Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 January	25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Eusébio Cup[edit]

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

Series of Eusebio Cup 20YY, which add no value to the main Eusébio Cup page. The additional information here falls under WP:CRUFT. Merge not appropriate as all relevant info can already be found there. Besteirense (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Besteirense (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - The sub articles are not notable in any way on their own from the hits I could find online. I think the creators presume notability can be inherited from Eusébio Cup which is not the case as far as Wikipedia policy is involved. Xaxing (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Non-notable friendly competition. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Spiderone 20:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - just a friendly with a name. Justifies an article of rhte overall event but all relevant info is on that page Crowsus (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, plus SALT the 2017 expected entry. Lourdes 19:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Raymond[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. No awards or multiple nominations. A few biographies in small local newspapers. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, she's only been nominated once for a Canadian Screen Award, the top screen acting prize in Canada, so that general criteria isn't reached. But in Entertainers:

- "significant roles in multiple notable... televisions shows": While she plays the same character in both series, both have international broadcasters, including BBC station CBBC. The Next Step is in its fourth season, with 125 episodes. Often children's series get 65 episodes, the "magic number" for syndication, so any series with more can be considered very commercially-viable.
- "large fan base": 348k followers on Instagram, the best barometer of fan base for youth celebrities. The global following is large enough that she has a biography on the Spanish Wikipedia.
- "has made... prolific... contributions to a field of entertainment": to have appeared in 131 episodes of scripted TV series in the first four years of your career is a substantial rate. I'm just discovering, through the news link at the top of this nomination, that she has performed live in New Zealand and in Scotland.

As per "small local newspapers", The Brampton Guardian has a circulation of 116k or 129k, depending on the day of the week, according to 2015 audited circulation figures. Brampton itself is the 9th largest municipality in Canada. -- Zanimum (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The (old) weekly combined stat, 345,000 copies, is in the article, in the infobox. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realizing that your comment refers to the whole argument. Yes, those don't appear in the article, yet. But that's something that could have been requested using {{Notability|date=January 2017}}. Yes, there's lots of spam on Wikipedia, but editors should act on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty, not the opposite. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim of notability is "notable because media coverage exists ergo WP:GNG", then it takes daily newspapers, not community weeklies regardless of the community's size, for that claim to actually be satisfied — The Brampton Guardian could be used as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after GNG had already been satisfied by stronger sourcing, but it cannot bring the GNG in and of itself as an article's only source. That said, there is a valid notability claim here, but the Brampton Guardian article has nothing to do with it. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard of the frequency of a media outlet coming into play. Where would I read more about this determinant? Brampton used to have a paid daily (The Conservator), but it was largely supplemented with wire stories. While the Guardian has shrunk since then, the number of local stories in both were roughly the same, just more spread out amongst the dailies. Given the state of local media as a whole in North America, a dailies-only policy is worrisome. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for reference improvement. For the record, it is not necessary for an entertainer to have multiple nominations for an entertainment award before being nominated for an entertainment award counts as a claim of notability — one nomination is enough if properly sourced. The word "multiple" only becomes relevant to WP:ENT if the notability claim amounts to "notable because she's been in stuff", in which case we do require multiple stuffs — but it is not relevant if the notability claim is "notable because she's been nominated for a top-level award in her field", in which case one nomination is enough so long as it's properly sourced. And, for that matter, even if a person did require "multiple" nominations to qualify as notable because nominations, she does have multiple nominations: for some reason Zanimum just mentioned her nomination at the 5th Canadian Screen Awards in 2017, while missing the fact that she was nominated in the same category at the 3rd Canadian Screen Awards in 2015 as well. So even if notability because award nominations did require multiple nominations, she has multiple nominations.
I grant that the original reference for her 2017 nomination was problematic, and not even just because it's a community weekly newspaper and not a major market daily — it's also an article that merely happens to glancingly namecheck Brittany Raymond's existence in a "other local actors who also got nominations" coda to an article whose primary subject is Simu Liu, not an article that's even remotely about Brittany Raymond. I've replaced that source with a more appropriate one, and added a couple of other sources as well — it still needs more sources before it can get a quality class promotion to good article status, so it should still be flagged for referencing improvement, but the base notability claim is now properly covered off. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find myself generally writing tldr notes at Afds justifying my !votes. But what Bearcat writes is absolutely perfect. I couldn't have written better (or less). Keep it is, with advise for improvements to the article. Lourdes 19:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Lynn[edit]

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

A biography of a living person that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS sources not found. Article currently cited to directory listings, industry publicity materials, social media and similar sources unsuitable for establishing notability. Does not meet PORNBIO as the award listed is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this BLP nightmare. Sourcing is not only unsuitable for establishing notability, but it is also unsuitable for supporting the article's content. With a real name connected by film database entries of dubious reliability we go on to post-porn content (some of which is derogatory) entirely based on self-published sources. In-porn content isn't much better with an extraordinary claim supported by promotional porn press. Even if we count AVN as a reliable source, it's not enough for WP:BASIC. Independent searches find only trivial coverage. The minor award win is not sufficient to satisfy PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the others. I deleted some egregious BLP violations based on original research, using an unreliable source to establish a "real name" and then finding all sources that use that real name to establish biographical information. This was an impermissable synthesis and invasion of privacy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sound analyses of nom and MT. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:29, 31 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) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eve minor[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNC. XXN Dan Koehl (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF? Is she an academic? Is she from Ghana? WP:GNC = WP:GNG I assume. --Closeapple (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person and article is promotional fluff. I am unable to find any references to her in reliable sources, though she is on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable; WP:NOTPROMO. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wallace-Murphy[edit]

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

Promotional piece about a non-notable, largely self-published author of Knights Templar pseudo-documentaries. Article was created by Jordan.williams, and the image (File:Tim Wallace-Murphy.jpg) was uploaded to Commons by as user who identified themselves as [[User:Jordan.williams|DMA Europa]] DMA Europa is a marketing firm. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PR-cruft. Non-notable author. The majority of books are self-published, others were published by a firm that specialized in conspiracy theories. No reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some evidence to show that he is at least somewhat well thought of in his field, as he was interviewed in the History Channel's The Templar Code and quoted here. Of course neither of these are things that would help him pass notability criteria for academics, which is difficult for most to pass but especially for anyone that's even remotely fringe. I'll check some of the academic databases to see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found some trades reviews and one from a media outlet, but I'm just kind of unsure that these are enough, given that trade reviews tend to be a weaker source than a fuller review. They're still technically usable, but just barely. If it is decided that it's enough, the article will need to be substantially edited to remove the uncited details. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fringe writer who promulgates nonsense. Neither the History Channel nor the Daily Star are reliable sources. Both are disinformation operations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure promotion, non-notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Miniapolis 23:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least, assuming no better sources are turned up than those currently sourcing the article or which TG turned up. Being an author of fringe notions does not in itself disqualify a person from being notable in-and-of-themselves (we have an article on L. Ron Hubbard, don't we?) But in this instance we have no sources which discuss Wallace-Murphy as a topic himself, and the handful of reviews we have of his work are insufficient to impute notability arising from the impact/coverage of those works. The thing is, if there's some truth to the (clearly promotional) bio, there may be sourcing out there, so I tend to agree with TG that this is a borderline case. Still, on the basis of what I've seen so far, and what I've found myself, I have to come down on the side of delete unless superior sourcing is located. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can assure you that this is personal work, and I am not being commissioned for it in anyway. I do work for DMA Europa, but I am a website developer. If you also look at the link to the site that User WikiDan61 linked above, you can see that all the clients of DMA Europa are industrial companies, working in water treatment plants, car manufacturing ect. We have never done any PR work for Authors or Media. In regards to the sources, he has appeared on BBC news programs but this predates the internet becoming a giant source of information. He has also worked with notable academics in the field. This is my first Wikipedia entry, so I appreciate all the comments that people have left, both positive and negative, as they are helping me learn and grow as an editor. If anyone can tell me with a solution with the sources problem, be it contact said academics and get them to post about Wallace-Murphy or anything like that, I can try and get in contact to make this possible. In the meantime, I will continue to look for credible sources to reference to and hope to overcome any issues regarding this article. Jordan.williams (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for being fringe, but for not passing our guidelines for authors or academics. Also, likely promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anastassija Makarenko[edit]

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

Unproven notability. Does not meet WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL. XXN, 21:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources online prove her notability. The appearance in the film mentioned is a one time event and she didn't have a significant on the movie thus no mention in other sources. Kansiime (chat) 23:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficiently notable in own right with no reliable sources found for significant appearances as actor or model. The fact that she is associated with Mickey Rourke does not confer notability WP:INVALIDBIO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure; perhaps redirect to Mickey Rourke where the subject is mentioned; she is a long-term (relatively) girlfriend of the celebrity 2010 People article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic Nation[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Unable to find sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH and the few I did find were simple listings in business publications about franchise opportunities. URL to the website is a parked domain so company likely defunct. CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. After some searches, I only found one source that provides significant coverage, and the coverage in the source is a bit promotional. More source coverage is needed to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 31 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 Smallpox#Eradication. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccinov[edit]

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

Does not look like an encyclopedic article; there is no potential to expand this article. XXN, 20:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. This man is noteworthy for a single event, being the first person to receive vaccination against smallpox in Russia. I can find nothing about him online, and the only reference in the article is dead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Smallpox § Eradication, where I have added a mention of this within that article's section (verified with a reliable source). A valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The topic undoubtedly meets WP:NPOL and there is no need for this to stay open. Moving the article to Kamalkishor_Kadam after the closure. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 04:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Kamalkishor Kadam[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by an anon with the following rationale "ontest deletion - clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN". I disagree. Education Minister of the Maharashtra (a subdivision of India, see also Government of Maharashtra), is borderline. Yes, we see "Politicians... who have held... sub-national (statewide/provincewide) offices as notable", but is a minister in such a sub-national government notable just due to the virtue of position without any other sources? Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:V (see sources here and here) and WP:NPOL. Should be renamed to Kamalkishor Kadam as "Shri" is a polite form of address, similar to Mr, which we do not use on Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:NPOL. ^[1] Education Ministry in a State Govt is a notable position. It is possible that there are marathi sources / newspapers for the subject and his work. Those can be added and the article be expanded. I agree the "Shri" should be removed. ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: WP:NPOL gives notability to "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" irrespective of the size of legislature or whether they actually held any ministry or not. The un-sourced nature of the article has been addressed. He seems to appear in various other controversies too; like he and his son accepting money from students who have not even appeared for exams to allot them a seat in colleges his trust runs. But these all reports seem PRIMARY to me and hence have not included them in the article. And yes, move to Kamalkishor Kadam. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dharmadhyaksha: If the said reports are media (newspaper) articles, they are secondary and can be included. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of that, are you withdrawing the AfD now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.elections.in/maharashtra/assembly-constituencies/1980-election-results.html

Keep Notable Nationalist Congress Party leader and has been a minister in the Indian state of Maharashtra clearly passes WP:NPOL. FITINDIA (talk) 11:02, 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 Mining. Per nominator. Can be retargeted as anybody knowledgeable in the field sees fit. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metal/nonmetal mining[edit]

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

Should be submitted to article Mining Dan Koehl (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems just like a neologism fork of mining. Or otherwise non-notable term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, it's not even worth a redirect. It seems to be someone's needless prolix prefacing of mining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "metal/nonmetal mining" is an industry term; see this Google search. I understand in discussing this with my colleagues yesterday that it has its own issues distinct from other types of mining. The article does need to be expanded, I'll give you that. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's all non-coal mining? Is that the point, here? I still don't see a topic here. Mining includes all forms of mining. And this is an industry term for all mining, minus coal? At most, it might merit a mention in the main article, and a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Mine safety, and make a mention of this classification there. The term seems to be only used with occupational health and safety in mines, presumably due to a Mine Safety and Health Administration categorization. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 30 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) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circle research[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. References either come from unreliable sources or do not establish WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 30 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 Judas Priest#Ripper Owens (1996–2003). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jugulator Tour[edit]

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

I don't see any sources that would help this pass WP:NTOUR. As it is, fails GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judas Priest § Ripper Owens (1996–2003). Not finding much source coverage, and I added a mention of this at the redirect target article in this section. Worthy of a redirect as a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 31 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 Judas Priest#Ripper Owens (1996–2003). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition World Tour[edit]

