Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 May	20 May >

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 Speedily moved to Draft:Furies: Erinyes. bd2412 T 14:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furies: Erinyes

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

Quite simply, a massive lump of original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per No original research. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the right place for this page. It appears to be original research, not an encyclopedia topic. Ajpolino (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Furies: Erinyes is a helpful content page. Its value is that it provides information about a particular subject based upon first-hand source material. I think that it could be a featured article. — FUSTER1965 (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC).— Note to closing admin: FUSTER1965 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — FUSTER1965 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and as a WP:FORK of Erinyes. Narky Blert (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the present article looked familiar. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furies: Erinyes. (debate closed as userfy 28 January 2017). Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that this page was nominated for deletion. I speedily moved it to Draft:Furies: Erinyes as clearly not ready for mainspace. bd2412 T 14:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nexla

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

Non-notable tiny tech company, with no credible assertion of notability; only going to AfD process as act of courtesy to User:SoWhy, who feels it does not quite meet A7 speedy deletion standards. Orange Mike | Talk 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but commercial blurb WP:Promo. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Added more notable references, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokodogo (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but neither of those are notable; they seem to be some kind of ribbons at non-notable trade shows or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a start-up firm, noting its fundraising and involvement in a couple of start-up competitions. The May 2017 TechCrunch article is the nearest to an independent source, but is doing little more than summarising a propositional presentation. I am not seeing sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG; at best, this is WP:TOOSOON for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable start-up, nowhere near meeting WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject for this article is not notable and the article may appear to be for promotional use. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above. Insufficiently notable. Pichpich (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BPM Racing

(Find video game sources: "BPM Racing" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unreleased video game that didn't generate any coverage since its initial announcement. Reach Out to the Truth 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Salman

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 19:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't clear whether the Iraqi Premier League is professional or not, but it seems like it would be, particularly given the AFC Champions League berths. Plus, it isn't clear if the Olympic qualifier involved the "A" U23 team for Iraq, one would assume would satisfy criteria #1 of NFOOTY. Can these two things be clarified? South Nashua (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the Iraqi league is fully pro, and I doubt that it is, it hasn't been verified in reliable sources. A fully pro status cannot be inferred from the Champions League berths for two reasons. First, the berths do not actually exist. According to the article on the 2017 AFC Champions League, "Iraq did not fulfill the AFC Club Licensing Criteria." As such, no Iraqi clubs participated in the competition. Second, there are leagues that have such berths but are confirmed not fully pro (e.g. Bahrain). As for point #1 of WP:NFOOTY, to meet this point a footballer must have a played a tier 1 (i.e. senior level) international match or at the Olympic games. Olympic qualifiers are very deliberately not included. The guideline explicitly says that it does not cover youth level football, like the Olympic qualifiers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, didn't notice the part about the senior level. However, it appears he took part in the 2006 AFC Champions League, not the 2017 edition. I think it's important to get some clarity on the status of professionalism in this league in that era before moving forward on this article. If it can be confirmed that the league was not fully professional, deletion seems appropriate. South Nashua (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary WP:FPL works by assuming all leagues not listed there are not fully professional. Unless the player can be shown to meet GNG then the article should be deleted, though that does not preclude recreation at a later date if sources are presented at WT:FPL indicating full professionalism of the Iraqi League. Fenix down (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly unfortunate, but understandable. South Nashua (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Trebuchet

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

One article in The Washington Post and an article in an anyone-can-edit Wiki do not suggest notability. The Washington Post does human interest stories about some random person doing something unusual, and most of these persons and doings are not notable. Anomalocaris (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional and not-notable. Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement Uh, A7 doesn't apply to trebuchets... Adam9007 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)~[reply]

Agreed; speedy deletions don't apply to things as a type of catapult. Anomalocaris was 100% in the wrong, dude nominated it for deletion, and than 20 minutes later decided to nominate it for speedy deletion. This is just vandalism. ElThomas (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any excuse in a storm to keep letting WP get filled with dreck. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CB. More specifically, a WP: BEFORE indicates a dearth of persistent, in-depth coverage: [1], [2]. ~~As for the 'A7 does not apply to this type of subject'; I assumed this to be some kind of joke. Is there some kind of inherent notability in lobbing pumpkins around with medieval siege engines?~~ On edit, I see what you are trying to say- that it doesn't apply to objects, only people, events, companies etc, which is true. But the point was expressed poorly enough to raise an eyebrow. I suggest greater precision in edit summaries, so the reasoning is in plain sight. Apologies for the confusion. Incidentally, a merge with / redirect to trebuchet is within the bounds of possibility I suppose: but it would need a helluva lot of coverage in reliable sources into the future. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not have a substantial amount of information, lacks credible sources, and is not notable. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

