notability for his actions during the 2017 Jallikattu protests. He was moderately notable prior to 2017 for his work as a cattle activist. Please see links below.

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/agriculture/a-movement-to-save-kangayam-cattle-gaining-momentum/article3304078.ece http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/bull-stop/article5609632.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandrasekar (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Videos of Sivasenapathy have also had a great reach on Facebook where some of his videos and interviews have crossed 100 thousand views. So I think it is fairly safe to say that he is a notable person in accordance with wikipedia guidelines and is a public figure in Tamil Nadu.

https://www.facebook.com/itamilrationalists/videos/1305592706168740/ https://www.facebook.com/bbctamil/videos/10154064474355163/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schandrasekar (talk • contribs) 00:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite: The person has been a key personality in the uprising of Jallikattu Protests happening all over Tamil Nadu. I would suggest the article be written with more accuracy and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SathyaNarayananCBEUG (talk • contribs) 07:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite: This person has significance in 2017 Jallikattu protests and some other activities. But the article is not written properly to reflect the same. Aadhitharajan^talk 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2017_Jallikattu_protests. Not independently notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it would be best to merge the article into the article 2017 Jallikattu protests. I would welcome help in rewriting the article. I am a new member to the community and find it difficult to write on this with a neutral tone. --Schandrasekar (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to 2017 Jallikattu protests per WP:BLP1E. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have merged the relevant material into 2017 Jallikattu protests#Support and opposition. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I have improved and I suggest not to remove since he has notability since 2010.-Neechalkaran (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I stress not to remove the article (As the given content were linked perfect documentation of current affairs of tamil people and tamil nadu.{[[[User:Karte1994|mechtamizhan_de_machine]]]} —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Must Keep and Rewrite: This person is not only responsible for conserving Cattle Breeds and fighting against ban on Jallikattu, He is the person who brought awareness to people on 1) What is Jallikattu 2) How the native cattle breeds will become extinct, if Jallikattu is banned. He is an iconic personality.This profile must be rewritten with current data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5600:67:ADF0:80F4:3F70:F1FD:F682 (talk) 12:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 09:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Napoléon

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

This is a weird mix of a disambiguation page and an article with references. The references should be moved to Napoléon (ship) and/or Corse (ship) and then this page deleted (its title doesn’t adhere to naming conventions anyway). Timwi (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete, reduce this to a redirect to Napoléon (ship). PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then move Napoléon (ship) here and add a hatnote to Corse (ship). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Napoléon (ship) to this page.There is nothing of value in the current article here - the current hatnote on Napoleon and a new hatnote on Corse will cover the field just as well. Merging rather an deletion also helps preserve the history, such as it is. And this is the correct location for the actual ship article, per WP:SHIPNAME. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Keep as revised by Brad101. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having consulted WP:SHIPNAME, it looks to me as if the correct title for an article about this ship is "French battleship Napoléon". However I suggest that at this stage we agree to reduce this article to a redirect, close this deletion discussion, then possibly create a move request to decide what the correct title for this ship is. PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I edited the article down to shipindex standards. No pic, references etc; just a page to get a reader to the correct ship. Brad (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Keep Brad (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a shipindex page at what appears to be a reasonabl title for the vessels it covers. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MjRoots. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:46, 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 Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton at the 2015 Indian Ocean Island Games

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

Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding the following for the same reasons:

Merge to 2015 Indian Ocean Island 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]
Keep all as it is. Wikipedia:Notability_(events): Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. --Florentyna (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International event organized by the International Olympic Committee. Prima facie, these are notable events. I'd like to know what initial review of each article there has been prior to these listings. I think better to mark the articles requesting sources and other necessary improvements for some time prior to a discussion about deletion. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack N. Stock This event has no affiliation with the IOC. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that these are individual events at the Indian Ocean Games on a year by year basis. Hard to see coverage supporting that - the games them selves seem ok and I could see a general article for example Football at IOIGames but this is just result listing cruft.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234, your information is incorrect. The IOC is the creator of the Indian Ocean Island Games, Regional and Sub-regional Games, International Olympic Committee (IOC), p.37. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major sporting event for the countries involved and the pinnacle of regional events for those sports among a group of nations totalling nearly 30 million people. SFB 21:00, 27 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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Adler (stage actor)

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

Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Only source listed is IMDB listing which may or may not be the same person. (Birth and Death dates are totally different) Google searches of Charles Adler and Charlie Adler produces nothing to show notability. CBS527^Talk 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CBS527^Talk 20:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Even so, the IMDB page does seem to be the same person just with different birth/death dates, as both the Wikipedia article and IMDB page says he played in Thrill of a Lifetime and was the son of Jacob Pavlovich Adler. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium at the 2011 European Youth Olympic Summer Festival

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

Collection of stats, not really encyclopedic material. The article is also unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Also adding the following article for the same reasons:[reply]

Delete both. Indiscriminate bombardment of useless stats. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could in theory be merged, at least some material, but needs sources even for that. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Renominate separately if desired. (non-admin closure) f eminist 09:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archery at the 2015 ASEAN Para Games

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

Unremarkable event, fails WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Also adding the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Merge to 2015 ASEAN Para Games, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a critical intersection of two groups who are often victim to systemic bias, as both people with disabilities and people from specific regions (e.g., Southeast Asia) tend to be underrepresented, sometimes even shunned or actively victimized. These are international events, we can't possibly review each of these articles as a single AfD. The 2015 ASEAN Para Games were certainly notable, and covering the numerous sports in one article would be impractical. Much of the reporting is in various languages other than English, so our searches using the English language will find only a small minority of the coverage. What I have found is that there are numerous articles even in English that report specifically about the 2015 ASEAN Para Games, even having "ASEAN Para Games" in the headline. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TRAINWRECK. My view is that each of these articles needs to be considered separately. These don't fall within the intentions of multiple AfD, and they don't bear similarity to the examples offered (a group of hoax articles by the same editor, a group of spam articles by the same editor, a series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products). These are not hoaxes, not spam, not marketing. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has multiple independent coverage. Florentyna (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge into single results article if easier). This event has a significant impact upon the various disability sports in Southeast Asia and is its premier disability sports event. The population of this region is more than double that of the United States. SFB 20:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The ASEAN Para Games is a large multisport event on a continental/regional level - just below the top-level Paralympic Games. It is pretty much standard practice for such events to be covered by a "main article" covering the games event as a whole and number of "sub-articles" about each of the sports. This avoids having all the detail stuffed into a single over long page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all By all accounts a significant event. Having separate pages allows us to present all valid info in the most appropriate format. Merging would be horrific, the article would be too long and difficult to navigate, locate required info. Referencing could be improved.....would like to see some independent sources. Article could be improved......would like to see more info where appropriate other than results. Rayman60 (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) f eminist 10:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railspike

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to List of Autobots: change to this. It was a mistake to not see the List of Autobots article. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. This is not a notable character, and has no reliable sources discussing it in any depth. He is already included in the List of Autobots, so nothing more than a Redirect is necessary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 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. Sandstein 09:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Minx

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

Fails WP:CORP; little to no claim of notability and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked for sources on this company, but I haven't turned up anything but press releases. - MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 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 & Salt. Sam Walton (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urban developers

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

Page about a local Lahore real estate development company with nine listed projects since 1980. The company was previously promoted here using the correctly capitalized article title Urban Developers, created by User:UrbanDevelopers, deleted under G11 on 21 November 2016, as well as the title Urban Developers Group also deleted under G11 on 26 November 2016 (confirmation of matches).