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

I don't see any sources that would help this pass WP:NTOUR. As it is, fails GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judas Priest § Ripper Owens (1996–2003). Not finding much source coverage, and I added a mention of this at the redirect target article in this section. Worthy of a redirect as a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 31 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. Despite the addition of new sources, there seems to be an agreement that independent coverage still isn't sufficient. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

River Viiperi[edit]

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

I can't find anything of note in any respectable publication. There's a few articles but not significant coverage to warrant notability. There's one in attitude, but it's just really an excuse to post a load of photos of him. Nothing out of the ordinary for a fashion model. There's a few regarding his relationship with Paris Hilton but bumping uglies with a 2-bit celeb does not confer notability. The only way someone could justify this article is by proving the subject has a significant fanbase, but having just seen an old discussion where an entrepreneur (and shameless self-promoter) with 10x as many fb followers was 3D1K deleted, I don't think WP:BIO can be proven in their favour. I'm also far from convinced we meet WP:GNG here. Rayman60 (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's a well-known model who has appeared in many print ad campaigns for prestigious products, although he's possibly best known for a "leak" of "selfies", hence lots of unrespectible sources. I'll try to fix it. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found good cites for articles from the New York Times, Glamour, Out, etc. They are not all flattery. Three reliable sources from 2016 call him "supermodel" by name. I did not link to the leaked selfies, but they're easy enough to find (NSFW)! I note that he has 124,000 followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several articles in other languages, including Finnish and Spanish. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been significantly expanded with sources by Bearian since this AfD was relisted the first time. So Why 20:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nn. No significant coverage or any serious claims of notability whatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not much, the NYT mentions him once in passing in a single sentence. GQ coverage is not much better, it is one-two sentences, mostly a photoblog. Glamour Magazine just quotes him two or three times. He got on the cover of Attitude (magazine), which got few paragraphs of coverage in Out (magazine). So, at best, one decent source. Nope, fails GNG. Just someone doing their job. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus. As a aside, "test cases" should be PROD'd rather than sent to AfD. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 08:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette Square station[edit]

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

This is a test case for potential deletion of all of (or the majority of) the Buffalo Metro Rail articles (found at List of Buffalo Metro Rail stations). I don't believe this light rail station is notable, and there are no sources in the article to bolster any claim to notability. There's no question that the system as a whole is notable, but individual stations are rather run-of-the-mill. Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Powers ^T 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per very long standing consensus (see Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations). Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, User:Thryduulf, but what consensus? The section you link to is awkwardly written ("It may be considered that..."??) but it does explicitly say "For ... stations on metro, light rail, ... if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." (Emphasis mine.) That doesn't in any way imply that all rail stations are presumptively notable. On the contrary, it clearly points out that station articles must pass the GNG. Does this one? Powers ^T 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It means that it should not be deleted. If it passes the GNG then it should have an article, if it doesn't then it should be merged (and, implicitly, redirected) to the article about the line or system. This is why I prefixed my comment "keep or merge" not "keep". Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The information in the article is unsourced. What is there to merge? Powers ^T 17:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't have time to do anything myself right now, but "unsourced" does not equate to "unsourceable", but generally the following should be merged if not already covered by the target article: location, key dates (e.g. opening), previous names (if any), the line it's on, services, the area and/or attractions/facilities it serves, transport connections (or a summary of these if there are lots), any notable features or differences to other stations (architecture, facilities, only station with or without X, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:5P1 and our mission of providing information appropriate to an almanac. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Thryduulf. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus on these transportation-related articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What consensus? Where is it recorded? Powers ^T 03:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability guidelines state "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For ... stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." In this instance, there is sufficient material. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting assertion. Where is this attributable information? The article attributes no sources. Powers ^T 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again, "unsourced" and "unsourceable" are not the same. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm aware of that. But the fact that the article is unsourced means that the existence of sources can't be taken for granted. I should think it's incumbent on those of you claiming that there is attributable information to be salvaged to demonstrate that reliable sources exist. Powers ^T 18:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 29 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Russian Society[edit]

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

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

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

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was endorsed by User:Fayenatic london who wrote "I looked in Google books and found it mentioned only a couple of times in passing" and deprodded by User:J31ox with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). J31ox did add an academic reference ([1]) but I read it (pretty short) and it does not discuss the club except in passing; it only dedicates one sentence to the Club: "Last but not least, the minutes are an important source for the rich history of the Club which was a self governing student organization, whose regular meetings took place, for most of the time, every week in Full term"). I am afraid that this is still not enough to declare the club an organization that passes our notability requirements: could anyone find at least a paragraph on this organization that is not self-published? Did any scholar actually deem it important enough to publish more than one sentence about it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I gave earlier. The citation quoted only confirms existence, not notability. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the above mentioned source <ref>http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/sla.1999.5.2.17<ref> is in reality a seven page article from one of the most prestigious journals for slavonic studies in the English-speaking world with detailed references, not only mentioning the Oxford Russian Club and its affairs (in particular throughout the footnotes) but also titled "Nikolai Bakhtin and the Oxford Russian Club"! Furthermore, in the Wikipedia article's references one may find in addition a reference of a published newspaper article <ref>http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/05/02/russian-society-to-host-prince/<ref> with regards to an official visit of members of the British Royal Family to the Club, and yet another academic reference <ref>Frank, Siggy. Nabokov's Theatrical Imagination. p. 10.<ref> - this time from a published book - confirming that Vladimir Nabokov donated one of his plays (The Waltz Invention) to be staged for its international premiere by the Oxford University Russian Club in 1968. Both of those events are most certainly notable, and the reference provided is extensive. One cannot but stress out however the sheer disappointment caused when the person who seems to have suggested this article for deletion - yet again - seems to have copious amounts of free time to spare in nitpicking the references of a well-established and known student association with a long history, while another association - the Oxford University Polish Society - maintains an article which has not been proposed for deletion despite the fact that it does not have single reference (since the link it uses as one is actually not relevant and inappropriately used)! Whether this aberrant behaviour is the result of an accidental oversight or mistake, or it is derived from pure prejudice and pusillanimity is not for me to judge. It is for me however to kindly inform everyone that the article is properly referenced both by the Club itself and multiple third parties, and it adequately displays the notability of the organisation. User:J31ox 05:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Setting aside some bad faith personal attacks here, for which I would expect an apology and refactoring, I will point out that you still fail to show any source which covers the club in-depth (mention in a title or a sentence of two in a footnote is not sufficient). That notable people were part of the club is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Oxford Student is a niche/local publication of dubious notability itself, and it cannot confer notability on topics it discusses. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even though I have to admit that the honourable thing has been done, and the Polish Society has been suggested for deletion, I once more have to stress out that the argument against the Oxford University Russian Club is illogical, and seems to be based on nothing more than obstinance (since this is not the first time that the same person has suggested this article for deletion, despite the gradual adding of third party references in the last six months). In what appears to be an attempt to discredit the references of the article, "The Oxford Student" - one of the most successful student media outlets in the United Kingdom - has been proposed for deletion by the same editor. I will not loiter here by making an argument for the Oxford student on this discussion, but instead I will make clear that regardless of the media outlet in question and the false suggestion that it might not be notable enough, hosting members of the British Royal Family is a notable event on its own right (additional picture evidence of this visit can be found on the Club's website). In the same manner, hosting an international premiere of a play written by an author of international renown such as Vladimir Nabokov is an event of unquestionable notability; the reference of the specific event comes from a published book, and seems to have been somehow overlooked by those who suggest deletion. Finally, there seems to have been a suggestion that an organisation is not made notable by hosting notable people and/or having notable members, which is obviously nonsensical. What is it that makes the Bullingdon Club, or the Piers Gaveston Society notable enough to warrant myriads of news articles, encyclopaedia entries, or in the case of one of them even a film, other than the notability of their members? What makes the Oxford Union notable enough, if it is not the notability of the people it is hosting? The arguments provided here against the notability of the Club are clearly insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J31ox (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - I still don't see the "honorable" behavior like apology, or refactoring, or your part. Anyway, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. None of your other claims (ex. hosting members of the Royal Family) matters, such events do not confer notability unless they are noted by the other sources. We cannot make such arguments ourselves, it would be WP:OR. Wikipedia is not here to promote things that nobody else has deemed important enough to discuss in depth in reliable, independent sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The honourable behaviour was to correct oversights with regards to other articles, that unlike this one have little or no reference. I have clearly stated that this could be caused "either by an oversight or mistake, or by prejudice and pusillanimity". It was not me who at any occasion worded any personal attack or made a choice out of the two alternatives I offered. It was not me who attempted to delete the article of an undoubtedly notable media outlet within the University of Oxford, in what could also be seen either as a mistake - which, very much like the removal of this page, would cause great trouble to all those who research student life within the University of Oxford (and keeping in mind it is Oxford we are talking about this is not few) - or a deliberate attempt to discredit this very article's references. The fact however is that "The Oxford Student" is a notable and independent third-party source, that has clearly made a publication about the Club, as have two other independent authors listed in the article's references, amongst other unpublished records made by third parties and benefactors. What this whole point boils down to is that the logical argument is still not addressed; it is simply illogical to claim that it is not its notable guests and members that grant an organisation of the nature of the Club notability! User:J31ox 12:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      - @J31ox: Wikipedia guidelines on notability (see e.g. WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED) are very clear: notable guests and members are irrelevant to notability.
        You are a single-purpose editor (AFAICS, ~25 of your 37 contributions to Wikipedia are to this article or to this AFD), so it is unsurprising that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But unless and until there is a consensus to change those guidelines, your appeals to your own personal view of notability simply clutter the page and convey the impression that some editors associated with this society and/or Oxford University are trying to bludgeon Wikipedia into setting aside its content policies. This conduct is disruptive; please desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - My appeals are to logic purely; and I would not have been forced to make so many contributions in this discussion if it was not logic itself that some people seem to defy. I appreciate your recommendation with regards to policies and guidelines, but I would like to make sure you take into consideration all of the additional sources of this page which are not in any way related to the Club or the University. User:J31ox 13:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        The claim that you are appealing to logic might carry some plausibility if your purported logic was not based on an argument which has long been specifically excluded by Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
        This persistent disregard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines by Oxford-linked editors does nothing to bolster their case, and brings their university into disrepute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would have argued for "keep", but defender of article's personal attack on nominator suggests to me that something dodgy is going on with the article, so will refrain.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the best-cited societies at the University of Oxford and its founder is prominently featured on Wikipedia. User:BotmanJWPM —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- BotmanJWPM (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. clpo13_(talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BotmanJWPM: notability is not inherited, so the notability of its founder is irrelevant to this discussion. AS to citations, if you have evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources (which might establish that the topic meets WP:GNG), then please present it here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page is informative about the student society in Oxford. Ilyacambridge (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Ilyacambridge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Hmmm, WP:SPA who created Cambridge University Russian Society? Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it meets WP:GNG's requirement of substantive coverage. The sources cited are all articles with a different focus, but which give the society passing mention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. The nominator is an experienced, highly valued contributor at Wikipedia; we occasionally disagree at Articles for Deletion, but suggestions of prejudice are not appropriate. On the merits: I think The Oxford Student is a notable student newspaper; however, coverage in a student paper (notable or not) may be reliable for some purposes, but it generally won't convey notability on campus-based topics such as a student organization. Instead I would want to see better evidence that the Russian Club/Society has gotten substantive attention off campus for its activities. The Bakhtin article might have some relevant content, but I can see only the first page: what, and how much, does it say about the Club? Likewise, the Nabokov premiere is something the club can take pride in having produced, but is there anything in the coverage of that play that tells us more about the club? I looked at the GBooks version of Prince Felix's autobiography [2] but didn't find anything about this club that he is said to have founded. Is there anything else out there? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos: Please check my comment above, in which you'll see that I quote pretty much everything the Bakhtin article has to say about the club. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The OU Russian Society is one of the most active societies in Oxford University. Historical source or entity or personality is notable as long as it is documented and information is well-preserved. Russian Society has its records in the Oxford University Archives undoubtedly, moreover, it has its legal foundation in the form of constitution and Society's proceedings. The wikipedia page is crucial as long as there are student freshers of Russian nationality or those who are interested in Russian culture and history. The society is a binding element in building student community. The Oxford Student, I agree with previous comments, is not comparable to well-cited sources as the Financial Times or the Guardian. However, it is an important student venture many students are passionate about. The positions in its committee are highly competitive. Thus, the wiki page is important to make people familiar with what society options they may have in the University. Probably, some references on archives could be made.--Catarjina (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Catarjina — Catarjina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- One more comment- from wikipedia's notability guidelines: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. --Catarjina (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Catarjina — Catarjina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - @Catarjina: I see that only contributions you have made to Wikipedia are to this discussion. As such, you may not be as familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as more experienced editors. So you may not be aware that issues such as the legal status of the society, or whether students find it helpful, are irrelevant to the decision about whether to delete this article. Adding a paragraph about such irrelevancies simply clutters the discussion, and gives the strong impression that you are here solely to seek publicity for a club with which you may be associated, rather than to improve Wikipedia.
    I think you will find that more experienced editors are well aware of the notability guidelines, so selective quoting from them also adds nothing except further clutter. The crucial test here is WP:GNG, which I suggest you study. If you can produce evidence that the club has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (i.e. outside the university), then that would strengthen the case for keeping the article.
    However, your contribution of apparent insider knowledge of the society and defence of its worthiness give an impression that there may be some sort of organised campaign from the Society or University ... and such activities are always counter-productive at AFD discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would appear to me that people who seem to have an internal view of this association or to be involved with its administration, are dissuaded or actively discouraged from making their argument or defending themselves. I am sincerely hoping that I am wrong(!) User:J31ox 13:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      - See WP:COI; it's a pity that some Oxford people seem seem so oblivious to the concept of a conflict of interest.
        Oxford-linked editors are as welcome as anyone else to offer evidence related to applying the notability guidelines to this topic ... but they are most definitely not welcome to clutter up this page with WP:ILIKEIT demands that Wikipedia ignore its guidelines because of their personal connections to this topic. It is regrettable that a number of people apparently connected to this previously-reputable university are unwilling to accept the distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
      - I myself have offered evidence, from multiple sources which I believe to be sufficient; the discussion which followed between myself and other editors was a series contrasting arguments on whether the evidence given is of significance or not, and not clutter. Different independent individuals are responsible for their own comments and arguments, but I fail to see how any of them clutter the page. At last but not least, "a previously-reputable university"? Such a disreputable, sycophantic statement could only bring shame to this discussion. It is very unfortunate that an editor does not seem to understand that different individuals have every right to openly defend themselves and this article, whether they are related with the Club and the University or not. This is a Wikipedia article discussion Madame, not a closed court in the PRC(!) User:J31ox 14:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — J31ox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        J31ox, you posted in this section of the page to complain about my note to another editor that their contribution offered no evidence relevant to the notability guidelines, and you chose to complain about that.
        This is a discussion about applying the notability guidelines. Please stop disrupting it with arguments which are irrelevant to that decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for your comment. I have been involved in wikipedia related research and wiki-based project for some time, so I am aware of its policy and guidelines. However, thank you for mentioning useful links. My comment was not related to anyone in this discussion, so I feel upset of being attacked in this way. Oxford University German Society has not been reported for deletion, though they refer to themselves on their page. I hope that the committee members will see this discussion and will make relevant amendments on the page. Thus, this page is the matter of improvement, but not deletion.--Catarjina (talk) 17:52 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Catarjina — Catarjina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    - @Catarjina: If you don't want to be criticised for posting irrelevancies, the solution is to not post irrelevancies.
      As to other societies, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... but feel free to nominate another article for deletion if it fails WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University German Society. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Galatz ^Talk 20:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kalish[edit]