ElThomas: I nominated it for speedy deletion; another editor removed the deletion template, which that editor had a right to do; I nominated it for deletion using this process, which I had a right to do. Anyone is free to express their belief that the article should be kept and to present evidence in support the notability of the topic, and I encourage editors to do so. None of this is vandalism; it's how things are supposed to work.
Bmbaker88: I think the article does have at least one credible source, but I agree with you, of course, that it is not notable. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and probably should have tried PROD first, which doesn't seem to have happened. Single thing built by a single individual, for a single competition, which got the "local firefighter rescues kitten from tree" coverage. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Query Lack experience with WP:CSD#a11 (adopted while I was away). Would it apply here?Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I think not- it makes a sort-of credible claim of significance (if pumpkin chucking applies, of course!) and I think A11 is more for things imagined as important by the creator. Others' mileage may vary though- it's an interesting question. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - fails WP:GNG by a mile. One news source is not good enough. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Sandstein 07:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Muck

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

Warren Muck was an enlisted man with E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He parachuted into Europe twice and fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and Belgium. He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under WP:SOLDIER and he died in Belgium from artillery fire. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is not as a major character. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) not individually notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "...and he died in Belgium when a trophy firearm discharged accidentally." This actually refers to Donald Hoobler, not Warren Muck. Muck was killed during an artillery strike. Commenting so there's no confusion. Chiafriend12 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you and pardon my confusion; I modified my nomination text.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would vouch that this page should stay, and while Muck isn't as "famous" as some other soldiers, he is still notable enough to warrant an article. The writing quality, reliable sources, and authorized images of the article make it quite comprehensive as well. My second choice would be to make it a redirect. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 23:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) -- nn soldier. The article is largely filled with trivia, as in: as a child, he skipped wherever he walked, etc. Not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The immigrant magician

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

No indication of book notability. Google search does not find independent reliable sources on book. Promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be self published and I assumed that the article was a simple advert and was assessing the CSD options. As this is now at AfD, deletion is the only option. It is wholly unreferenced, searches yield nothing of any worth - (Amazon sell it but that is the extent of the search results) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was already deleted, on my nomination, once as advertising, and was promptly re-created. This version differs slightly from the deleted version in that it does not include the link to order the book. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is entirely unreferenced and fails WP:GNG, also per Robert McClenon's comment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks credible sources and seems like it was created for promotional use. Bmbaker88 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not technically spam, because it lacks all links, but not notable either. Still looks like spam to me. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Bearian (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is support to redirect this to the band's article, that article has been deleted. All opinions, including that of "redirect" appear to be that this content doesn't belong in its current form. —SpacemanSpiff 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Rajan

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

Notability issue. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: According to the notability criteria, finishing 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a music competition grants notability, and the page states that this musician was 1st runner up on a TV music competition(which I take to mean 2nd place). The article is slim and could use some sourcing improvement, but this musician would seem to merit an article, unless you know information I do not. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: hi. I apologise for the cnfusion. The subject, Rajan, didnt come up second or the runner up. It was the band that he is member of. I am still not sure if that reality show is over, and if the band won. Still searching on internet.

PS: How to update "concer" for the deletion? —usernamekiran(talk) 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: Thanks for your reply. That is helpful, as if it was this person's band that merits an article, this article should just be turned into a redirect to the page about the band if one exists. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I updated the article a little. All the WP:RS make passing reference to band itself. A couple of websites mention him as the band member. Nothing much. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment viz Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphony Official.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the age-old cycle I ProD'd, an anon deProD'd. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: lol. Isn't that how AfD now-a-days?