Searching for "Urban Developers" returns the expected flood of false positive non-proper noun hits. More narrow searching for sources has been performed:

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

Nothing with quote marks. Without quote marks, only the company's Facebook group page Urban Developers Chartered Town Planners Public Group turns up.

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

No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. No useful hits found.

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

No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. No useful hits found.

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

"Urban Developers Associates" is a name they also use on Facebook. No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. A staggering amount of general hits; I looked through the first 100, and none of them were links to reliable sources.

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

No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Spot checking the first seven pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.

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

Gnews:

trivial mention in non-bylined source: "Housing development: New road proposed for LDA City". The Express Tribune. Retrieved 20 January 2017.
trivial mention in: "Two-day Property Expo 2015 starts". The Nation. 14 November 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2017.
trivial mention in: "Zameen Property Expo 2015 in Lahore sees massive footfall". TheNewsTribe. 18 November 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2017.

Gbooks:

snippet view, looks like an advertisement: Newsline. Vol. 19–20. Newsline Publications. 2007. p. 84.

Spot checking the first five pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.

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

No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Spot checking the first few pages of general hits, I have found no useful links to reliable sources.

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

No GNews hits, no GBooks hits. Skimming all other 536 general hits (YMMV), I have found no useful links to reliable sources.

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

No hits. Spelling error?

Based on the above findings (or lack of findings) and the currently provided "sources" in the article, the company fails WP:NCORP and should be deleted per WP:DEL8; if someone can do a better sourcing job, I'm all ears. — Sam Sailor 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as multiple carefully examined searches found nothing of actual independent notability and substance, this has clear motivations of only existing as a business listing, so that itself has multiple policy violations; there's naturally no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else and there's no convincing exceptions here. When an article has to largely specify all of their obtained possessions and businesses, it's clear it's to advertise to interested buyers, since that's never what an encyclopedia publishes. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt given persistent recreation under various names; strictly corporate spam. No indications of notability or significance for this unremarkable real estate developer. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt as per K.e.coffman's analysis above. Searches have not turned up the type of detailed, in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show it satisfies either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, and the most thoroughly researched and explained AfD rationale I've seen. And salt and pepper, too. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Salt if appropriate. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 27 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) 09:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lindokuhle Modi

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

Improperly sourced. A quick google search reveals nothing. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. May be entirely made up. RoCo^(talk) 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding sources either. Hoax or non-notable, either way the result is delete.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:SNOW. The Red links alone are a bad sign. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Article created by WP:SPA with a total of 3 edits all in relation to subject. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 16:34, 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 Oldest people. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitoyo Kawate

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N: there was a little bit of attention in English and Japanese during her brief reign as World's Oldest Person, with all other sources I could find being trivial and failing to be sufficient for a stand-alone article. Due to the contentious history of editing surrounding World’s Oldest People topics, it behooves me to emphasize that there is no policy on Wikipedia claiming that the oldest living person in the world is automatically notable. People will still claim this anyways (because people always come to these discussions to vote keep without reading the nomination), but it is not true; there have been at least six cases where an article on the world’s oldest living person was deleted or redirected through discussion/consensus: [4][5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This means that “oldest people” articles are judged on their individual merits and that the only relevant criteria are the general guidelines at WP:N, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable third-party sources. I do not see sufficient evidence of that here in English or Japanese, although I admit my skills are lacking in the latter and will be happy to withdraw my nomination if a critical mass of material can be found by a user proficient in the language. Otherwise, any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Canadian Paul, As I'm already pointed out on your talk page, your information are wrong. this AfD was not the AfD of "world’s oldest living person". Koto Okubo never the world’s oldest living person, only become the world’s oldest living woman and the second oldest living person in the world behind Jiroemon Kimura. Inception2010 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, also I thought this article was deleted in the past by a JJB nomination. Also, being the last survivor of an atomic bomb relies on the same claim to notability as being the world's oldest person. This information, however, is worthy of being merged to the article about Japanese supercentenarians, but not for a standalone article. Longevitydude (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This person is the oldest survivor of the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima verified by Guinness World Records. Other 7 languages of Wikipedia has Mitoyo Kawate's article. clearly notable. She died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--180.49.194.2 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC) — 180.49.194.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Where in the guidelines does it say that being the oldest survivor of an atomic bomb makes you notable? As for the other wiki argument see WP:OTHERLANGS and lack of sourcing is a reason to delete this article. If sources exist establishing notability then the burden of proof is on you to provide them. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to whatever list per WP:NOPAGE. ~~There is one (1) (ONE) fact worth mentioning i.e. Hiroshima survival (though even that's not clear).~~ Apparently she wasn't even in Hiroshima city at the time of the bombing. The rest of the article is the usual nonsense about "reigns" and "titles", like it's the World Wrestling Federation. E Eng 09:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was oldest person in the world which is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimney148 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC) — talk:Chimney148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh look! Another SPA! E Eng 17:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the oldest person in the world out of 6.3 billion (population at the time of Mitoyo Kawate's death in 2003) is good enough and record holders of the oldest person in the world usually have an article (See Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955).