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

Kalish does not yet meet WP:NBASE until he actually plays in the World Baseball Classic. Content should be moved to Kansas City Royals minor league players until such time as Kalish actually satisfies WP:NBASE by participating in the WBC. I was bold and attempted to move the content there myself, but was reverted by the page creator, so this seems like the appropriate venue at this point. The page should not be deleted, however, but should be redirected and the content moved until such time as Kalish is independently notable. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominators rationale reads like it should be listed in Wikipedia:Articles for merging not an AfD, this should probably be closed and reopened as a merger. - Galatz ^Talk 20:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the page creator I did so based on WP:NBASE. Number 3 states playing in a game for a league or participating in a tournament. To me the distinction between playing and participating is there for a reason. If the intent was they had to actually play in the game then NBASE would say play in the WBC, but it does not. Therefore I make the argument that by being named to a roster he has done some level of participation in the tournament. His name is being used in the press and there could be other items which happen prior to March. Additionally this just seems like a silly nomination because even with his arguments he will be notable in 5.5 weeks, however I disagree and feel he meets them now. - Galatz ^Talk 20:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Galatz ^Talk 20:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On second thought, this nomination seems a bit WP:POINT-y and I'm going to withdraw it. Although I do feel he's not notable now, I think having this discussion only to recreate the article in a few weeks, is pointless. If Kalish gets hurt or something and misses the Classic, we can revisit this later. Am I allowed to close this discussion myself? Smartyllama (talk) 20:24, 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 Exeter College, Oxford. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adelphi (Exeter College, Oxford)[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability for organizations (WP:NORG). Reviewing admin decided we need a wider discussion, so here we go. I was unable to find any better sources. Can someone save it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITORG Seasider91 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, after cut back, to Exeter College, Oxford. It is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to Exeter College, Oxford. Anything encyclopaedic can be added to an Adelphi Wine Club section. CalzGuy (talk) 20:58, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem of the Media[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable subject, cant find any references except amazon listings, etc, nothing suggests that it was discussed even narrowly by much of anyone. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reviews, nor awards. Fails WP:NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found 3 reviews of the book in major peer-reviewed journals:

Atkinson, J. (2008). Robert W. McChesney. The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004, 367 pp., ISBN 1583671056 (paperback). Mass Communication & Society, 11(1), 109-112. doi:10.1080/15205430701769358
Cumiskey, K. H. (2005). [The Problem of the Media]. College & Research Libraries, 66(3), 284-286. doi:10.5860/crl.66.3.284
Herrick, D. F. (2004). [The Problem of the Media]. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 949-951. doi:10.1177/107769900408100413

Moreover, as per WP:TEXTBOOKS the book is highly cited in the literature (~865 citation according to Google scholar), and is published by a major academic publisher NYU Press.

Yazan (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to say, good work indeed. I should have thought to look in academic sources for reviews, oh well, live and learn. Add these to the article and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, per WP:NEXIST. You've acknowledged that there's enough sourcing to establish notability. You're not in a position to hand out assignments. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I didn't intend to 'hand out assignments'. I'm withdrawing it either way, but was a bit busy when I commented above. Just a request, no need to be assume the worst. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:21, 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 per CSD A7 and expired BLP-Prod -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Jahanzeb[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST South Nashua (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unreferenced BLP of someone just doing their job. Vanity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This violates all rules of acceptability on Wikipedia in addition to sounding like an about me page. Kansiime (chat) 00:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not wait for the "prod" to run its course?--Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:29, 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Tozzo[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Cannot find any evidence that he passes WP:NHOCKEY either. (He won Rookie of the Year in an extremely low-level regional minor league which has no inherent notability.) Yosemiter (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, no significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just made sure that the Niagara experience wasn't All-star, and it wasn't. I'm sorry to say it's not close. Bill McKenna (talk) 03:33, 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 'Speedy delete A7. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MCPEfroggy[edit]

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

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under CSD A7 as notability or importance not asserted. Eye snore 20:18, 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 Speedy deleted A3, A7. Peridon (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yog Guru Dr.AnilJain[edit]

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

Dan Koehl (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person, and this article doesn't currently have any content whatsoever. It would be speedied for both A3 and A7. --Stylez995 (talk) 19:38, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Shields (football manager)[edit]

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

Has not played or managed in a fully professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Although the article contains the unsourced claim he played for senior clubs including Dundee, I can't find any evidence of him playing first team football anywhere. Jellyman (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played for Dundee F.C. from 1973- per this [3] AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no evidence that he actually made an appearance for Dundee from that link Seasider91 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, unless a Dundee superfan can confirm a first team appearance for them Seasider91 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jellyman (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source says he played for Dundee. I don't know what else you want. Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per this he never actually played a first-team league game for Dundee, meaning he has not played in a fully-professional league, and he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. For what it's worth he also never played for Arbroath or Forfar as claimed. Also fails WP:GNG. @AlessandroTiandelli333 and Smartyllama: I suggest you re-consider your votes, given that the source you are using it not sufficient; it only confirms he was signed with clubs, but not that he actually played for them as required by NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidence suggests that he never played for Dundee. Number 5 7 09:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and no evidence of GNG Spiderone 20:01, 26 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) 07:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So the manager of one of scotlands best known league clubs has fabricated his entire playing career? I find it hard to believe , Fenix down, Giant, Spiderone... AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroTiandelli333: - has he, or any source, ever claimed he played a first team league game for these clubs? No, they simply say he was signed to them. That is not enough. Giant Snowman 09:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear that he has not made any senior appearances for these clubs. Spiderone 09:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, claim that he was manager of "one of scotlands best known league clubs" seems to be stretching it a bit ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:30, 30 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 03:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 State of the Union Address[edit]

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

unsourced and too early, and we don't know when the speech will happen. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928^Talk 19:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This isn't a crystal ball situation, it's going to happen. The question is what to put in there in the meantime, there's probably something. South Nashua (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's possible that another article for the speech will be created at some point but there is no 2017 State of the Union Address at least not announced at this point. The newly inaugurated president does not generally do one even though they do often do a non state of the union address to congress at some point soon after they were inaugurated. Some of the history of this in the main article but also in the State of the Union template etc: You'll see there is no '2009' State of the Union (Obama's first year) as well as no '2001' State of the Union (Bush's first year). The 2010 State of the Union article also starts off talking about how it's Obama's first one after he did a on SotU address in 2009. It doesn't look like we have an article for that 2009 speech at the moment so I'm not sure it makes sense to keep this one for now, if it becomes more notable as time goes on obviously we could. At the very least we should rename this away from calling it a SotU address. James of UR (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per James, unless/until the White House announces that there will be a State of the Union in 2017, WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't have an article on one. Possibly redirect to State of the Union as an alternative. ansh 666 20:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wait until it happens or we actually have something to say. AusLondonder (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - President Trump has accepted an invitation to address a joint session of Congress on Feb. 28th.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] However, it seems like they are continuing with the custom of not designating it a formal State of the Union. I move to create a new page similar to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009 and add it under Unofficial Addresses in Template:State of the Union. Harmon758 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and then this can redirect there like the 2009 one. ansh 666 04:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Harmon758. -- Kndimov (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete unsourced nonsense. Crystal ball. Hoax. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald Trump speech to joint session of Congress, February 2017. Similar to 2009. --J36miles (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald Trump speech to joint session of Congress, February 2017 — JFG ^talk 09:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDjve9I8WQ&t=7m16s
^ https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/823907846538416129
^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/24/trump-invited-to-address-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-feb-28/
^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/24/ryan-invites-trump-address-joint-session-congress-feb-28/96985430/
^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-joint-address_us_58876fc8e4b0e3a7356bcbaa

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opang Jamir[edit]

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

Lack of notability: The statement that Jamir won Mister International India 2012 (hereafter "MI2012") was sourced via a citation to Wikipedia (more precisely to the article on MI2012), that I removed. The article about MI2012 was prodded and deleted on 2016-11-23 for lack of notability.