—usernamekiran(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SInce time immemorable. When I was a lad, we had to carry our ProD's on our backs through the snow, going uphill both ways.21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and repurpose this page into an article about the band; this person's name can be a redirect. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Said article is already at Euphony Official and is on the block as well.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that existed, thanks; then (assuming that survivies) this should just be redirected. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and Dlohcierekim: I dont think either of them will survive. They were created with COI. An account with band's name, IP hopping, another a/c with name roshan.tony —usernamekiran(talk) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete dearth of coverage, does not meet WP:GNG. The contest was not sufficiently significant to meet WP:Music. Subject does not meet WP:Music.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per our usual practice for runner-up of lesser reality show contests, to Dil Hai Hindustani. The link to the outcomes specified major contests. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I disagree. Rajan's article should be deleted with no redirect. If anything, the band that he is member of, should be mentioned on the show's article. With another sentence mentioning Rajan as a band member. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of the WWE Championship belt design

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

I am nominating this article for deletion, because creating a separate article just for a title belt design is pointless. And it doesn't deserve neither a WP:SPINOUT and WP:SIZERULE - the main WWE Championship article is at 41KB, as of now and History of the WWE Championship belt design is at 27KB. Nickag989^talk 19:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nickag989^talk 19:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I disagree. The history of championship belts is a standalone subject which is lacking on Wikipedia. This is an area which will be expanded upon. Given the vast information online it is certainly not "pointless" to many people. The history of this specific title and it's various belt designs goes back decades with too much information to include in the separate WWE championship page (including belt creators, design details, material, debut dates, background history etc.). Many professional wrestling articles of a much smaller interest have WP:SPINOUT (TNA Hall of Fame etc.)Bbx118 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame in pro wrestling is radically different, but this is about the history of a championship belt design. We never create a separate articles for them, since it's redundant. Nickag989^talk 19:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. 'The Big Gold Belt' for example has it's own page. If you believe it's redundant, then by definition of the word you believe it had meaning before. What changed this? Do you mean irrelevant? This seems to be leaning towards a POV. This article also covers all designs in the history of the championship, not just one design. No valid grounds for deletion nor any proposed alternatives to deletion Bbx118 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Neutral - I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I feel that the current WWE Championship article covers the designs well enough, but that's not to say that it can't be expanded into its own article if there is enough coverage that could talk about each design (the early designs may be a bit harder to find, unless their print sources have been uploaded online). In the meantime, I would suggest to at least add the sources from this new pending article to the design section on the WWE Championship article, as it needs sources. --JDC808 ♫ 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That section covers the title design belt much better than this article as a whole, even if it has the half size of it. Nickag989^talk 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section does not go into nearly as much detail as the new article; hence it's creation and sourcing. There is simply too much information to cram into the WWE championship page without it looking bulky. Perhaps it would make sense to merge that section of the WWE championship page to this new page, since some information from there is now here (but expanded upon)?Bbx118 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Expanded with what? Unreliable, unsourced content and poorly written sentences. That's why this article is too big. Nickag989^talk 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE.com etc. is not "unreliable, unsourced content". Please refrain from insulting members and simply edit where you see appropriate if you believe there are "poorly written sentences" (POV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources that I deleted yesterday were clearly unreliable (am I saying that WWE.com is unreliable? never), because that's what I've done for a long time. As a nominator, I'm no longer going to edit this page. "The Big Gold" has its own article, since it's a historic professional wrestling championship belt that has represented multiple world championships throughout its history contested in various promotions. As far as the WWE Title goes, it spun off from NWA in 1963, it has represented the symbol of WWE since then, and it has undergone many name changes, title design (unlike the Big Gold Belt), unifications etc. There's clearly not enough material nor independent notability for its own separate article, due to the fact that the belt designs are part of the championship (the history of title holders is different). Nickag989^talk 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are not sources to merit keeping it. Some sections don't even have sources. If you really want to the article, put it in your sandbox and edit it as you can. Otherwise it needs to be deleted. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The section at the article is enough. The material doesn't have sufficient independent notability for its own article. The belt designs are part and parcel of the championship, and unlike the history of title holders, it's not large enough to need to be spun out. oknazevad (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to merit keeping the article. It would take a long time to find enough sources to fufill the need for amount of sources it would require. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Original article not large enough for this to be a spin-off. Majority of sourcing is primary. Nikki♥311 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - within-fictional-universe cruft. Yes, WWE is fiction. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Everyone here knows that, no need to point it out.★Trekker (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Aina

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Relies too much on promotional or primary sources. No coverage found in reliable secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject was only covered in-depth by (likely) self-published sources, written entirely in a promotional tone (e.g. [3]), and mentioned in passing in independent sources (e.g. [4]). Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. --Dps04 (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taymor Wily