Nominator says that "there have been at least five cases where an article on the world’s oldest living person was deleted or redirected through discussion/consensus", However, there have been at least six cases where an article on the world’s oldest living person was Kept through discussion/consensus: [10][11][12][13][14][15] (note all the AfDs was nominated in 2015. Also, the nominator of AfD of [16] has been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia.) Inception2010 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what that proves is that being oldest is neither a reason to keep nor a reason to delete. It's irrelevant. You'll need to make your argument based on relevant criteria. E Eng 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong claim of notability as world's oldest person, backed up by the reliable and verifiable sources about the individual that exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Article consists largely of uncited trivia and longevity fanfluff. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Article tells us nothing outside a list of (except she looked for survivors after the automic blasts and died of pneumonia). Two routine obituaries and a GRG table does not make someone notable. Per the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject she belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, holding a title is worthy of a mention, but that's why we have lists. Not every title holder, however, stands out. That's why Jeanne Calment has an article very worthy of an encyclopedia while Anitica Butariu on the other hand would only be notable to avid fans of longevity and supercentenarians. Some conflict from years ago happened not because of difference in opinion but in the vilifying of people on the other side of deletion discussions. I think CP and Derby mean well and are doing their best to make wikipedia look professional and balanced concerning all wikipedia projects. It's not that they hate old people, they probably don't want it to look like wikipedia as a whole is partial to certain fields of interest over others. We should work together and come to mutual agreements. Longevitydude (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what Canadian Paul's opinions are on the References attached to the article. One of them is from the Associated Press, another from CNN. Do they count as third party sources? I'll let the readers decide. Longevitydude (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[another source] I would like to point out. Longevitydude (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oldest living person in the world is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious, we certainly have a lot of people here who don't understand how WP:NOTABILITY works. E Eng 16:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone read the articles I pointed out on the afd? If so, then I would appreciate ax explanation for why they do or do not establish notability, for future reference. Thank You. Longevitydude (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did look at the one posted by you just above here, and all it says is "Sorry your page was not found." And just now I looked at the link you posted just below here, and it's just the front page of the NZ Herald. E Eng 20:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. [17] I'm not sure what the problem is. "Mitoyo Kawate, reputed to be the world's oldest person, died in Hiroshima yesterday at the age of 114, less than two weeks after taking over the title from another Japanese woman. Kawate survived her exposure to radiation from the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima, worked on her farm until the age of 99 and spent her last 10 years at a nursing home. Guinness World Records listed Kawate as the world's oldest person whose date of birth can be fully authenticated after Kamato Hongo died of pneumonia at 116 in southern Japan on October 31." "10:54 PM Friday Nov 14, 2003" This was the text, I don't know why only the front page would show up. Longevitydude (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that link works. Here, as almost always in these cases, I look to WP:NOPAGE. E Eng 21:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks again for sharing your perspective. That Marge Simpson picture you posted on Amy Hulmes' AFD was clever by the way. Longevitydude (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Gracious, we certainly have a lot of people here who don't understand how WP:NOTABILITY works." I think you'll find, if you bother to check, that I'm an extremely experienced editor who knows precisely how things work on Wikipedia and has contributed to countless AfD discussions. Your uncivil and patronising comments are unwanted and uncalled for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If, after the titanic decade+-long tussle over longevity here, you think that "Oldest person in X is notable" is a useful AfD comment, then there's a gap between your experience and your understanding. Sorry. E Eng 16:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note A portion of the 4th source on her article, the latimes, that I feel should be emphasized concerning her status as an atomic bomb survivor.

" Makoto Tsunemoto, another Hiroshima city official, told Associated Press that Kawate was on her farm, about six miles from downtown, at the time of the Aug. 6, 1945, blast, but entered the city two days later to search for relatives and became exposed to radiation.

He said that officially qualified her as a survivor, entitling her to special health and pension benefits." The question is not if she survived an atomic bomb, but if that makes her notable. Longevitydude (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think we need to decide whether she's notable. This one fact about her (Hiroshima) can be noted in a table entry. E Eng 21:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the purpose of AFDs was to decide if a topic is notable. Longevitydude (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's to decide if the article should be deleted or redirected. Almost always that comes down to deciding whether the topic is notable, because 99% of the time a notable topic gets its own article. But see WP:NOPAGE for the unusual case where a topic is notable but still doesn't get its own page, but rather is covered on some other page. I said unusual, but in the area of longevity it's very common, because so often very little is known about these oldsters, and thus they can be covered not only as well, but better, on a list instead a zillion tiny articles. That's why when I see a longevity AfD I always look first at the article to see if NOPAGE applies, and if it does then the answer is Merge whether the person is notable or not. E Eng 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Notability. I suppose saying whether Mrs Kawate as a world's oldest person titlist was notable according to Wikipedia guidelines is a matter of interpretation, as the way I read the guidelines, she does meet the criteria - even the ones regarding significant coverage and notability being longstanding (notice how she's been covered in books, and is still considered a WOP (and receives coverage because of that) fourteen years after her death, for instance). If other Wikipedeans wish to argue that Mrs Kawate does 'not' pass "the criteria", then I suggest that the criteria should be altered to provide less room/space for interpretation. Fiskje88 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's outrageous that you used an ethnic slur like that. She's not even Italian. E Eng 05:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Paging David_in_DC.[reply]

To avoid any confusion, I would like to clarify that I used the term "WOP" to say "World's Oldest Person".Fiskje88 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. (non-admin closure) f eminist 10:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Way

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

Per WP:NMUSIC, and specifically the part where it says that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." This person is not independently notable and the page should be replaced with a redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence - Article doesn't seem to establish notability beyond band. Google and NYT searches for both Lindsey Way and Lyn-Z provides nothing notable. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Montano. Should have been batched.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence per nom. Note to closer: there are two redirects LynZ and Lyn-Z — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:58, 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 merge/redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies. So Why 18:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hulmes

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N: the coverage here consists of a few bursts of attention in 2001 when she thought to be the world's oldest person, then discovered that she was not, then died, with the rest being trivial mentions, none of which satisfies the guidelines. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit here can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely living a long time does not by itself make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of her attention in the news was based on the later disproved belief that she was the World's oldest person. A merge to Supercentenarians in the United Kingdom might be more appropriate than a stand alone article that doesn't add anything particularly noteworthy enough to stand out from the other British supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article fails one event. Like Bob Taggart, her fame was partly based on a false claim of being the oldest. The only difference is that she was Britain's oldest and she was a supercentenarian, but we don't give articles to every titleholder or every supercentenarian. This is the kind of information that's better on the gerontology wiki. Longevitydude (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She wasn't even the thing which, if she were that, would also not merit an article. I love that each of these articles always has to include at least one pathetically strained detail, like "reportedly could touch her toes". E Eng 10:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies. Record holders of the oldest person in the UK usually have an article. Inception2010 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)fix Inception2010 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Marge, and what's she got to do with this? E Eng 22:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is what Inception means, and because Amy Hulmes is a British supercentenarian, therefore merging her information to a list of British supercentenarians would make more sense than giving her a stand alone article. Longevitydude (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, because I actually thought Inception was talking about someone named Marge. Really I did. E Eng 02:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your sarcastic sense of humor helps make these discussions animated. Maybe he was thinking about Marge Simpson. Longevitydude (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Fails WP:GNG as two routine obituaries and a GRG table does not make someone notable. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then Redirect to an appropriate list. There's no text worth saving. WP:GNG. WP:SIGCOV. Please see also WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 20:31, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election, 2015 (London)

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

No sources to establish notability on this one. There is no special status towards London in the UK general election. See this AfD for a similar discussion. Also, it is redundant in two ways. One, each constituancy has their own page, so the information here is just duplication. And two, the overall information is on the main 2015 UK General Election page. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless article. Number 5 7 13:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes sense given the decision taken on the Greater Manchester and similar regional/county articles. Dunarc (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but outcome of the election is not determined by results within individual regions, so it's pointless. Mélencron (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an area with devolution, on the likes of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we have a long practice of having articles for the Greater London results. The results in Greater London attracted media attention for their diversion from the trend, particularly in England. AusLondonder (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of areas of England have devolution. I see no reason why London should be singled out. To be honest, personally I can't see how the Northern Irish/Scottish/Welsh articles are justifiable either. Number 5 7 09:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lots of areas have or are gaining devolution of powers including Greater Manchester which has already had its article deleted (that incidentally was part of the reason I created it as it is relevant to the upcoming mayoral election), so that cannot be a relevant argument to keep. Lots of areas divert from the trend, as I pointed out in the previous AfD GM has 80% of the seats going to the party that didn't win. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per my comments on the previous AfD. This article (and the others I mentioned) is not any different from those already deleted. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:29, 27 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. Sandstein 09:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Essence of Ethical Pragmatism