The article has 36 sources. Of those, many look primary: sources 5 to 8 are self-published; 32, 34, 35 and 36 are by a family member (Metsubo Jamir); and sources 2, 18 and 31 are in Jamir's website (nagalandpost.com). Because the article on MI2012 was deleted, I suspect that this BLP is unnotable too. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1st ever Indian to win an Indian pageant? Uh. Doesn't seem to pass GNG. I have much more AGF in the nom here, and trust that they looked and failed to find any good sources, plus WP:SPA creator User:Opangjamirmetsubo almost certainly has a COI. Vanity spam. Wikipedia is not here to promote people. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The COI and SPA are confirmed. The account has only a single edit, that was the autobiography creation. I've started a discussion at the COI noticeboard regarding its COI. I even cited your vote ("WP:SPA"). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serious lack of significant independent sources. Notability under WP:GNG absent and no SNG seems applicable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's creator added more sources, but there is still a lack of independent sources. Two of the new sources are two different links to the same page. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – An editor with an apparent COI (same name as subject of the article) has been adding cites, but most of these are duplicates, not RS, or only mention the subject in passing. I am not finding enough independent RS to support notability. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:36, 29 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life-Link Friendship Schools[edit]

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

100% WP:PROMO article with no references (since 2007). Clearly promoting organization as it even includes a link to encourage people to join. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom CalzGuy (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the puffery and the article is left very small and factual. I've looked for sources and the are sporadic but some that meet the criteria in WP:RS exist. For example, an event hosted by Life-Link (a student UN council) received a Ghana News Agency report with comments from lots of senior UN figures and another report with comments from the President of Ghana. There are other "LifeLink" references for Australian events but I am unable to connect those events with this topic and it appears they are different associations. At this time, I'm leaning towards Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 30 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 Michigan State League . – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Flyers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE, including Google Books, did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. Team apparently played for a single year; no evidence of notability. —swpb^T 18:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Michigan State League where the team played. Spanneraol (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's sensible. —swpb^T 13:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Spanneraol. I think it is a stretch to say that a subject from more than a century ago did not produce significant coverage because there is no evidence of such coverage in Google Books (or other online sources). If any sources exist it would not be surprising if they are difficult to find. But until multiple significant sources are found, a redirect to a relevant target makes most sense. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cacani[edit]

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

Non-notable company / product development from university that was tagged for notability since 2014, then attempted PROD and it was canceled with the reason that it has an updated software version. It appeared in the local Singapore anime festival called Anime Festival Asia. It is mentioned in passing in some news articles. [4] [5]. No article in JA WIkipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promo article for an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. What I could find are company profiles, promotional sites, and the like. I did find one source specifically about them: an interview with the program's creators, but the site appears to be published on Wordpress and thus isn't reliable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete -- This is a new animation software that is being actively developed, with active users as we build up the community. We have an active Facebook page ^[1]. Why is being listed in Japan Wikipedia important, when this is a software from Singapore? Full Disclosure: I'm part of the development team on CACANi. We're new to wiki pages editing, apologies for not doing something according to wiki standards, but we try to be neutral as possible in our posts editing, as neutral as what we can see from similar software from our industry, like ^[2] and ^[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacaniwiki (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC) — Cacaniwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://www.facebook.com/CACAniAnimation/
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toon_Boom_Animation
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVPaint_Animation

Delete Its hard argue that this isn't a promotional article. Plus admitted COI going on now too over recent edits and I can't see how deprodding an article and then admitting to being a developer can be considered neutral. We are not a marketing provider.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to SephyTheThird: please consider that we did not have a clue what deprodding means (until it's pointed out to us). There's a world of protocols in wiki editing that we're only getting to know. We thought we were supposed to remove the section to indicate that the article has been updated with more information. And yes, we'll rather freely admit to being the developer rather than hide behind some random username. As for the marketing component, no, we agree Wikipedia is not a marketing provider. But as been said, we are still understanding what constitute 'marketing' and what is 'information' in the eyes of the wiki admins and gatekeepers. The current content is there mainly in reply to edits that seems to refer to us as vaporware. We have no issue keeping in line with the requirements to maintain the integrity of the site, as long as we figure out what that is. Cacaniwiki (talk) 22:57, 31 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 03:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement[edit]

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

I considered seeking a merge on this, but that would leave a redirect and this is not a plausible search term. The memorandum is not by itself notable. It is part of the story of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency, and may be mentioned on other pages too. It doesn't meet the standards for its own per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is the memorandum not notable? A quick search shows dozens of news stories with significant coverage of it from reliable sources like Washington Post, ABC news, Seoul Times, NHK World News, New Delhi Television ... easily passing WP:GNG. Did you want to put forth a proposal to rename instead? Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS. I forgot to add that policy in my comments, so I've added it now. What's notable is the TPP and First 100 days, of which this is but a small part. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, but here's what I'm considering: This is a tough one, I think. On one hand, it may meet GNG as it has received significant coverage from all kinds of reliable sources, and to that end I think it probably has a case to be included. Muboshgu is right, though, that NOTNEWS might also apply. For one, it's a terribly long title. Would "United States withdrawal from Trans Pacific Partnership" work? Then it could also include the United States' previous debate/information? In that case, I think we could get past the NOTNEWS consideration. Anyway, I guess I would lean towards a weak keep, but it's weak at that. Go Phightins! 15:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The document is not notable; the president's action is noteworthy and covered appropriately at Trans-Pacific Partnership. Executive Orders (and I've worked on a few) are only notable in themselves as documents when the precise language and provisions are significant. That's not the case here. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – We don't need an article for every paper the President signs… Topic is addressed at the TPP article. — JFG ^talk 17:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no substance to this article, and there never will be. It's easier to just have a one-line mention on the TPP page that Trump signed a memorandum withdrawing from the Partnership. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 30 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berkley Scott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. Comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY with a low level minor career and (thus far) no major individual awards. Yosemiter (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability, no significant coverage. This is even below Dolovis' usual standards. 15:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete - this one is pretty obvious Bill McKenna (talk) 03:29, 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 and salt. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dre Rich Kidd[edit]

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

Cant see anything that at present the person passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt again as nothing else has actually changed and that emphasizes by how the information is still no different and better. Should this ever be accepted, it will be by multi-review, not a full start article alone. SwisterTwister talk 17:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Clearly not notable, speedied four times per WP:A7. Already sent to AfD with result WP:SNOW delete. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:25, 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 03:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triago[edit]

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

Clearly a company advertising campaign given the history of multi-accounts active in only specifying what the company would advertise, the sources are simply announcements, listings and mentions, including the ones in supposedly "the best sources" and searches mirrored these exactly, thus there's no substance and especially nothing to satisfy our non-negotiable policies which explicitly allow deletion of company advertising. In the over 6 years this has existed, there's been a noticeable amount of activities to suggest the company accounts knew exactly what they were putting with the equally knowing intentions. When an article has existed for this long and has only obtained trivial attention, it shows it's not significant. The author's comment, "pioneering PE firm that helped develop the profession of placement agent. It's also a noteworthy source of industry data & commentary. " as none of this in fact confirms it since it's all business announcements and it's unacceptable in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 16:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely promotional. Sources consist of advertisements, trivial mentions or dead links. None of the sources establish notability. Possible WP:COI with creator. Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOT applies. CBS527^Talk 16:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links will be fixed and footnotes updated with sources in a few days by me. incidentally, existing footnotes backing up claims include no advertisements. A link to the firm's well known, highly regarded and widely cited (in both the trade and generalist financial press) latest quarterly research paper is included, but all other footnote sources/supporting materials are from third parties with no evident conflicts of interest. The deletion note is useful reminder to update footnotes and supporting material. It's my sincere hope that once this article is updated, the deletion inquiry will be shelved. One further point: If you look at the discussion history, you will see that the article was submitted to a full vetting, eventually winning approval from Wikipedia editors after its initial posting. There has been no substantive change to the points made in the article since then, as a review of the editing history will reveal.Lanchner (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial content; no indications of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising site for a non-notable consultancy firm. Mentioned in passing in press statements, but not as the subject of the press release. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 31 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) 23:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Seides[edit]

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

According to the subject of this article (ticket:2016102710004969) this article was created as a joke by some friends. The article contains quite a number of errors, see the list of 25 or so on the talk page. I posted some issues needing addressing in November which have not been touched. I posted in the list of 25 items requiring attention and two weeks later nothing has happened. While in many cases, the best approach with an article in decent shape that need some work is to let editors do the work. In this case the list of errors is so long and the fact that no editor has touched it in quite some time means we may be better off nuking this article and waiting until someone is willing to start over with a better article. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, delete per WP:BIODELETE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:BIODELETE at the request of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 31 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 03:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mahone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Only search result is this article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an autobiography, not a notable personality, for the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr Mahone is a notable politician, and is currently in office for several different roles within his constituency. Evidence can be provided if necessary to confirm that this request is genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmahone040499 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Good Evening, I have provided roughly 10 verified sources to prove the legitimately of the article, that includes sources from places such as County Council's and local governments, plus board meetings which verify the legitimacy of the individual. The page is now being linked and updated more with more Wikipedia articles. As much evidence can be provided as possible as needed. I hope this has settled the issue. Can this dispute now be closed please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmahone040499 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability at this point in the career of a very young politician; WP:TOOSOON. Suggest User:Jmahone040499 might want to look at WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have been provided in References in article. Notability is signifiant, as national representative of young people in Parliament. MYP's are the only political organization which are given permission to sit and debate in Parliament with MP's outside of MP's. MYP's also have direct links with MP's and are a sponsor to HM Government and HOC Parliament, evidence can be provided of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmahone040499 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Correct. As well as the StudentVoice initiative, which is a similar organization with different protocols and priorities with a higher position. This gives evidence that the political portfolio (therefore notability) is growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmahone040499 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note this discussion is about a young man elected to the UK Youth Parliament.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The UK Youth Parliament is not a level of political office that passes WP:NPOL — it has no legislative power, but simply serves as a lobby group to present the views of youth to the people who actually have the power to make actual political decisions — and the sourcing here is not strong enough to make a WP:GNG claim in lieu, as it is based entirely on primary sources with the exception of one piece of purely routine media coverage in his local newspaper. Creator is also advised to familiarize himself with our conflict of interest rules — even if a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, the road to getting one still does not pass through writing it himself. We are not a public relations database or a social networking site; we are an encyclopedia, but nothing here constitutes a reason why Justin Mahone belongs in an encyclopedia yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 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 redirect to Line 61 (Utrecht sneltram). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IJsselstein-Zuid (tram stop)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. For completeness sake, the Dutch word for "tram stop" is "tramhalte". Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is more of a station than just a simple tram stop[6] and we usually keep articles on stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I regret having to mention this non-"rule", but WP:RAILOUTCOMES specifically states heavy rail stations. IJsselstein-Zuid is a light rail station. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In any non-keep case, a redirect to Utrecht sneltram is more appropriate than outright deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Line 61 (Utrecht sneltram) (the line this station is the terminus of). Per Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Stations "It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For […] stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on." I haven't looked to see what other sources are available but based on the present state of the article merging it to the article about the line is the best course of action. It can always be broken out again later per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE if it becomes too extensive for the line article. Regardless of anything else, the name of a transportation station that verifiably exists is going to be a useful search term in all but the most exceptional situations and so should be at least a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan E. King[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Unable to locate any independent, secondary sources to support notability. This comes close, but is in fact an advertisement for a presentation by the author.
Fails WP:ANYBIO. While this author received a National Museum of Women in the Arts book fellowship, this award does not appear to be a "well-known and significant award or honor", per WP:ANYBIO. In fact, the National Museum of Women in the Arts website does not mention either this award or this author.
Fails WP:AUTHOR. While this author's works have been reviewed in various publishers' journals, such as this, the only significant review I was able to locate was this one sentence in the Los Angeles Times. Thus, this author does not appear to be "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", per WP:AUTHOR. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominatior Magnolia677 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the NMWA does mention Susan. In fact, one of the existing citations is to the website of the NWMA. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, about the program itself, as told by the NWMA itself: "The Library Fellows Program was established in 1989 to encourage and support the creation of artists' books and to benefit the NMWA Library and Research Center (LRC)... From 1990–2013, 21 artists’ books were published." It's an inactive program, thus why the Fellowship has a diminished profile on their website. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a non-notable award, and none of the links you provided are secondary sources which could establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable is relative to the field. Within the world of book artists, I'm sure that the NMWA Fellowship was quite notable in its day. -- Zanimum (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. She is a very well-known book artist whose work is collected in many museum and library collections. She is featured in Johanna Drucker's book, The Century of Artists Books, a major work by one of the major scholars in the field.--Tornadox (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has her biography been written in any reliable secondary sources, or could you list any notable and significant awards she has won? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the awards from the NMWA. She has also received 2 awards from the National Endowment for the Arts, and has served as a grant panelist for the NEA. Those are big deals.