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

Non-notable filmmaker fails basic GNG. FITINDIA 17:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jal beach

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

No sourcing online to show a pass at WP:GNG, article needs a total rewrite, written like an advertisement right now. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vuno. Jali Beach exists within the Vuno territory and inarguably is a tourist attraction too. It is a plausible search term for that geography. A delete is not required. Lourdes 18:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- _{Nom's comment} Redirect: This seems like a more sensible target. Vuno#Attractions covers the beach as an attraction specifically. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 20:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for advertising. Since the capitalization is wrong it is not even good for a redirect. If this AFD had not been started, I would have deleted this by now! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graeme Bartlett, I couldn't understand your comment about capitalization cancelling out the need for a redirect. Could you please clarify? Thanks. Lourdes 01:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect should be called Jal Beach as it is a proper noun. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand what you're pointing to. I suspect that when people might try to find the beach on search engines and on Wikipedia, the capitalization rule might not hold necessarily true. You could probably consider that. Thanks for the quick reply. Lourdes 01:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as might be searched for and appears to make the most sense per the above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. There is so much promotional, florid wording it would be a real problem to fix. Then create a new article about the beach. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Quite snowy here. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Irvine

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

GP and so far unsuccessful Parliamentary Candidate. Not convinced there is enough to warrant inclusion here. Uhooep (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her prior role in the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign and her role now as figurehead for the National Health Action Party have generated her enough coverage, I'd say, to satisfy WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current media interest in current and previous SW Surrey elections generated non-trivial coverage. Past campaigns also sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Seantellis (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NPOL, political candidates are not notable purely for their current or previous campaigns for office. Irvine has no continuing notability outside her candidacy for a minor party. AusLondonder (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needed a bit of a clean-up. She has been involved in significant campaigning activities on health and education issues for more than a decade. There is substantial coverage of this in multiple articles appearing in a range of newspapers over this time. She meets WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks Drchriswilliams for your substantial work on the article yesterday. I think that adds a lengthy history of pre-National Health Action Party campaigning that has been covered by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sufficiently long and well-sourced. This would be impossible if the person were non-notable. Munci (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This satisfies the general notability guidelines. Her role in the National Health Action Party is significant. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 15:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Irvine has been on the news lots and lots and lots and lots and lots for wanting to kick Jeremy Hunt out of office. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Byington (baseball)

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player who is currently a college baseball coach Spanneraol (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails WP:NBASE. This is one of those articles that I've love to save, but I just don't think the case exists to bring it up to current notability standards. South Nashua (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about this subject. Lepricavark (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be anything notable about this and (at a glance) the reference URLs do not seem overly notable. Per nom, fails WP:NBASE at this time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Cammarano

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

promotional article for non-notable business. Author of two non-notable books, both self published. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Two decent links comes close to GNG, but probably not enough there either. South Nashua (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He's non-notable and it's a vanity page.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, it appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per NAUTHOR. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was Speedied and salted RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RightsInfo

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

Aside the non-notable awards, the organization has not been discussed on independent third-party sources thereby failing Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:ORG criteria. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems not much changed from the version of this article that was speedy deleted. As the nominator states, independent sources for this are lacking. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for the third time, and salt. TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lending Solutions, Inc.

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

Promotional material for an organization with fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. This search only shows press releases and passing mentions on non-notable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It has independent sources. It shows notability. Maybe it could be reworded or copy edited. Reb1981 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly point out the "independent sources" which do not look PR-like —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - Please point out the "independent sources" to which you refer. The only sources in the article fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've also removed a lot of puffery from the article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform to use to parrot company "messaging". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more loan by phone spam and marketing. Please, no. Just read every line. You've got to be kidding if you think this is spam. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piñata Records

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

Non-notable local label full of non-notable acts. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Mz7 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exquisite Knives

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

A search turned up the usual social websites, but zero independent coverage. Several of the citations in the article don't mention Exquisite Knives at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:PROMO Narky Blert (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I have removed most of the puffery in the article as it was referring to a Mr. Ellis and the article isn't about him. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ontological Dialogic Provocations in Education