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

Self-published book with no indication of notability. The three reviews cited for the "reception" are all reviews-for-hire, not indicating independent coverage. Google News finds no published newspaper reviews, Google Scholar doesn't find any references to the book. Huon (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability, please consider this. The Ethical Pragmatism Institute is a Florida non-profit corporation (Sunbiz.org) with IRS recognition as a public charity including full 501(c)(3) status. The institute's activities (all approved by a board of directors) are based on the philosophy of ethical pragmatism, the common sense philosophy, the subject of the book in the article. The institute has engaged in numerous activities since 2014, among which are fostering cancer research, treatment and support as well as educating the public, particularly youth, about critical thinking. The institute's website has a link to the book in the article. The website (EPInstitute.org) appears as a result of a search on Google and other search engines. Further, in the past year, the author, on behalf of the institute, has sat as a judge in a national US Constitution competition, several mock trial competitions and has given talks to students about critical thinking. Additionally, the author, on behalf the institute, has made presentations regarding prostate cancer support at the University of Miami (UM Sylvester) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

None of those pertain to whether Wikipedia should have an article about the book. It's a function of independent coverage. DS (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact, the only "news" the Ethical Pragmatism Institute has ever published on its website amounts to an advertisement for the book. Google News hits for the "Ethical Pragmatism Institute": Zero. That website and the organization behind it do not help establish that the book meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Huon (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even in Worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; notability established. While not necessarily passing WP:CLERGY (the remaining Samaritans are a rather small group afterall), the office's history is relevant and the existence of multiple, independent sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG are enough. It might do to revisit WP:CLERGY with an eyes towards revision that avoids recentism; evaluating the notability of a position based only on its current form ignores history. Regardless, WP:GNG holds and is upheld here. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elazar ben Tsedaka ben Yitzhaq

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

Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since October 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That does not necessarily clinch the argument. I would argue that the office of Samaritan High Priest is inherently notable, or at least holders in recent years are. It is the oldest office still in existence in the world. PatGallacher (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be in keeping with WP:CLERGY to regard him as notable. The long-term historic significance of the Samaritans means that their importance cannot just be based on absolute numbers. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:CLERGY.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PatGallacher's reasoning. A few more potential references: [18][19][20][21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of a significant religious group. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLERGY. Head of a historically significant religious group. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:14, 25 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) 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headstrong (company)

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

Weak or nonexistent sourcing to support WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a directory of IT consulting businesses. What do they actually do? What makes them different from thousands of other businesses in this niche? Brianhe (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant corporate spam:

"...is a company with presence across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, operating in more than 14 locations"
"2006 saw Headstrong surpassing the 2000-employee headcount and continuing to enjoy 40 percent growth..." Etc.

Wikipedia is not an office locator or award showcase; this content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not just on the basis of a few `nec phrases, but because the content of the article would be of relevance to nobody except thefirm's executives and their immediate families. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While WP:GNG does not supersede WP:NHOCKEY (since WP:N specifies that notability is presumed if either is met), consensus is that he meets neither guideline. A useful redirect (not to his brother, but maybe his team) might be created instead but this was not discussed here. So Why 18:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collin Bowman

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources (most sources are about signings and I found two from the local papers, Denver Post and Loveland's Reporter Herald, which are usually also not considered independent secondary sources to fulfill GNG). He also currently fails WP:NHOCKEY as he has not played at a high enough level, played long enough, played for a national team in top level international competitions, or earned any significant honors. This page was formerly a redirect to his brother Drayson Bowman (a former NHL player) and reverting back could also work. Yosemiter (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No need for a redirect, either. Enigma^msg 18:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that page! Yosemiter refers to WP:NHOCKEY, but just that is my first point, why to keep it. It says <quote>Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league</quote> - To this day he played 46 games for the Vienna Capitals in the EBEL - the top professional league in Austria. Second point: He is young, he should play long enough, he might be nomitated for a national team one day, and if the team remains strong, he could become Austrian champion at Easter. WLinsmayer (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WLinsmayer: First off, WP:GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, so unless you can provide non-routine sources (which I have also looked for), then he fails the primary notability standards. Second, please read WP:TOOSOON, as it states if a subject does not currently meet GNG, we can not assume it one day will. (I highly doubt he will ever make an American national team at this point, he is 25 and not even in the NHL.) Please also read the hockey league assessment, where the highest level leagues have been assessed for its media coverage of players for how we assume "automatic" notability. It does not state a country's top professional league, it means the world's top professional leagues, of which EBEL is fairly low. You cannot honestly try to argue that EBEL teams can compete with the Liiga, KHL, or NHL, on the ice or in the international media. (Winning the championship in a league does not assume a player's notability at that level, he must win a major individual award such as league MVP or First Team All Star). If he does one day meet the criteria, an admin can restore a deleted page. Yosemiter (talk) 13:32, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Valentinovich Nikitin

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

Non-notable person. XXN, 15:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete' no evidence of notablility; no presense in ru: wikipedia, among other multiple Yevgeny Nikitins. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL. We usually delete pages about sports promoters who are just really dime-a-dozen sports agents and parents. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 25 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. G5 deletion; created by sock of User:Mokezhilao. Primefac (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wotech Solar

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

Company exists, but not seeing anything notable. All references are press releases. Cannot find any information supporting "Wotech Solar has over 10,000 employees and five production sites." Timmyshin (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly promotional in tone. Delete. Alexius08 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company; promotional content. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 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. This is a combination of a SNOW deletion and a speedy deletion, under speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#G11 an WP:CSD#G5: the discussion was clearly heading for deletion anyway, with nobody supporting keeping except for the creator of the article (using a sockpuppet); the article is blatant advertising; the article was created by a block-evading editor, and all significant contributions to it have come from that editor, shifting to another sockpuppet when the first one was blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E4B

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

All references are press releases. Apparently it's a business model proposed by a Chinese company named JUMORE (even though their website is jumoore.com with 2 o's) in 2016, and "JUMORE repeatedly proposed E4B model." Only claim to notability is "Some analysts believe that the E4B model is an innovative business model to open a new chapter in international cooperation in the America." Not seeing how this can ever be encyclopedic. Timmyshin (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete' -- unambiguous promotion, with the model being "owned" by a non-notable company Jumore. I will request a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- article was created from a redirect by indef banned user Renyuren, a confirmed sock. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not just spam, but crazy spam. It's like the kid on Project Runway who thinks he invented the slit dress. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has these,1 2 3 ,i don't think it breaking rules about WikipediaIamE4B (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I hope you can justice with the articles ,The major portal Netease reports,huanqiureports,NetEasereports,ifengreports,CCTVreports,yahooreports IamE4B (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete badly written, promotional, nothing worth salvaging.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Uh,I don't think that is a reasonable reason about JohnBlackburne said,no one will walk in the birth,Everyone needs to learn,Is not it?--IamE4B (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as the speedy was removed twice by the author while there was still advertising and what's currently here is still violating WP:NOT, which is enough alone. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ What sentences do you mean?SwisterTwister IamE4B (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Now,It has changed IamE4B (talk) 16:09, 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 speedily deleted by User:Premeditated Chaos under criterion G5. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 17:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terabyte (brand)