Keep this artist is in numerous collections of major institutions, and has a significant track record of exhibitions, teaching, and contributions to the women's art movement. She has received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, and has had major press coverage. Netherzone (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was the only source I could find regarding a grant from the NEA, and it was not awarded to King, but to a team she was on. Furthermore, the NEA has awarded 128,000 grants. You're not suggesting this should contribute to the notability of this article? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it doesn't contribute to the notability, does it detract from the notability? -- Zanimum (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this visual artist is an example of one who works in the genre of the Artist's book - which is not the same as a writer or author of a book, nor is it the same as a graphic novelist. The Artist's book is a genre in and of itself, beginning in the early 20th C. avant garde movements, and flourishing during Conceptual art in the 1970's to the present. This artists work (in the form of a book - not a book about art - but rather a book that is intended as an artwork itself, to further clarify) is held in several of the top museum collections: the Brooklyn Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Museum of Modern Art New York, the Getty Research Institute which is the scholarly arm of the Getty Museum, Harvard University and other permanent collections. As to the grants, here is an analogy: it is not at all unusual for teams of scientists to apply for and receive a NSF grant for a project. The collectivity of the team does not diminish the credibility of the team members, nor the NSF. Same in the arts: if an artist team applies for a collective grant from the NEA, their collaboration does not diminish their importance as individual artists, nor does it diminish the National Endowment for the Arts. The argument that the NEA has awarded 128,000 grants is proof of its resiliency of support to the arts in the United States since its founding in 1965, but it is being used in the argument above to dilute its prestige. The number of grants an institution gives does not diminish it's prestige. Furthermore, being in the collection of the National Museum of Women in the Arts is about the highest honor a woman artist can have. Museums collect tens of thousands of objects, and not all of them are going to make it onto their website. Grants from the Women's Studio Workshop and the Visual Studies Workshop may not be those that you personally have heard of, but in the U.S. art world, these are prestigious and highly competitive awards. She has received numerous reviews (secondary sources) for her work, and is a well respected educator. She has exhibited her work, and although I have not had time to research other exhibitions, I hope the creator of this page, Maberry might have time to do so. This article has 32 citations - the press coverage has been significant. There is no question in my mind that this woman artist is notable, I say that with no hesitation whatsoever. It is difficult to understand the unreasonable level of scrutiny to which her collections and awards prove that notability are being examined. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A thoroughly sourced biographical article that supports the claim of notability with ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC) revert to disambiguation page. Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dagar[edit]

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

It has been asserted that this article is identical to the deleted Dagur clan and thus should be speedied; for clarity and to avoid future problems can we please discuss this article at AfD. If all the same arguments apply as to Dagur clan, bring them on. I'd just like to see this clarified. If the article gets deleted, then we can move the dab page back to this title, but please don't confuse matters by doing so during the AfD discussion: let's keep things simple and clear. PamD 12:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to disambiguation page, i.e. revert to this revision. WP:DISCUSSAFD states that "Alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases." The Dagar clearly meets disambiguation criteria, as can be seen in this revision of it. As there's no primary topic here – which is clarified by the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan – there's no need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. And, according to WP:DABNAME, Dagar (disambiguation) should be redirected to Dagar. In short, the revision shown by me is a valid page in itself. Please also see Talk:Dagar & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar to understand the issue here.

PS: The nom created Dagar (disambiguation) by copy-pasting a revision of Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Convert to disambiguation page" is not an appropriate suggestion. "Delete this page about the clan, agree that there is no Primary Topic for "Dagar", and move the existing disambiguation page to occcupy the title "Dagar" " is probably the outcome of this AfD which most people would support. The existing article about the clan, the subject of this AfD, has existed all or most of the time since 2009. This AfD gives an opportunity for editors to agree once and for all that this article should not exist. Just follow the process and we will end up with a decision which is clearly recorded and can be used to suppress any future attempt to recreate the article. PamD 17:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I did not copy-paste, but reverted to an earlier version: quite different kinds of edits, as the first loses the attribution to previous editors, while the second does not. PamD 17:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Ah yes, I didn't copy-paste in recent history, but copy-pasted with attribution to create the dab page during an earlier episode of this spat. PamD 17:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an inappropriate suggestion, but the relevant wiki policy. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan has already cleared the way for suppression of any future attempt to recreate the clan article. But repetitive edit-warring by you & Primefac at Dagar can't be a reason to delete it. It's a perfectly valid dab page. And please revisit the closing comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar.

PS: You created Dagar (disambiguation) by copy-pasting an older revision of Dagar. {{Template:Copied}} states that "the former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. So, there are attribution issues as well, but that isn't even the issue at hand, as Dagar is a valid dab page & shouldn't be deleted, per WP:DISCUSSAFD/WP:ATD. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion as a recreation of Dagur clan, conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan. The Banner talk 13:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Dagar was created in 2009 & it isn't a recreation of any recently deleted article. The recent revision of it is done by the nom, without developing consensus at Talk:Dagar. They didn't even give heed to the closing comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NitinMlk, I am genuinely confused about your goals in this. You want this page deleted and converted into a DAB. Why are you fighting so damn hard to keep the page from being deleted, while simultaneously advocating for it to be deleted? Primefac (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never wanted to get this page deleted. Please see the wiki policy, which is cited by me above. In fact, a page must not be deleted when there is a valid WP:ATD. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please will someone with knowledge of the subject area just produce the arguments as to why this article should be deleted. I gather from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan that Dagar is considered to be an equivalent article, although "Dagur" is not mentioned in the Dagar article. Just produce the policy-compliant arguments, rather than discussing the complex history of the page and the dab page. I am not an expert on South Asian clans: I care about disambiguation pages and like to see things done tidily and clearly. In view of all the messing around over the years, I think the encyclopedia would benefit from having a clear decision on whether the article Dagar about the clan (distinct from the dab page) should or should not exist. That's what the AfD is for. If the page is deleted it will then be logical to move the dab page to the vacated title. PamD 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDIA has been notified. Primefac (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Primefac: You're right, I guess, this has been around for longer than Dagur clan. Since it is a word-for-word copy, though, I don't much see the point in this discussion. Indeed, I don't particularly want to get into Wikilawyering here, but I cannot imagine that G4 or A10 does not apply to an article that is a complete copy of another. Vanamonde (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. I think at this point, based on the amount of back-and-forth between the above parties (myself included) the only option for us is to see this through; Talk Page Diplomacy seems to have royally failed. A definitive answer is needed to satisfy those crying for blood. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - I've been doing some digging, and apparently an entire branch of dhrupad is named after the Dagar. This may make them notable enough to keep. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting embarrassing. First you vandalized the dab page by converting it to clan article. And now you want to get the dab page deleted. As I have already told you many times before, only way to convert the above dab page into a clan article is by clearly developing consensus on Talk:Dagar that the Dagar clan is not only notable but also the primary topic here. Till then Dagar should be a dab page, as per WP:DABNAME. BTW, you are free to create the clan article under a title like Dagar clan, as your weak keep in itself suggests that it isn't the primary topic here. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only for yourself. I'm pretty sure this page was an article about Dagar before it was a dab (oh wait, it was). Primefac (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already explained, Dagar is an ambiguous title & clan was wrongly placed under it. But normal editing has rectified that – please revisit WP:ATD & the last AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Primefac: The Dagar gharana of musicians has nothing in common with the Dagar Jat clan (the social group) except the name. The two are completely different topics. utcursch | talk 21:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!vote stricken per the previous comment. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete in case that was not clear before. There is no evidence of notability, and not enough to even be certain that this isn't caste cruft of the sort that frequently plagues the area. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 12:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab I have no opinion on the notability, but if the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagur clan has established the clan is not notable, then I don't see the point of re-arguing this for the identically-worded copies of the text at each spelling variant (noting that participants in the AfD were aware of the Dagar spelling). Dagar was converted to a disambiguation page at one point and it's best to revert to this revision (Dagar (disambiguation) is a copy of that version, so moving that over the primary title would break attribution). – Uanfala (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4. The two articles are identical. No AfD discussion required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 29 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. People are free to recreate the redirect as an editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)[edit]

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

Way too soon, and the main qualification article (for all associations) does not even exist yet (it is a redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup so why have a specific one for Asian part). Also all information are pure speculation without source. I dont think it is even worth having as redirect as it is not a likely search.Qed237 (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup Generally continental qualification articles redirect to the main qualification article until we have concrete information. However, that's a redirect to the main World Cup article at this point, so this should be too. Smartyllama (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I dont see a good reason to keep a page as a redirect when the "real target" itself at this stage is a redirect. If that is the case, editors could just create a lot of these sub-sub articles and just redirect to the big main tournament. It is just WP:TOOSOON. Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON Seasider91 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. It can be undeleted for improvement/correction when the tournament regulations are published. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup. SignOfTheDoubleCross (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly too soon. See this as an implausible search term so no need to redirect. Fenix down (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too soon. Giant Snowman 20:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup per Smartyllama's reasoning, although would also be okay with a Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:52, 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 speedy delete as blatant advertising. User:Happy.harii, please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INFI[edit]

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

Public relation of the company Happy.harii (talk) 09:45, 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 speedy keep. Nomination created by a disruptive sock —SpacemanSpiff 03:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kapoor (politician)[edit]

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

There are more than 400 MLA(s) in the Uttar Pradesh State of India and many few of them are notable (Ministers) and particularly The subject of the article is not at all notable, the citations and references links to unreliable PDF Files which is not a proof of Notability as of now. Thanks

Regards --MumbaikarLaunda (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and trout the nominator: Sanjay Kapoor (politician) is a two time elected Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) and qualifies WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. What the nominator calls unreliable PDF Files are;

Member profile: In Hindi language from Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly official website.
2012 election results from the Election Commission of India website.
2007 election results from the Election Commission of India website.

Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:33, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable member of a legislature ([7]), meets WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NPOL as a state legislator AusLondonder (talk) 23:50, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . WP:TOOSOON, at least until he actually wins an election. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Azam Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, being a candidate and a son of a notable person is not itself sufficient to guarantee notability. WP:TOOSOON. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability YET. No public office held yet. Notability is not inherited. ChunnuBhai (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he wins the election he will be notable, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too soon for an article as others have stated Spiderone 10:59, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood cycles[edit]

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

This is one of the original articles from the days when Wikipedia was just Nupedia's article incubator and didn't require sourcing (the 13,240th page on Wikipedia, for those interested in ancient history). I've just procedurally declined a WP:PROD on it as it survived Votes for deletion back in the distant past when this was considered a Featured Article and "not outright gibberish" was pretty much the only notability criterion, and is thus ineligible, but I agree that this is purest original research and if sources haven't been added in 16 years, they're never going to be. ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this looks like it would be an attempt to WP:CFORK a film history article if it were made nowadays. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, this was created considerably earlier than History of film. Nupedia was weird like that; Larry preferred topics the niche-ier the better. ‑ Iridescent 10:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, and that's why I said "if it were made nowadays". As it stands, it pretty much is a WP:CFORK considering that we now have far better articles on the same or similar subjects. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, may be enough for an article (if kept, rename Film cycles). There's a bit out there about the phenomenon.American Film Cycles: Reframing Genres, Screening Social Problems and Defining Subcultures, Cycles, Sequels, Spin-offs, Remakes, and Reboots, "Film Cycles, Industry and Audience: Hammer Films' 'Monster' Cycle and American International Pictures Poe Adaptations", "Reel Revolutionaries: An Examination of Hollywood's Cycle of 1960s Youth Rebellion Films", some discussion in Postfeminism and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find that it's basically a restatement of what a genre is or tropes are. When I hear a term like "cycle", I think of a rash of movies that come out over a small period of time that have a lot in common with a movie that just came out and was massively successful (e.g. the Americanized J-horror movies in the wake of The Ring, animated fish movies like Shark Tale in the wake of Finding Nemo). The article doesn't currently imply that it's describing the tendency for trends in Hollywood among filmmakers. The most we may be able to do is merge the results of this research into an article like film genre. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same as a genre and should not be merged therein. For one thing, there's the crucial time element. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go with the flow. Clarityfiend has done more research than I care to do. If this is more than just a dictionary definition — if it actually a WP:Notable thing — then we should keep it. If not, well — we shouldn't. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously a stub and the nomination doesn't offer a clear reason to delete it. The topic is obviously notable as it's easy to find a stack of sources including:

American Film Cycles: The Silent Era
American Film Cycles: Reframing Genres, Screening Social Problems
Cycles, Sequels, Spin-offs, Remakes, and Reboots
Film Cycles, Industry and Audience
Hollywood Agit-Prop: The Anti-Communist Cycle, 1948–1954
Ghetto Reelness: Hollywood Film Production, Black Popular Culture and the Ghetto Action Film Cycle
Reel Revolutionaries: An examination of Hollywood's cycle of 1960s youth rebellion films
Discourses of affect in the 1930's Hollywood horror film cycle and in its aftermath to 1943

Andrew D. (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into a relevant article on history or genres. Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 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 redirect to Agritourism. Kurykh (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural theme park[edit]

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

The article is clearly written as an advertisement, as both this article and its related James Kurian article were created by and have been largely edited by User:Superbrain.jr. Neither this article or the other one are notable in my opinion, so I suggest they be deleted. CoolieCoolster (talk) 04:44, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my argument at the previous AFD. And as mere WP:PROMO for the resort http://mangomeadows.in/, for which I cannot establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my comment from the Feb. 2016 AFD:"*Delete as pure self promotion by use of a term that has not gained currency, acquired meaning, or spurred emulation. Note, however, that a handful of promoters have called their projects "agricultural theme parks" one in California [8] in 1998; another in Costa Rica [9], one being promoted in Korea now [10]. Note also that Farm museums exist, as do U-Pick and Pick-Your-Own (PYO) Farms, many with playgrounds and picnic tables, but they are not this (nor is Knott's Berry Farm.) In sum, Agricultural theme parks may catch on, just, it hasn't yet.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a gNews search on "Agricultural theme park" [11]. 10 hits. The first hit is about the new theme park that Eataly is building. This was a BIG story in the foodie universe when it was announced last year, note, however, that that NY1 appears to be the only news outlet that used the phrase "agricultural theme park". The other 17,000 hits [12] used phrases like "Italian Food Theme Park" and "Gourmet Theme Park," "Culinary Destination," and "Disney World for Food Lovers." This term/phrase is simply not in significant use, circulation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a place nearby farms where consumers can directly buy farm products may possibly be notable, but such a thing is definitely not widely known as an "Agricultural Theme Park", and "James Kurian" most definitely did not invent the concept of such a place. CoolieCoolster (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the present article needs work, and incorrect information such as attributing the concept to James Kurian needs to be removed. But my analysis indicated the term has "caught on" and the concept is notable. Most of the following use the term "agricultural theme park", some may use "farm theme park" or something similar.
[13] one in Korea
[14] one in India
[15] New York Times article The Farm as Theme Park
[16] news article on the one in India
[17] talks about parks in Costa Rica and Mexico
[18] LA Times article about proposed park in CA
[19] from Korea
[20] from Korea
[21] Korean tourism site that uses the term in video and writing
[22] article about AG theme parks in Japan
[23] another article on Japan
[24] from China
[25] article about the one in Indian
[26] BusinessKorea news article from 1/16/17.

The current article is too promotional towards "Mango Meadows" and needs significant cleanup. But there is notability. MB 04:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Corn maze is a thing, a defined thing. "agricultural theme park," as far as I can tell, is not. We need not only usage (by no means established by the list above since many of those articles do not use this phrase, and are about a sundry variety of farm-related promotions) we need a degree of coherence in the term's meaning, and some sources that define it as a term for a type of attraction, as per WP:NEO. If someone wants to argue that the era of the Agricultural Theme Park is upon us in the form of a well-soruced WP:HEYMANN, I'm all ears.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Agritourism. In looking for sources on this subject I discovered that the notable concept is "agritainment", more or less the same subject with many more available sources. Searching for that term on Wikipedia, I see it redirects to agritourism, another term frequently covered with agritainment. It may be that agritainment could sustain a separate article, but given the pervasive promotional content in this article I think it makes the most sense to redirect to a very similar concept rather than attempt to WP:TNT a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with Redirecting the topic to Agritourism. What I do not see is that there is anything in the existing article that merits merging - as it stands, it is WP:PROMO for the non-notable Mango meadows Agricultural Theme Park.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think doing a redirect without merging any of the information from this article into the other one would be a good solution. CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Englishman in L.A.[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a web series, "referenced" exclusively to IMDb with no evidence of the kind of reliable source coverage that it takes to get something like this over WP:NMEDIA and/or WP:GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising database on which every web series automatically gets an article just because it exists; it must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After searching around, unless I'm missing something, not finding any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 31 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polly and the Billets Doux[edit]

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

fails WP:Music and, to me, lacks the significant coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG (significant being the operative word, as there is the occasional small-scale coverage any band would generate). Standard COI/SPA creation for promotional purposes. Rayman60 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Slotted in a few sources. This is very much borderline, however a review in the Independent and Line of Best Fit add some weight. Karst (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Independent, Bath Chronicle, Fused magazine, York Press, and others - reliable if borderline regarding level of coverage. --Michig (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per The Independent , Fuse Magazine and other press just enough to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the comment showing local coverage itself suggests it would be borderline, and it is because searches haven't found better, and WP:GNG is always outweighed by WP:NOT given we're not a band listing (history itself suggests it was used as the case) and the sources themselves then consist of event announcements, listings, interviews and other primaries, none of it amounts to substance so it's not "significant" regardless, and the nomination as it is "nothing independent and convincing". In such bare borderline cases that near closer to questionablity, it's best to Draft in that case until such better substance occurs. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Most sources are trivial mentions or announcements. The Independent article consist of a 3 sentence mention. The online magazine, rapturemagazine.com, does have some in depth coverage of their second album but I'm not sure how reliable a source it is.The Bath Chronicle and York Press are announcements/interviews. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable band going about its business with routine coverage. WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 30 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 Avenged Sevenfold. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arin Ilejay[edit]

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

Not notable drummer. Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold. The majority of the sources relate to his being in the band. Not notable on his own. Fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources usually are related to the musician being in the band. That's why we use them. There are other sources stating his other bands and he is a notable musician as he has played in several notable bands. Another thing I would like to bring up is that I was not notified of this proposed deletion. Metalworker14 (Yo) 10:43, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable drummer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold as stated by the nominator herein. Almost all of the coverage available in online searches is about his being let go from Avenged Sevenfold, so this appears to be a WP:BLP1E situation at this time. Outside of BLP1E coverage, after several searches, the subject does not seem to have received enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 31 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Lione[edit]

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

May be a member in more than one band but fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This search suggests that the subject might meet WP:MUSICBIO #1 and I believe he also meets #6 as "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:29, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Michael Seyfert[edit]

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

not a notable person. no significant, independent coverage. None of the awards that confer notability. promotional page by COI/SPA Rayman60 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my opinion Seyfert seems to have independent coverage of this page online as an established filmmaker with many media references online. Two of them are:

1. Rent a Rasta Rent a Rasta
2. Bye Bye Havana Bye Bye Havana HaileyHicks (talk)

Comment: This is the 2nd contribution from this user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HaileyHicks). The only other effort was on a new and unashamedly promotional article. I believe most independent editors will conclude this isn't significant coverage or RSes. There's little coverage about these films - and of course they don't inherently confer notability amongst personnel. Rayman60 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cine Pobre Film Festival[edit]

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

very poor article, but most importantly lacks notability. no independent, significant coverage Rayman60 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i found English articles published by La Habana Magazine [27], Periódico 26 [28], The Guardian [29] and many others in English and Spanish at G-Books [30] [31] and G-News [32], [33]. Definitely a notable film event. Yes our article is poor but has potential. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:53, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonboard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Official website no longer exists and no new releases have been made in over a decade. (Original nomination for deletion was back in 2010.) Brollachan (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third party source to assert notability. Mohammad Sally (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: not a single valid argument for deletion has been asserted, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. (There are plenty of links at the bottom of the article for satisfying WP:GNG; the fact that they are currently languishing there is irrelevant.) I should also note that this software is of not-insignificant importance to the history of the web in general due to its relationship to Invision Power Board, among the most-used Internet forum software (and later content management systems) on the Internet. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:36, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Saint[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No pertinent nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. No real biographical content, sourced or otherwise, and the alone references are a database and awards reports. Winning a minor award, while completely failing GNG requirements for sources, is not enough to sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yet another actor with a nomination table only; no sources to build encyclopedic prose. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porno actress, hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 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. Kurykh (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Kundan Das Maharaj Ji Temple Sihali Kalan[edit]

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

This appears to be an article about a temple, with no evidence of notability, ~~but is so badly written that it is not possible to retrieve any useful information from it.~~ Optimist on the run (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLOWITUP - poorly written and completely non-compliant with WP:MoS that a copyedit is impossible. DrStrauss talk 19:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasoning primarily on essay "BLOWITUP" is invalid, because among other reasons it is acknowledging the validity of the topic. See new counter-essay wp:BLOWUPBLOWITUP. --do ncr am 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: My reason for nomination is not based on WP:BLOWITUP, but on the notability of the subject, given that there is nothing in the article, nor can I find anything on Google. Is your keep !vote based purely on your opposition to the essay, or do you have some evidence of notability? If you do please add it to the article. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is ill-presented, in that there IS enough retrievable information there for a stub (it is admittedly badly written: that's easily fixable and since when was it a reason to delete?). I'll deal with that myself presently. On notability, there is likely to be more information available in Indian-language sources, even if not in an Eng-lang search on Google, so Keep, at least for now. Eustachiusz (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied it into a stub. For the rest, while I'm not exactly eating my words I'm starting to look at them on the plate - difficult to find anything useful. Perhaps the best place for this would be in an article on the village. Eustachiusz (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created a stub for the village, where a one-sentence mention of the temple sits OK, so perhaps a redirect is in order.~~Also, however, Baba KJM looks as though it may be another name for Prem Rawat, which might give this set-up more interest than it might have otherwise.~~ No, not so - my mistake.Eustachiusz (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I moved the page without thinking to [[Baba Kundan Das Maharaj Ji Temple, Sihali Kalan]]. Eustachiusz (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - despite the re-write, there are still no reliable sources about this article, nor is there any reference in Google. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced even after Eustachiusz's yeoman (or yeowoman) work. Simply nothing to go on here, except (presumably) the personal knowledge of the article creator, which isn't WP:V. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jsreport[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources about this software. Sam Walton (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the initiator of the jsreport project, can I do something to avoid the deletion from wikipedia? I can't add an article to NYT, but maybe there is something else? I don't know all the rules, but it looks like to me that the project with massive use and 60 000 downloads in relatively small segment of reporting servers could have its place on wiki. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pofider (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Pofider: wow! Your last edit was nearly three years ago, yet you responded here within minutes of this discussion going up. So I'm guessing that that you're pretty handy at web monitoring too. :) Anyway. This is a tricky one. Going strictly by WP:GNG, the nominator is right, it doesn't have significant coverage in WP: Reliable sources online, and zero Google News or Gbooks hits. But Wikipedia doesn't have official guidelines yet on software notability, mostly because it's so hard to come up with any general guidelines on which a broad cross-section of editors can agree. It seems to have pretty good support outside the project, NuGet, PyPi, etc., and it seems to get a lot of mentions on sites like StackExchange. A lot of widely used FOSS tools suffer from the problem of being overlooked by magazines and books, unfortunately. So I don't know quite whether this should be deleted or not, and would be interested to hear from wiser editors than me, before deciding. Wikishovel (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Cites no third-party sources, no indication of notability. Sandstein 06:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply advertising based from our policies. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pisenlav[edit]

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

No indication of notability under the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Only one EP release. Lacks sources. Karst (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article, all of whose references are not now accessible. My searches are finding nothing better, including Highbeam which is usually pretty good on Philippines media sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if we can't verify the information with references, we can't confirm they have enough notability to meet WP:BAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:35, 31 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) 23:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Roller Hockey AA[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, despite having been tagged for nearly 7 years. 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}) 17:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable league. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:07, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Nations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:BAND / WP:GNG. Previous AFD created and withdrawn in 2005, while WP:BAND was being developed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Band doesn't appear outside of the local Athens, Georgia news. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability that passes WP:BAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Longest currently serving coaches in professional American sports[edit]

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

Completely trivial page with no sources. WP:NOTSTATS is another reason to delete it. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree with Sabbatino, page is totally relevant and credits the jobs of head coaches. Deleting this would be like deleting lists on US presidents' heights or how rich they are which are not under discussion for deletion. It also is not a dead end because links to several other articles. The page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.211.195 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep, but only if it is all-time, not just current (keeping it up to date would be a major pain). There are lots of lists of longest-serving coaches.[34][35][36] Delete, but if somebody makes one about all-time tenures, it's got my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article indicates that it will not be for all-time coaches. PK T(alk) 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to the points raised by the nominator, this list duplicates information that's readily available in the lists of coaches for the respective leagues. PK T(alk) 20:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arbitrary unsourced list. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list seems arbitrary and redundant with other lists, i.e. List of current National Football League head coaches, etc. all of which can be re-ordered by length of service. That is, we already have articles to get this information from, which are organized along better principles, and the criteria for "professional sports" here seems arbitrary and random. --Jayron 32 17:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because of the many issues already raised. I also feel that there are NPOV issues. Why are NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA the only professional leagues considered? Spiderone 20:08, 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.