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

Apart from the fact that it is totally unreadable (which, given the topic, may be intentional) this is essaylike and mainlyrelies on two sources, not enough to establish that this is 'idea' is notable. Pity there isn't a speedy tag for obscurantist b*ll*cks. TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, per WP:NOTWEBHOST and per WP:NOR. Uncle Roy (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a real theory - I've read about the ideas in my teaching textbook - but the page is totally original research and brand-labeled. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth David

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

Prod removed for no discernible (or stated) reason. Nothing here to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was a notable figure in a period of change to the college admissions system at a notable university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Administrative position not high enough for automatic notability through WP:PROF (he was not head of an entire university) so to be notable he needs to pass WP:GNG, which requires multiple reliably-published sources, independent of him, that provide significant coverage of him. But that's not what we have; instead, we have stories that mention him only in passing or that quote him rather than covering him. And the claim that he was a leader in changes to college admissions, rather than merely being an administrator during those changes, are only very weakly supported by the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof]. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Absent evidence of verifiability through coverage in reliable sources of the claims in the article, such as that Ware competed in the Winter Olympics (or at a similar competitive level), I see no other outcome besides "delete" here. While it is likely that Ben Ware exists, this article is being deleted because it consists almost entirely of unverifiable information, especially as it is a biography of a living person. Mz7 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ware

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

I think this is a hoax article. I tried fact checking a few things but with no luck. I tried some fact checks, such as Googling "Team Green Kawasaki" and it is something that exists, but I can't find a connection with them and a Ben Ware. When I google "Ben Ware" and Motocross pretty much all that comes up is the reference already cited - in which a Ben Ware places 67th out of 150 in some event in Dorset. Nothing about Winter Olympics, nothing about Maxxis, nothing about Monster Energy. As it isn't a blatant hoax, Ben Ware seems to exist (there is a Twitter account for a Ben Ware who does do motocross, see @benwareuk, but he's only posted for a bit in 2015) and there is ONE reference, plus claims of notability in his being an Olympian (two years running, which is amazingly impressive for an four-yearly event) I see no option but to take to AFD. Mabalu (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as having disputed factual accuracy, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I race motocross professionally and have competed with Ben a few times throughout the years so I can assure you that he is no hoax and a respected rider amongst the youth riders in the UK. The only detail that I could find that is potentially wrong in this article is the year that he won the British nationals as I believe it was 2014. He uses various social media accounts, mainly instagram, that you could check for further information. Kobush99 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a hoax but a personal bio full of puffery. Performance in high-school sporting competitions almost never gives notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the arguments are to believed this sounds mostly like a G3 or G11 deletion. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poging Lalake

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

Unintelligable andprobably eye-wateringly trivial. I do not think that translation would alter my opinion. TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and there's probably a speedy criterion that fits. Lepricavark (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a native speaker of Tagalog/Filipino, the article basically centers around a "fact" that someone's a "Handsome Man" or Poging Lalake who supposedly had relations with certain local celebrities.. Nothing encyclopedic and all vanity.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and the only two references are to FaceBook.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. If this is posted in Tagalog Wikipedia it will be deleted on sight. --Bluemask (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - I can read a bit of Taglish, and it makes no sense to me. What is it? I could use a curse but won't. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Member's Only (rap band)

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

Apparently non-notable band, unsigned, only releases are on SoundCloud. Generic name makes finding sources difficult, but I'm not really finding ... anything, not that I expected to. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with that all. Calicodragon (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom stated, does not appear to be notable at this time. SoundCloud as only references does not help either. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Iceland–Turkey relations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Turkey

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

fails WP:GNG. as per my previous nomination. There has never been a resident ambassador. The keep votes in the last AfD were far from convincing LibStar (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Iceland–Turkey relations (currently a redirect to Foreign relations of Iceland) and add whatever other information exists regarding contacts between these two countries. bd2412 T 14:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

do you mean merge? LibStar (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, since the proposed target is currently merely a redirect. bd2412 T 18:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Iceland–Turkey relations. An article on the relations of the two nations would have more content than an article on an ambassador to Turkey.--Snaevar (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Turkey relations is a redirect. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Online

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

This company is not notable: I could not find any coverage (except company listings that - by nature - try to be exhaustive). Also, the author has a possible conflict of interest, judging by Wikipedia:Help_desk#My_Wikipedia_page_not_shown_in_google. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about a brokerage firm, barely sourced to routine listings. The article text makes no claim as to why this firm would feature in an encyclopaedia (indeed, the indication is that the prime concern is appearance on Google) and I am finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as spam. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears to be a trademark infringement of the SAS website. See idiot in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline i am coming