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

A7 declined after creator wrote on the talk page "because... (this a chinese brand )". All references are press releases by this company. The official website is under construction, and Googling "Terabyte (brand)" leads me to [22] which is based in Nevada, USA, and probably a different company. Timmyshin (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The specific reason I declined A7 wasn't really anything to do with what was written on the talk page (it rarely is when I look at CSDs if I'm honest), but because a Google search for "terabyte hdmi cable" came up with enough hits for me to believe the company exists, has achieved some sort of market presence, and hence a full AfD discussion was necessary. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- not a WP:CATALOG of products. Content belongs on the company web site, not here. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete meets A7 criteria, author just removed it to contest it. EDIT: My bad, I thought user removed A7. Still probably meets criteria for speedy though, no notability established in article. Fbifriday (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the article was created by a sock puppet Special:Contributions/Renyuren who is currently indef blocked. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:51, 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 Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CHTA

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

All 4 references are press releases by this organization and thus non-independent. I also don't see anything notable in the article. Page is orphaned. Timmyshin (talk) 14:48, 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 00:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sladjana Matejevic

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

Cannot find any sources for subject, including ORF and Info-news. Fails WP:Artist Rogermx (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP with zero coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Meatsgains: Fails GNG and BIO and completely unsourced. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced BLP. It's possibly "speedy" because there's not even an assertion of notability. Some sources are thrown out at the end, without any way to figure out what the writer is saying. There are literally zero Google new hits with this name. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 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 redirect to Patience (George Michael album). (non-admin closure) f eminist 10:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Through (George Michael song)

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

Notability is not inherited, nor has it been established in the content of the article. It is not a single. It did not chart. It has not won any awards. It is simply a song on an album. Kellymoat (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strike Keep- If being a single and having awards is the criteria for a song being 'Notable', then why there is there are no proposed delete for Southampton Dock by Pink Floyd, It's the Falling in Love by Michael Jackson and The New Timer by Bruce Springsteen. I really want to assume good faith but when I see things like this I just wonder why. Anyway the song Through is notable enough to have been included on two GM albums which are Patience and Symphonica and being performed live in a concert tour. Aside from the fact is it from Michael's final studio album of original material. Although there are multiple citations in the article, there is still work need to be done to improve but deleting is not the answer.GM25LIVE (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - we can worry about other articles later. Right now, the issue is THIS article. Why is the subject of this article notable? Independently. Separate from the album. Separate from the artist. Solely based on the song, and only the song.

And if you want to use the use the fact that it was on more than one album, you should consider letting people know that the 2nd album was a live album.

Kellymoat (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strike Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Well it can be a valid argument. Regardless of nature of albums, it did appear twice in GM albums catalog and it was opening song of a tour in all the shows. I think this establish some kind notability even if you disagree with the level of such notability GM25LIVE (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strikeKeep- The song was included in the artist's Greatest Hits compilation. Faithtour (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of the content in the article is based on non-RS blog postings. The song has some trivial coverage in reliable sources. Searching found nothing helpful. Fails WP:NSONG. What little there is that has a RS can easily be added to the album article. Gab4gab (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patience (George Michael album). Nothing inherently notable about this song to warrant its own article. No significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strike Keep This song is significant enough to appear in three albums (one of them is a greatest hits compilation) and its the opening track of a live album. Even so I believe the song has been covered and played during concert tours. I can see from the references that it has enough coverage from reliable sources to establish its notability. ChargerHellcat (talk) 11:42, 27 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 redirected to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials by the AfD nominator (non-admin closure). clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures writers

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

Redundant article. All information already covered at List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 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. joe decker ^talk 15:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebery Park Baptist Church

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

Fails WP:NONPROFIT. No evidence this church meets notability guidelines. APK whisper in my ear 11:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 11:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 11:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find some passing book mentions, but only passing mention, and that's pretty much it. If it is notable, it may be in print sources that aren't easily accessible, since the church is almost 130 years old. Unfortunately for the author, in situations like that, the onus is largely on the author to know enough about the subject to be able to find those sources and demonstrate notability. TimothyJosephWood 18:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Delete - I wouldn't be surprised if such a historic church didn't have some good sources, but I don't find them in a quick search. If someone else can point some out, I'd change my vote. Also, the main editor of the page, User:REVSAB, has a very similar user name to the name of the current pastor, Reverend Seidel Abel Boanerges.Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like others my searches found nothing helpful to notability. Nothing in the article or sources hint at likely significant coverage. I admit to not seeing or reading the 68 page book referenced in the article. I assume it is not an independent reliable source. Gab4gab (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My Google search only points to pages regarding events at the church, pages about the church on social media and media publishing websites, books about churches mentioning the church in passing, and pages about the church on travel sites. Nothing that points to notability. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find WP:RSes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 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 00:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MoonMail

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

PROD removed without explanation and references are provided which are mostly blogs that clearly fail GNG and NSOFT. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited sources fail to demonstrate notability. Alexius08 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:01, 25 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blac Youngsta

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO; passes WP:NOTNEWS and WP:E=N. One song, Coordinate, entered a "bubbling under" chart. Trivial paragraph-long mentions in industry sources and on gossip websites, where these secondary sources mostly discuss his feuds, his arrest, or not tipping his strippers.[23] About Blac Youngsta, Uproxx wrote: "For lesser known artist like Blac Youngsta, the stunts can raise them to a certain level of prominence, but ultimately they’re known more for those same stunts and their social media chicanery than any actual music they release".[24] Magnolia677 (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 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 keep. czar 06:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finland men's national inline hockey team

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

Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 11:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep National team that competes at World Championships deemed notable. Nomination, as 18bruce said, is in bad faith and patently false in places. Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See afd discussion for the women's team. Since the men compete in competitions that have been recently deemed notable in AFD, that the women do not have an equivalent for, it seems a foregone conclusion. Additionally, saying that "Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left," is untrue and should be either stricken out or completely ignored as irrelevent anyway. Thirteen articles is hardly a "swath", and some of them have been proven as a "keep" in AFD already.18abruce (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama and 18abruce; as stated above this nomination is full of errors. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above. National teams are notable especially as this one competes at the world championships. And as pointed out in a number of other nominations. WP:SPORTCRIT doesn't apply to teams which is says so explicitly. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm-Bruteforcer