Edward Donegan[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn - more sources available than were initially located, topic is not borderline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can only find two entries in books for this guy. The first entry, in "Bootleggers and Beer Barons of the Prohibition Era" is a single page explaining his story (a full page, but still just the one) and is the current basis for the article. The second is in "The Spirits of America", and outright states that "little is known" about the guy. That's all I could find. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong, but I just don't know if one page in one book satisfies WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to those sources, there are:

Nash, Jay Robert (1990-01-01). "Donegan, Edward". Encyclopedia of World Crime: D-J. CrimeBooks. ISBN 9780923582029.
Kobler, John (1973). Ardent Spirits: the Rise and Fall of Prohibition. G. P. Putnam's Sons. pp. 323–325.
Service, United States Internal Revenue (1996-01-01). 75 years of IRS criminal investigation history, 1919-1994. Dept. of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. pp. 27, 74–75.

Υπογράφω (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy keep here. Apart from the Bootleggers... book that covers the subject significantly, the book Spirits of America covers him more comprehensively, after the initial statement that "little is known". In fact, that statement is made to justify providing more information about him. And then you have as significant a coverage in The Tax Dodgers, a repeat significant coverage in a publication by the New York Magazine Company. In short, I suspect the nominator might have missed checking Google Books properly, as I wouldn't have expected the nomination in the first place by an administrator. Lourdes 05:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I'm perfectly happy to be wrong. When I checked Google Books, "The Tax Dodgers" didn't come up (faulty Google search I'm sure, but in good faith), and the section in "Spirits of America" I could see online was restricted and only showed the first page with the bit about "little is known". So as far as I could tell, there was just the one page and it seemed borderline to me, hence the nom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 04:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in the Chicago metropolitan area[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7, simple listing of businesses. Could easily develop into unnecessary WP:LISTCRUFT. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is already a category for this, and no reason to have an article that merely duplicates the cat. Besides that, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, and with a metro area of 10 million people, this is already too long to be useful, and would be even more so if complete. TimothyJosephWood 15:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, and we can WP:SPLIT lists that become too large to fit in a single page. Size has never been a reason to remove content. Diego (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN and, in terms of the !vote directly above, WP:NOTDUP. A perfectly viable list that complements but in no way replaces Category:Companies based in Chicago. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN, WP:PURPOSE as a navigational aid, WP:NOTDUP, and all the other reasons why the similar List of businesses in Omaha discussion is going to be closed as a snowball keep. This is not a "simple listing of businesses", it's a list to existing Wikipedia articles for notable businesses, i.e. the kind that is allowed per WP:CSC. Diego (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of businesses in Omaha. There is nothing encyclopaedic about a list as indiscriminate as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing indiscriminate about a list of links to articles with a well-defined criterion: notable companies in the Chicago metropolitan area. Diego (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of companies that are notable for many reasons, most of which have little or nothing to do with where they are based, that happen to be (partly) located in an area that, according to it's article, has no single agreed definition. If this were restricted to one of the definitions and to those companies about which their being in that area rather than any other is a relevant factor in their notability then I would happily support the list. As it stands it's just an arbitrary subdivision of a list of companies with a Wikipedia article - or in other words a business directory and a simple listing of loosely connected entities. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you said yourself, Chicago metropolitan area is a notable topic, as well as Economy of Chicago and all the companies listed here; a little imprecision in how to define the area would at most merit discussing the inclusion of a couple unclear entries at the list's talk page, not deleting the whole list. Per WP:LISTN, lists that fulfill recognized informational and navigation purposes like this one often are kept, and we have as examples List of businesses in Omaha, List of companies based in Seattle, List of companies in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex or any other of the Category:Lists of companies of the United States by state, that don't differ from this one in anything significant. If you want to delete this based on an interpretation of WP:NOT, you'd have to open a community discussion that covered all them, not delete them one by one. Diego (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated List of businesses in Omaha for deletion under the impression it was the only one of it's type (it's the only one named "businesses" rather than "companies", if both are kept (and I still think they shouldn't be) then a common naming scheme should be considered) and as my nomination statement there shows I fully believe that WP:NOTDIRECTORY points 3, 4 and 7 clearly mean that these "Simple listings without context information" that are "directories" and "Yellow Pages" (although my interpretation of them as this has been explicitly challenged) without the need for a further discussion. Just because Y is a notable area does not mean that a list of X in Y is automatically encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-organized list of notable businesses in a well-defined area. This is exactly what lists are for. Per the editing guideline WP:CLN, lists and categories are intended to co-exist and "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." Irrational fears inspired by the essay WP:LISTCRUFT are hardly a justification for deletion; for that matter, *every* list must be deleted lest LISTCRUFT become a problem once we take this to its illogical conclusion. Alansohn (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of businesses in Omaha. I don't think an article shoould be deleted because it could run counter to an essay (as opposed to actually running counter to a guideline or policy, which this one does not). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did explicitly cite a guideline, as well as an essay, in the nomination. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Companies based in Chicago. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. This latter point is evidenced in part by the 15,702 page views the article has received in the last thirty days as of this post. Conversely, the Category:Companies based in Chicago page has only received 985 page views in the last thirty days as of this post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sure there was a time when this would have been speedily deleted, but it seems these lists are in vogue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is certainly not indiscriminate--it is limited to the ones that are notable enough to have WP articles. Lists and categories serve complementary functions--a category is automatically populated and very compact; a list however gives some indication of what the subject is. If you are want to look at articles of some particular type of companies in Chicago, a list lets you select them. If you don't know the exact name, a list helps you find it. If, , you are looking for potentially dubious articles, or articles worth upgrading, a list helps you screen them DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 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 speedy keep. Per nom's comment below. (non-admin closure) st 170e 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Réunion[edit]

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

Does not seem notable enough as its own article Shaded0 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Economy of X" is a standard article for significant geopolitical entities. This is an island of 2,500 km² and close to a million people. There's going to be plenty of sources about its economy, primarily in French. Take a look at the article in the French wikipedia for examples. Υπογράφω (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly notable enough, as per Υπογράφω. No reason to exacerbate systematic bias with deletion.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like a perfectly viable main article for Category:Economy of Réunion. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly acceptable topic. Lepricavark (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Nomination rationale amounts to basically nothing, ample precedent exists for the type of article, and without even looking for additional sources, a substantial French article exists from which to expand the English one. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An appropriately notable topic that exists within the well-defined structure of Category:Economies by country and meets the notability standard, as written. Alansohn (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Honest mistake, I missed the fact this was an island and probably is notable enough as a Category:Economies by country entry. I assumed this was a region in France that wasn't fully fleshed out by the creator. Looking at the French language article it does indeed look like there is enough there for an article translation/expansion. Shaded0 (talk) 22:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotatope[edit]

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

Neologism, sourced to an open wiki; no reliable secondary sources for it, and searches turn up nothing. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable, unverifiable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am certainly not able to predict, if this neologism will gain momentum in time, but I think it is coined to encompass already quite a number of (topological) constructs in higher dimensional geometry (hyperspheres, hypercubes, mixed forms, ...) some of which are given names of their own, not really wellknown in the general public (glome? ), and therefore valuable to be found in Wikipedia, pointing to some family background. Maybe, it belongs to an other kind of article (lists?). I consider this information sufficiently useful to be kept under whatever title. Purgy (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Stricken for the reply below, the indentation of which is hopefully de rigeur. Please, see also my comment below. Purgy (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid reason to keep: our policies on neologisms are quite clear, we do not have articles on them unless/until they can be found in reliable sources (by which time they are probably no longer a neologism). Keeping them on Wikipedia is putting the cart before the horse; if WP has articles for words as soon as they are created then WP – considered a reliable, or at least comprehensive, reference by many – ends up establishing them. It means that all anyone needs to do, to get their new word well known, is put in on Wikipedia. To prevent this we require all neologisms are reliably sourced.
- It is worth mentioning that the mathematical content of the article will still be on Wikipedia. Although it is a new word the things it is being used to describe are not new, and have their own articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I certainly do not want to argue besides the rules of WP, but I do appeal for finding some rules to have this information in WP, conformant to its guidelines (arguing along the lines of comparing with common sense the usefulness of having several articles on individual representatives of conjectured child prodigy vs. offering the possibility of looking up possibly useful emerging nomenclature). Purgy (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline on neologisms which I was thinking of is here Wikipedia:Neologism. It gives some indication of when it might be appropriate to have an article on a neologism, There is a place for it on a Wikimedia site, which I came across when searching: Wikt:Appendix:List of protologisms/Q–Z. As it says, the policy there is not to create articles there either, though there is a place for such words. But there is no such list or index on Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:32, 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 redirect to Nova Corps. There is consensus that this article should be deleted but some disagreement of how to handle the then free article title. Consensus is somewhat more in favor of redirecting it to Nova Corps. Since there are only two possible targets as of now (since the software Josh Milburn mentions has no article), a hat not at Nova Corps can redirect those who came looking for the Transformers character. So Why 13:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Prime[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with List of Primes and Matrix holders. Article is almost entirely fancruft that talks about Optimus Prime far more than the article subject itself. No viable third-party sources, just comic books and other niche publications. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nova Corps. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nova Corps. The character is not notable enough, nor has the reliable sources needed, to maintain its own article. And since "Nova Prime" isn't even his original name, a redirect to the Nova Corps seems a lot more useful. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers or List of Primes and Matrix holders. Oppose redirect to Nova Corps. Beemer69 and Jclemens the article is not about the ~~planet~~ [edit: character] from Guardians of the Galaxy. It's about a character from the Transformer franchise. If anything, the page needs to be a disambiguation page to separate the Nova Prime from the two franchises. Mkdw ^talk 05:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removed. I don't even remember why I put that in there, and yes, I know the subject is Transformers related. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the redirect I proposed: Nova Prime is the title of the character Glenn Close played in Guardians of the Galaxy (film), and definitely is more important than an obscure transformers reference--as I understand it, this isn't a particularly important 'prime' in the transformers universe. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about my suggestion for it to be a disambiguation page to differentiate between the usage in both franchises? Mkdw ^talk 16:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Jclemens reasoning of why Nova Corps is the better redirect target. I'd be opposed to a dab page, simply because this particular character is not only extremely minor, but as I mentioned, "Nova Prime" is not even his name in most media. Most of the time the character has been called "Prime Nova", "Nova Major", "Nemesis Prime", etc. Even in the most prominent usage of the actual name "Nova Prime", he was merely an alternate version of Optimus Prime. So, a dab, just to distinguish a super minor character that doesn't even use the name 90 percent of the time from a much more prominent character seems kind of pointless. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate they're the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the other? They both seem obscure references to me. An image WP:SET reveals significantly more images of the transformers character than that of the Guardians of the Galaxy character on page one. Website search is less definitive in either case because of the number of wikis. Mkdw ^talk 17:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is tricky. The Transformers article needs to go. I think I would support a redirect to ~~Nova Prime~~ Nova Corps or Nova (Richard Rider), seeing as these appear to be notable. I would not be completely opposed to a disambiguation page, but I would be opposed to keeping the article as-is or redirecting the present article to another (likely awful) Transformers article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nova Prime also seems to be the name of some specialist-but-possibly-notable software. That may be the topic that really belongs at this title; perhaps a dab page is the best option for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 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. (non-admin closure) f eminist 09:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stout[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Borderline G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Stout and G5 of Shingling334. Figured i'd see what the community thought. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credible claim of notability and the reliable and verifiable sources needed are present. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability criteria, with articles about him in The Huffington Post and Chicago Tribune. The latter mentioned "Marko Stout received massive media coverage after a record breaking sale of his large female sculptures to a Berlin nightclub owner at the popular New York Art Expo". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 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) 11:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian S. Takahashi[edit]