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

Non-notable upcoming movie. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Power~enwiki (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFF guidelines. Domdeparis (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Too soon. Also, did they make a spelling mistake? I think "Jacqueline I am coming" is spelled with a U and two M. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farooky Tooth Powder

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

Fails WP:GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 11:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's sole source appears to be a dead link (at least, I couldn't find the article in the newspaper archive that the link sent me to). But the official website is interesting -- this tooth powder is also advertised to relieve or cure a variety of non-tooth ailments, including dysentery, cholera and swine flu. I think this article has serious problems under WP:MEDRS. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete essentially an advertisement. I searched for refs and found no independent refs with substantial discussion of the topic. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per comments above. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Dangal (singer)

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

Non-notable musician lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has not produced any notable work. Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable noteworthy sources and instead gets most of it's references from sites such as facebook and youtube. Fails WP:NBIO. Bakilas (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:TOOSOON. There are zero reliable sources. His career is just starting and he's not there yet to passing WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 Mai

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

Article has only cited one source (iTunes) for 3–4 years. The source is only used for the release date of the album, and digital music stores may not be reliable. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 9 English language citations and text sections on the release, title song's success, controversy and reception. The "turning point" in his career of the successful title track "Champion" makes this album valuable (although a page on the song alone might be as valid). I'll leave it to consensus.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language citations all appear to be passing mentions, a sentence or half a sentence. It's not enough to establish notability.--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of submissions to the 90th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film

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

This currently fails WP:V and is a borderline WP:HOAX. While the 90th Academy Awards will almost certainly take place, the submissions for the Best Foreign Language film don't start for some months yet. The two sources pertain to the last list, and the dates for this year's list have not been announced by the Academy. The one entry in the list is not sourced, and nothing supports that submission online either. Futhermore, the article's creator has past form for adding unsourced information to similar lists in the past, which they have been taken to ANI about and blocked. They've just come off a block for creating non-notable articles, with a history of disruption which strongly suggests WP:NOTHERE. Therefore, this should be deleted until any concrete information is available. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no problem deleting this article but since the page is going to be resurrected at some point a redirect to List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film would probably be ok too. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons clearly stated by the nom. Like Betty Logan, I have no issue with it being a redirect, as long as it's protected until it becomes not WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two films mentioned (one now that I removed the IP added after this AFD started) are not sourced (nor is there one out there) so it is possible that it is an attempt to give them pub that they don't merit. MarnetteD|Talk 15:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Cues

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

Contains claims of importance enough to fail A7 but I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources (minor mentions such as [5] in local newspapers is all I could find).

Fails notability guideline for corporations and general notability guideline. So Why 08:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a famous seller of cues. Yet, I couldn't find sources confirming notability. Fails ORG/GNG. Lourdes 09:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage (really any coverage), just products listed for sale. Fails WP:NCORP. MB 00:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Memorial Project – California

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

Unclear notability since 2014. No sources except the web page for the project (2006). darthbunk pakt dunft 05:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless improved -- This appears to be a some kind of museum collection, but it is not clear if it is a permanent exhibit or a temporary exhibition, not where it is. If this is clarified and it is a permanent exhibit somewhere, we might possibly keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like until March 25, 2005, this article stated the project was to be housed at Forest_Lawn,_Hollywood_Hills_Cemetery, diff. I don't find any information about the project on the Forest Lawn website, either today's version or versions from 2004/2005 using the wayback machine, for instance. Perhaps this was a proposal. Perhaps it was a temporary exhibit. But currently it fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments roughly divided between both sides after three relists. (non-admin closure) f e minist 13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Calhoun