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

The article cites no sources at all, and I can find no evidence anywhere that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Note: I proposed deletion via WP:PROD, and the creator of the article removed the PROD tag. Another editor then put another PROD tag on the article, contrary to policy, so I have removed it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. (I was the erroneous 2nd prodder.) Υπογράφω (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vigilant Christian

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

There appears not to be substantial coverage of this person in reliable sources. There are a number of references to him, including the two given in the article, regarding a theory about Usain Bolt. In one of the supplied sources, he's one of a number of people mentioned as espousing the theory. If anything, this might mean that the theory is notable, but not The Vigilant Christian, since the articles carry no appreciable information about him. Largoplazo (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references cited mention "The Vigilant Christian", but are not substantial coverage of him. Searching for more sources, I found Youtube, Facebook, The Vigilant Christian's own web site, a couple of open wikis, blogs, Twitter, etc, but nothing that could possibly be regarded as significant coverage in any reliable independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources that mention him are mostly non-reliable (blogs etc.) and there is not sufficient mention in reliable sources to show notability. Sjö (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the notability issues, there is also Draft:The Vigilant Christian. Delete this stub version and the author can work on the draft version. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commment The histories seem to show that on 20 January this article tagged for speedy delete due to lack of context, moved to draft & the speedy removed, edited a few hours and then dropped on main space again. Moving to draft is helpful to allow context to be established. Leaving it in draft if the subject is not notable not so much. Gab4gab (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from what Gab4gab says, moving an article to draft space is even more unhelpful when the creator of the original article re-creates it in draft space, making a history merge necessary, and that history merge is complicated by the fact that another copy of the page has meanwhile been deleted, and one or more editors have edited the draft while the new version of the article exists. I think and hope I have correctly merged the histories, leaving out edits which don't belong there, but it was quite a job, and required individually checking each edit to see where it originated. Moving an article to draft space can sometimes be very helpful, but it can also create problems in situations like this, and if the article is never likely to be acceptable because the subject is not notable, there is nothing to gain from draftifying, and a lot to lose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I moved this to draft for the editor initially and they started working on the draft. The draft version used unverifiable and unreliable sources. As it stands currently, the article should be deleted for failing WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. -- Dane ^talk 20:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the editor who removed a significant portion of this article's contents as it was quite unreliably sourced. The only line remaining after my editing was one line, which was honestly the only line I could reliably source. This should be deleted, but with no prejudice against an early recreation, purely because the probability of this entertainer (if you may) coming up to be covered by reliable sources is quite high, given the coverage he seems to be getting for his somewhat nonsensical and unusually worded spiels. Lourdes 05:24, 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 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Burvine

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

Does not even remotely meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Softlavender (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First novel self-published only last year, no sign of significant coverage in independent RS. Too soon (if ever). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:43, 27 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 00:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Rules Rec Footy competitions

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Article doesn't even mention competitions, just a long (lowly sourced) list of Australian cities and venues where this fringe version of Australian Rules Football is played, none of the teams have any notability WP:NOTINHERETED. Does not pass WP:SPORTSEVENT Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 09:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not get it? As per above, it is NOT a list of competitions or leagues but a list of localities/suburbs. AGF here - the intent is good I think. If it was a list of links to articles about each competition and/or each league, then it would be good. (Perhaps the author needs this as checklist in their sandbox to work through creating articles for each comp?) (Is it even list cruft if it is a list of things it is not?) Aoziwe (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, I think the sport itself should be deleted. It does not look to be notable itself. 2604:2000:E016:A700:8959:3287:294:C516 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the article was made in good faith as a split from Rec footy per the edit summary in the creating edit, however, it appears to be misguided as far as I know there aren't any leagues for the sport but rather just played locally. Flickerd (talk) 08:02, 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 was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Rogers

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

Article about a businessman who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The achievements listed in the article are minor, and all the sources are either primary, or mentions in local papers. There is a declared COI by one of the main contributors, and strong reason to believe that the article's creator also has a COI. bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All non-bot contributors to the article (well, except for me) have now been blocked as sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vineetpl7. --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given by what this article has and then the multiple accounts circulating, and both violate our policies. SwisterTwister talk 16:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 25 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. WP:SK #1 joe decker ^talk 15:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McAuslan

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

Cricketer who has not played a first-class, List A or T20 match, so failing WP:NCRIC. Article was prodded, but removed, although the article was earlier deleted (via prod) this month for the same reasons. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON it is not realistic to assume he will ever play at major level: the tournament mentioned in the article has now finished and he did not play at all. St Anselm (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ODI debut mentioned below. St Anselm (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCRIC.srini (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in as per recent developments.--srini (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck. Agree with Lugnuts though. Creators should ensure the bio articles meet the criteria for inclusion. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW - Made his ODI debut today. However I warned the article creator not to make biographies before someone meets the notability requirements. for info: @StAnselm:, @Srinivasprabhu933:, @Ianblair23:. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As there are delete !votes, this can't be closed as withdrawn, though I assume that in light of this change, @Srinivasprabhu933: and @Ianblair23: will accordingly change their !votes. Harrias ^talk 12:05, 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 redirect to Raised Fist#Discography. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel (Raised Fist album)

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

Aside from a brief review in punknews.org, I could not find any significant coverage on this album. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this allmusic article. No review there, just the track list and Raised Fist the only mention in credits. Looked at the punknews review also. It's written by a user who has written a total of two reviews. Nothing else found in searches. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Fails WP:NALBUM. Gab4gab (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Raised Fist#Discography. Redirect albums to parent bands uncontroversially before coming to AfD and spare some bureaucratic time czar 07:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silver-side (wolf)

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

For starters it's an article about a word, which is discouraged per WP:NOTDIC. It's non-notable, because I can't find any source for the word in English or Celtic except the link to a promotional website. It's possible that the article is created as a hoax or to promote SilverSide Headwear. Sjö (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article, no independent sources. Probably a hoax. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only mention is from a source that I removed already as being unreliable and promotional and has been tacked back on again possibly by a WP:COI editor trying to promote their company. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now there's an actual WP:NOTDIC case for once. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIC, WP:HOAX or WP:REFSPAM: take your pick — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:42, 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 no consensus. With no new comments after a second relist, I doubt there will be more discussion after another relist, so the discussion ends, again, with no consensus to delete. Although currently there is no redirect target, this result does not bar anyone from merging the content to the article about the work, so this might be considered instead of renominating the article for deletion again. So Why 17:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Deenanath Chauhan