(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 BFI listing. Google searches of Ian S. Takahashi and Ian Takahashi produces nothing to show notability. Article states he was involved in some popular videos but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. CBS527^Talk 20:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Director of photography is an impressive position, and such individuals often warrant pages, but Mr. Takahashi does not seem to have the sufficient media coverage to pass GNG. I also couldn't find any awards, but my research wasn't absolutely exhaustive (around 200 google hits). Yvarta (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_Andrew_Murphy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kevin Andrew Murphy

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

Does not meet WP:N criteria Circumspect (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I believe the sources added to the article do help it to meet WP:N. Failing that, I suggest it be moved to WP:DRAFTS so that more sources can be found. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched and found nothing in a Proquest Archive Search. gNews, search here: [37], The first hit confirms that he is a published writer, the other hits may not be this Murphy, but even if they are they do not support notability. It is easy to verify that he is a published writer, but the only WP:RS in the article, School Library Journal is nothing close to the book reviews, profile articles, and discussions in scholarly articles or books needed to confirm notability. a search of google books confirms that he wrote things, not that anyone writes about his work. ping me to revisit if anyone can source it, failing that, delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG easily. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 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 09:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning delete because he is clearly a successful author, I could find little coverage of him in particular, and no heavy-hitting reviews to prove WP:AUTHOR. I've with-held voting because I'm imagining there might a wealth of reviews in publications I am simply not aware of. Yvarta (talk) 19:51, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Art Galleries Association[edit]

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

Only claim for notability is that it awards two non notable awards. Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's vital to search for it under its French name. Even English-language media uses the French moniker, it seems. Based on these Gnews results, and the geographic distribution thereof, it's say it's adequately notable under WP:NONPROFIT. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the nominator that the only claim for notability is that it awards two non notable awards. The awards may not have their own article (yet), but they have received mentions in the general press, for example in La Presse (see here). But CAGA is also notable for the Papier Art Fair, which has also received coverage in the press, by the Montreal Gazette, another RS (see here). Then there was the Feature art fair, which has recived attention in the Globe and mail, for example. As it stands, these events may not yet warrant their own article, so bringing them all together in one article makes a lot of sense to me. Mduvekot (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename to "Association des Galeries d'Art Contemporain" if that's what its actual legal organizational name it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 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. With the suggestion of renaming the article or making it about the event instead. So Why 13:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Les Balsiger (activist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Really known only for the 1993 incident, and is therefore a classic example of failing WP:BLP1E. The other references do not provide significant coverage of Balsiger himself. St Anselm (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a possible target for a redirect?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one thing, Notability is not temporary. It is sourced. There was a significant event--the protests of this person--and the article covers that, at an article title focussing on the person. If there was a separate article focusing on the event, then the BLP1E reasoning would apply to say that we don't need an article focusing on the person involved. But there is not duplication. Okay if someone wants to move/re-title it, but the name of the person seems best currently. And, Wikipedia is good for providing reference information on obscure persons, events, like this. --do ncr am 17:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment prompted me to remark that what I had in mind was something like an article about The concept of the Antichrist in contemporary Christian fringe movements, then I thought: maybe that article already exists. Looked. Found Antichrist, with a section on Seventh Day Adventists, which puts this in the proper context. Linking the articles, and changing my iVoting Keep as per User:doncram's persuasive argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to something along the lines of Anti-Catholic billboards of 1993, to fit WP:ONEEVENT. None of the linked sources focus on Balsiger, instead focusing on the billboard controversy in particular, and I see no evidence he on his own has the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. I say merge instead of delete so the good work building research and content isn't lost. Yvarta (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that amounts to a "Keep" vote, with suggestion of "move" to another title, because you cannot "merge" to a non-existent article. If/when this is closed, I would support a move, too, to be pursued probably by a wp:RM discussion at the Talk page. --do ncr am 16:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jogre[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Previously PROD'd in 2007. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides the lack of sourcing, it's not clear to me what is notable about the subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:31, 30 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) 12:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one streaming songs of 2017 (South Korea)[edit]

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

This is a superfluous list that simply mirrors the information on the web site. The Gaon Music streaming songs chart does not have its own article page and as the information given is directly copied form their web site as per WP:NOTMIRROR this page is an exemple of what wikipedia is not. Domdeparis (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We may need to consider other articles in this category as well then. --JustBerry (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. It's not going to make sense to just delete this year's iteration, or its just going to be recreated as a natural progression of the way things have been. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I may have opened a can of worms...Domdeparis (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not every chart is notable in its own right and even if it was, that doesn't mean a list of its number ones is either. There would need to be some discussion of what's reaching number one or something that suggests significance of reaching number one on this chart. Fails WP:STANDALONE. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's rationale. Cannot see how this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: the article was hijacked after the nomination and thus most of the discussion here pertained to an entirely different person; see the talk page for this AfD. I'm discussing with User:Northamerica1000 on how to fix this mess and will leave a diff for future reference. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Northamerica1000/Archive_68#OmarGosh czar 02:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OmarGoshTV[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable YouTuber; none of the sources in the article appear to mention him, or if they do, only in passing. A search failed to find any significant coverage about him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, we don't have any source that mentions his real full name, but only his first name, but I think his channel is notable as I find it in many news articles, he is known by his channel name. Mjbmr (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable sources are added and this kid doesn't just do YouTube, he is also a singer. Many notable sources are included such as wn.com and buzzfeed.com , and these articles do mention his full name.This page must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrProEdits (talk • contribs)
No. Delete. Those aren't sources--stuff like this is not a reference. Buzzfeed Community is not a "source"--it is a forum. Not notable since there is no real coverage of the subject. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Drmies of non-notable subject with no significant coverage from reliable sourcing. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 30 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) 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Origin of Painting[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of notability. I did manage to find this from The Independent, but it doesn't mention the subject by name. I have been unable to verify the other quotes, but if this one is from 2000, they could be in the print editions. I can find very little online about this. Adam9007 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO. An art installation/exhibit that happened, but no evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage doesn't demonstrate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:21, 29 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) f eminist 07:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sober (Childish Gambino song)[edit]

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

Article is an infobox and 3 sentences. Article contains 1 source. Article makes an unreferenced claim that the song won an award, but there are no corresponding charts or sales figures that one would expect from an award winning song. Nothing to show notability. CSD and PROD was denied. Kellymoat (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kellymoat - Are we looking at the same article? The song has charted on multiple Billboard charts, and won a MTVU award, and there are sources present in the article that verify this. I just checked to verify this. I can understand why one would think such a short stub of an article maybe doesn't need to exist, but your specific reasoning is baffling to me. It's simply not true to say there are not sources that verify the charting and award, and the article is so short, I don't understand how this could have been an oversight for you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that people have gotten off their butts and started to write a proper article. But look at what it was before I started deletion procedures. This is what it looked like 48 hours ago, the next edit was me attempting a CSD. Kellymoat (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't there for your CSD and PROD nominations, but it was there before you sent it AFD. (Your AFD nomination edit is the most recent edit to the article.) It appears you probably didn't check in between the PROD and sending it to AFD, which at least explains my questions about the disconnect between your nomination and the current article... Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 27 minute difference in time between someone doubling the article size and my AFD. Certainly acceptable.Kellymoat (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But they rejected your PROD and added the content in one single edit, an edit you must have been aware of in some capacity, or otherwise you wouldn't have written up an AFD at all. (It wouldn't have made sense to tag it for AFD while the PROD was active.) It also doesn't say much for WP:BEFORE being followed out. But regardless of the order or the process of things, charting on major charts and winning awards from major television networks is certainly enough to meet our notability requirements, so I'm sticking with my keep !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other scenario is -- my notification box said my edit was reverted, and I didn't bother to loo to see that the removal of PROD (the revert) also included more information. Kellymoat (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't happen. If you look at the article history, you'll see that your edits weren't rolled back or undone, so it wouldn't have appeared in your notifications. When I declined your requests, I also tried to improve the article. This is an ill-advised nomination, and you're only digging yourself a deeper hole. The wise thing for you to do is admit that you made mistakes and attempt to learn from your errors.

(Oh, and in case it's not obvious, I think we should keep the article, as it clearly meets WP:NSONG.) - Eureka Lott 01:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Song has charted and thus meets NSONG. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:27, 30 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Lennon[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. With only one notable single, does not meet necessary criteria for her own WP:BLP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Looks like not enough notable sources but they seem reliable. She's a young performer and maybe we'll be seeing another single soon.

Above user blocked for abusing multiple accounts TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding much of anything, and may soon be notable is not a valid rationale for keep. TimothyJosephWood 13:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON; I found a radio station interview, and lots of very unreliable sources, but nothing relevant on Google news/newspapers. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 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. czar 08:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted with a unanimous 10 out of 10 delete vote. It has been reinstated, again by a COI/SPA (an issue which plagued the original) for what appears to be overtly promotional reasons.

I tried to CSD it when I noticed it had returned, but an admin (User:Boing! said Zebedee) rejected it with the reasoning 'Article is quite different from the AFD-deleted one, with signficantly different sources'. To me, from memory, it has a very similar tone. Feels almost identical to the article I remember nominating (bearing in mind this was 9 months ago and I can't see it).

I am still utterly unconvinced. I do not consider what I see as significant, independent coverage - several articles about Amazon have a quote from him, a short soundbite given by virtue of his role with them. Just one article actually focuses on him in a manner in which I would consider supports the notability argument, a feature in the Puget Sound Business Journal.

This seems to be very routine and minimal coverage, and does not add up to notability sufficient for WP:GNG. For example, Jo Bertram from Uber (UK/Europe manager) gets considerably more press coverage than him (e.g. when commenting on a ruling by TfL or regarding labour law) but still does not have an article, perhaps because this coverage is considered WP:Routine. In comparison, the few sources in this article constitute minimal coverage and not what is enough to sustain an article. Rayman60 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see the deleted version, and while some of the wording has been altered, the structure and content are pretty much the same. In some places, there are near-identical constructions, like "he drives programs" (deleted version) vs "where he is responsible for driving the product" (current). I concur that this article still doesn't demonstrate notability per the nominator's reasoning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as faiing the prof test. Went to medical school blah blah did this little thing blah blah worked with some obscure redlinked person blah blah a few crappy cites blah blah blah. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For example, I looked at the New York Times article, but the star of that one is Andrew R. Jassy, who is a senior vice president. This person is just manager of "product strategy" (marketing?) with one promotional quote. W Nowicki (talk) 19:21, 29 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 08:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Tellioğlu[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Zero notability as far as I can see. scope_creep (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO looks more like a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only non-notable, but also self-promotion as per WP:AB going by on the similarity of page creator User:Mimaricmimar's profile photo --Cybela (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several related articles were created. See bottom of File:Esertepe parki.JPG for links. czar 08:22, 31 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 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Husein Balic[edit]

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

Balic never played professional, just for Steyr and SKN Juniors in the Regionalliga XaviYuahanda (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 25 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) 17:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:27, 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.

[1] ttp://www.elections.in/maharashtra/assembly-constituencies/1980-election-results.html

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVDjve9I8WQ&t=7m16s

[3] ttps://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/823907846538416129

[4] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/24/trump-invited-to-address-a-joint-session-of-congress-on-feb-28/

[5] ttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/01/24/ryan-invites-trump-address-joint-session-congress-feb-28/96985430/

[6] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-trump-joint-address_us_58876fc8e4b0e3a7356bcbaa

[7] ttps://www.facebook.com/CACAniAnimation/

[8] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toon_Boom_Animation

[9] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVPaint_Animation

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]