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

Non-notable character. Tagged for various issues since 4+ years. Fails WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agneepath. ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:58, 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 02:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agneepath is a disambiguation page and it no where mentions or should mention "Vijay Deenanath Chauhan". That redirect would be useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A poor redirect does not serve the project nor its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST and WP:NTEMP as being discussed in multiple Indian media. Per WP:INDAFD: "Vijay Deenanath Chauhan" The first result is a 20 minute 2011 NDTV video article about how "Vijay Deenanath Chauhan still rules the hearts" and relating the character's background and evolution summarizing that "1990's Agneepath was memorable for its central character, a man who embraced a world of anger. 17 years after Zanjeer, Amitabh Bachchan proved the Angry Young Man could still leave moviegoers spellbound". Needs translation, but perhaps through available multiple sources, commentary, and analysis this character article this is savable per searches showing that the NDTV coverage above is supported by further character discussions and comparisons in (for instance) Daily News & Analysis India Today Indian Express Bollywood Life Times of IndiaLoksatta (Marathi) Navbharat Times (Marathi) Navshatki (Marathi) and others. Article needs work, not deletion. And sorry nominator, but surmountable issues of WP:UGLY and WP:NOEFFORT are poor deletion rationales. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently is plot of both films and nothing else. Yes am aware that we have no time limits, but in that case I would suggest the article be removed from main space into a draft space for editors to work on. Your collection of links is not very impressive one; for example Loksatta (Marathi) link is about a certain Vijay Yashwant Vilhekar, not our character. Times of India taglink gives results of Vijay (actor), Vijay Rupani, Vijay Sampla, Vijay Bahuguna, Vijay Kumar, Vijay Goel and so many other Vijays but not our character. Apart from all that; please note that the name "Vijay Deenanath Chauhan" will be in many references on google, but that does not mean they all are writing considerabley anything about the character. for example "AB played VDC" will be in many refs and such google hits ~~dumblist~~ dumplist is useless to gauge notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:53, 18 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) 05:19, 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 Odd Future. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left Brain

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable sources. Most sources primarily discuss Odd Future, with passing mention to Left Brain as a member or former member. The sources cited in the article are all lyrics databases. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Odd Future - not notable on its own. Karst (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:43, 16 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) 05:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. In fact, I fail to see why the nominator was not simply bold and did so already. Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 25 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. joe decker ^talk 15:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salomon Juan Marcos Villarreal

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

Non-notable businessman who does not meet WP:BIO. The only coverage I can find relates to unresolved criminal charges bought against him: [25] [26] but obviously these are neither sufficient for demonstrating notability, nor suitable as sources. The article had been rewritten by a socking, undisclosed paid editor, but that version also does not contain any sources to indicate notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- concur with nom; no indications of notability or significance. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 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) 05:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--not notable, nothing found to establish notability ABF99 (talk) 05:39, 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. czar 07:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VivaNeo

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

Fails WP:GNG, promotional. Kleuske (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing Encyclopedic here. Written like a company profile. Only intend to promote this company and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 05:06, 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) 05:17, 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. czar 07:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Party of Kurdistan

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

Nothing but a list of the party goals. WP:NOTWEBHOST Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (was "keep"). Deletion nomination does not state a valid reason for deletion. Tag the article for expansion, or expand it yourself, if you don't like it being so short. --doncram 04:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doncram: I'm pretty sure WP:NOTWEBHOST is a valid reason.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zackmann08: The GPK has its own website. The article exist to inform those seeking info about an organization in a rapidly evolving political landscape in a region in flux. I don't see WP:NOTWEBHOST as relevant. Bcharles (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there aren't sources to show that its a notable party. They didn't place at Iraqi Kurdistan parliamentary election, 2013 either. ValarianB (talk) 16:15, 13 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) 05:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No candidates = no political party. A social club. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacknstock Being a political party is not required to be notable. Many political parties focus on political issues instead of on candidates. Bcharles (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is notable organization. The article includes some background, sources, an infobox, and a navebox for context. The language barrier may slow the evolution of the article, but this stub is a good foundation. Bcharles (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but how good an article looks and how nice it is to navigate it are not reasons to keep an article. For the sources, there areseveral press releases, a link to a discussion forum, and a link to the party's own website. None of these are enough to meet notability guides. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my support due to the weakness of the sources, and lack of evidence of activities. Bcharles (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Bcharles. It's notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC) DELETE per Editor B and WP:ONEDAY. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Me-123567-Me: And per ValarianB that argument it totally invalid. As a self-proclaimed member of the green party (it is plastered all over your user page), you have a clear WP:COI. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am neither a paid editor nor am I involved with this party. Supporting -a- green Party != COI. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't quite bring myself to a conclusion, but wanted to share this feedback from a colleague who is also a longtime scholar of political movements in general and Greens in particular. His opinion: 'I may be wrong but don't think there is any "Green Party of Kurdistan"as an actual functioning party or political movement, though a few people may have started a club by that name. I've been reading a lot on Kurdish issues and no such party is ever mentioned when parties are discussed' (via private email) Editor B (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Editor B. J 947 03:32, 27 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 delete, minding low participation.) czar 07:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norikiyo

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

Fails WP:BAND. Just not notable as yet. Discogs reports 1 album in 2015 and a number of EPs. scope_creep (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 13 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) 05:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship Division I

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

Lacking secondary sources to establish notability. All sources are primary. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:33, 16 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) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I like the explanations of the qualification process spelled out in its own article such as this, especially given how much attention Australia and New Zealand pay attention to these levels. Given the number of ice hockey players who participate it probably should be listed there as well.18abruce (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifications for world championships are generally considered notable if the championships themselves are, which contrary to nominator's bad faith nominations, they clearly are. Not only that, this is part of the championship itself, much like the lower divisions in the Ice Hockey World Championship. As such, clearly notable and nomination is disruptive. Smartyllama (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Shawn in Montreal said, There is no free pass any pro team being inherently notable. Stop attacking my motives and saying my nominations are in bad faith or disruptive. I am following the rules and policy. You are routinely not WP:AGF. Discuss the article on its merits, not my personal motives. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed there was a free pass, just said they are for the most part notable. Generally you would have to go out of your way to find a professional sports team that didn't meet GNG. I can find sources for lowest of levels of amateur sports, nevermind the top leagues of a professional one. Secondly, this nom isn't about pro teams. It is about World Championships. The things, which generally are considered to give the athletes that play in them notability which pretty much indicates that the championships themselves must be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smartyllama's comments on the article's merits. Lepricavark (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smartyllama summed it up pretty well. World Championships are notable and sources are very easy to find. It is ok to admit you got a bit over zealous Zackmann. It happens. -DJSasso (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllamana and DJSasso, and this comment, which makes it clear that the nominator doesn't even know what the subject of this article is. As DJSasso said, this is not a pro team, and World Championships are notable. Please slow down and read the articles first before opening up any more future AfD's. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:53, 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 merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. In the future, I recommend discussing specific, non-local, reliable sources in arguments to "keep" articles on similar organizations. czar 07:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Green Party

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations, as tagged since December 2015. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No candidates, not listed on directories of NC political parties. At this stage, a social club asking for donations. Possibly too soon. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I totally disagree term "social club asking for donations" by Jacknstock. They ran a write in campaign for Cynthia McKinney. Also in 2000, former party chairman Doug Stuber ran Ralph Nader's Green Party presidential campaign. Then there's the Jill Stein connection. Hardly a social club! Karl Twist (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every source says Jill Stein was not on the ballot in NC. As I said, this club ran no candidates. You're just name-dropping, and the notable people you list seem to not even be members of this club. Even if they were, WP:INHERITORG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable organization. Many notable aspects. Karl Twist (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Twist: "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments" AusLondonder (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to AusLondonder. I know that AusLondonder. That's why I said many notable aspects as per my findings. I did a couple of quick edits as I was rushed but what I found in my searches about the party were enough to satisfy me that this is a notable political party and therefore worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep established political party that is party of established national party. Multiple independent sources cover organization and actions of group going back over a decade.--TM 11:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Fails WP:ORG. Suggest merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly this political party faces challenges regarding ballot access, but they are an active state party of the national GPUS. Also Jill Stein was the only recognized write-in candidate in NC in 2106. --Editor B (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although currently a stub, this meets notability as a state affiliate of the fourth largest US political party. It has run organized ballot access drives and lawsuits. It has engaged in coordinated write-in campaigns. It has had members prominently involved in the 2000 and 2016 presidential campaigns, as well as currently serving on the national GP Steering Committee. Bcharles (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON Party has not been on the ballot; neither has it been covered in WP:RS. Most of the references are self-sourcing, the only "newspaper" is The Daily Tar Heel, an undergrad newspaper, insufficient to support notability. It is one of only 7 hits in a g-News search [27], 2 of which are mere event listings, the others discusses this party only as one of a group of parties trying to get on the ballot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE or WP:ORGDEPTH. Being a state affiliate of a micro party is not a credible reason to claim a freebie inclusion AusLondonder (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of state Green Parties in the United States. I don't see any in-depth, secondary sources on the subject, and the "keep" voters don't provide any. Neutrality^talk 15:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - US state green parties are notable as evidenced by this deletion discussion which ended in Speedy Keep. J 947 03:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Allen Miller

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

Self-created article, subject does not meet WP:NACADEMICS or WP:NAUTHOR. PROD removed by a second author whose editing also suggests a WP:COI Melcous (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and article has nothing about the subject other than his occupation, his work, and the fact that he obtained a PhD. Also the self-creator added himself to the page of John_Archibald_Wheeler in the Doctoral students section. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The parts that matter are not sourced at all. Alexius08 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious conflict of interest in the form of an autobiography, PhD and the fact that his research is being archived does not mean notability. No secondary or tertiary sources. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 03:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation counts from his Google scholar profile [28] should not be taken at face value as they appear to include works not by the subject (e.g. Giles 1970 and Fisher 1991, both of which are counted by GS towards Miller's h-index). And as I look more carefully through them, I see that the highest-cited paper lists him in the middle of an alphabetical set of an enormous number of authors from over 100 institutions, and the highest-cited paper on which he is first author only has 55 cites. That's not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and his position as department chair at FAU is also not high enough to pass that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication the subject passes WP:PROF or the GNG. – Joe (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KLY (singer)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the artist being discussed in reliable sources. A single review of the artist's EP isn't enough to warrant stand-alone notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searching found no additional RS. Gab4gab (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:10, 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 merge to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibots

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

This doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Autobots. Poorly sourced and nowhere near notable enough to warrant an individual article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Autobots. I agree with 69, he is very smart. Longevitydude (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Autobots. Wikipedia is not Wikia or an external wiki about any franchise in particular. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 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 nomination withdrawn Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SFL Bremerhaven

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Football club that does not meet WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's on the 6th tier of German soccer, but I guess that's about the same level or better than a lot of the US soccer teams that have articles on Wikipedia. They get good regional press (in German), based on my quick search. I'm leaning towards keep. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in the 3rd-tier Oberliga Nord in the de:Fußball-Oberliga Nord 1988/89 season. Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that playing in that division generated significant coverage for the club? The SNG WP:FOOTYN only covers clubs that have played in the national cup, which this club has not done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely assume that the highest level of non-professional football in Germany, would have received media coverage in those pre-Internet days. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside that notability requires verifiable evidence, with the Oberliga divided into five divisions of 18 clubs each in those days, I doubt the clubs at the lower end the of the table received much attention. This is born out by the fact that across the three versions of the article that exist (English, German, Spanish) only one independent, reliable source is cited, namely, Hardy Grüne in the German version. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say playing in the German 3rd division is notable enough. Giant Snowman 20:50, 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. czar 07:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Doronin

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

Non-notable person. The corresponding article in Russian Wikipedia was deleted in May 2009 per this discussion: ru:Википедия:К удалению/6 апреля 2009#Доронин, Сергей Иванович. XXN, 00:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing even stands out in the article in terms of WP:PROF, much less a decent Google search for sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, does not meet GNG or PROF. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A GS h-index of 11 (for S I Doronin) is not enough to pass WP:Prof in the quite well-cited field of quantum information. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unsourced and promotional in tone. For instance, "Many scientists and science popularizers..." followed by shameless name-dropping. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too low citations on Google scholar, in a high-citation field, to pass WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the lack of notability, the bulk of the article and what little I can find about his work online is pseudoscientific nonsense, a concern that was also expressed in the ru-wiki AfD. – Joe (talk) 15:18, 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 delete. czar 07:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Lustrissimi

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

There is only one article covering this individual once social media sites are excluded. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY, and specifically WP:BIO, and provides no sources. Additionally, the WP article is written entirely in Italian. Mind matrix 00:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion, we are on en.wiki and the article is written entirely in Italian!--Pampuco (talk) 16:10, 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 speedy keep. as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gath (magazine)

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

No reliable independent sources showing notability. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination says that there are "no reliable independent sources", but does not explain how WP:BEFORE D1 was performed. Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Thank you for pointing that out. A targeted Google search would have been sufficient to establish notability. In any event, I've listed plenty of sources on the page. Alázhlis (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this is a real magazine. The article doesn't make it clear whether this was one issue, several, or published continuously since 2003. A look at the library catalog seems to indicate continuous publication since 2003. If so, that would be a keep for me. I'd like to see an article with more details, such as themes, notable writers and photographers who have contributed, readership/distribution numbers. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more information to the article. As you can see, a number of notable authors did publish in the magazine and it was a continuing publication. Alázhlis (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every aspect of the nomination is entirely unsatisfactory. Thincat (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the nominator has been blocked as a "sockpuppet" five minutes before this article was nominated for deletion. Not sure how this affects this discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

@Ottawahitech: As I'm seeing it the block was 55 minutes after the nomination, and it was the first block, and not as a puppet. However, I'd suggest this be closed as Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#1 as "no argument for deletion". Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second the motion for Speedy Keep if I'm allowed to do so. Thanks for the support! Alázhlis (talk) 02:25, 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 delete. czar 07:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blink man

Comment - Trying to create deletion discussion page.

Delete as "nom" This page references both wikipedia articles (added by creators), a reddit post, etc. Reads like an Urban Dictionary page. JerrySa1 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:NOTE Fbifriday (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 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.

^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/rehan-yar-khans-fund-raising-marks-new-beginning-for-vcs/articleshow/40959170.cms

[1] ttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/rehan-yar-khans-fund-raising-marks-new-beginning-for-vcs/articleshow/40959170.cms

[1]