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

Not your household Star Trek name - this is a comic book/novel character. Sources are primarily primary (novels, etc.). Influences section looks promising - until one realizes it is based on a mailing list/blog comments by the author who invented this character (primary/OR/self-published/etc.). There is nothing to suggest this character has significance outside niche fandom discussions, and certainly nothing that warrants him being in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The character indeed debuted in a novel (not a comic book), and Peter David's site is indeed a blog (not a "mailing list"). I created this article before I fully came to understand the mportance of WP:PSTS. I'll try to find secondary sources for it. Nightscream (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep 1) No deletion rationale advanced: even if it's non-notable WP:ATD expects that it be merged or redirected. There's no question it's verifiable. 2) Several RS'es exist, specifically in the 'news' and 'books' sections of the above {{Find sources AFD}} template, sufficient to meet GNG. 3) As a notable author, Peter David's own comments meet WP:SPS. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No keep rationale advanced. If you want to merge, vote so or do it, there is no rule saying merge has to proposed before deletion. I don't see what could be merged - he deserves a one-sentence on some list of ST characters at most. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - please cite them, and please don't cite in-universe plot summaries; those are not sufficient. And no, author's comments about his own character on a blog/discussion list/social media/etc. don't suffice to establish a character's notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, there never needs to be a keep rationale: rebutting the delete rationale is sufficient. In this case, as nominator, you are positively asserting that nothing in WP:ATD is relevant--not improvement, not merging, not redirection--and that therefore the existing article should be removed from Wikipedia and nothing left in its place. Your nominations consistently fail this, and I do find it quite frustrating that you seem immune to any education on your responsibilities as nominator. You think all it take is starting an AfD that says 'NN, delete' and then anyone arguing keep has the burden to provide sources. Sorry, but WP:BEFORE makes it clear that the nominator is expected to do the work beforehand. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jclemens I don't understand your point. Both deletion and keep arguments need a rationale. And I provided my rationale: failure at WP:GNG. PS. I am quite fine with soft deletion, merging and redirecting, and you should know that by now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - How many times need I explain 1) that you need to do WP:BEFORE, 2) how to do it effectively, and 3) how to communicate your findings to justify deletion as opposed to any other outcome preferred by WP:ATD? Seriously, what part of that is unclear? Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        How many times will you try to change the topic? There are no good sources. The low quality sources you found don't help. I saw most of them BEFORE, and I dismissed them as garbage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article relies too much on primary sources without showing significance of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says "Calhoun is the only Star Trek character that has not appeared in any of the Star Trek television series or movies to have an action figure." without a source. I'd be interested in learning more about that. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As requested here are a couple of sources that mention an action figure: [6], [7], eBay, and this is likely the most interesting of the four, quite critical of the figure. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot seriously think those are reliable, and on topic. That he has action figures doesn't make him notable, and the product description plus few blog fan comments on the figure are hardly helpful for anything except to reference a sentence saying he has an action figure - which, again, does not make him notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep thanks. I'm not convinced it's a useful article personally, but I'm convinced it meets notability guidelines. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki: Can you say why? Keep in mind WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument, statements need rationale behind them. You think it is notable because.... ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no argument provided for deleting the article. It's clearly not WP:TNT and I'm convinced it passes WP:GNG as well. Why do you want to delete the article? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because as you said yourself (contradicting yourself) he fails WP:GNG. If he does not, do say how he meets it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe I said he fails WP:GNG. Simply saying that all the references are "Star Trek related" doesn't mean they can be ignored. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        They can when they are all plot references: he is only discussed in 1) works of fiction where he is a plot element 2) summaries of plot element like Star Trek encyclopedias, omnibuses, etc. 3) social media fan discussions (blogs, forums) and 4) merchandise pages (reviews of action figurine). There is not a single reliable reference discussing his significance, etc. The burden of proof to show he is notable is on the article creator(s) and those voting keep and so far that burden has not been fulfilled. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good sourcing, also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BabbaQ: Which sourcing is 'good' here? Do you mean the novels? The blog review of the action figure? Or perhaps you refer to my favorite, 'Advertisement printed on the inside back cover of multiple Star Trek novels published in 1998 and 1999.'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters: I am not convinced about this particular character's notability as I do not necessarily see a significant amount of coverage on this subject in third-party, notable sources. It would be greatly beneficial if the keep votes could provide the links to the sources that support this character meets the notability standards, as I can see all of the information regarding this subject fitting rather comfortably in the list article. I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep if I could see more links (and I do not believe the links about the existence of an action figure are particularly useful in this context). While I think the Peter David links are good and permissible, I think this article needs a few more third-party sources on the development or reception of the character would greatly help to support this subject's notability. I apologize for the length of my response and I look forward to a longer discussion about this. As someone who greatly enjoys creating articles about fictional characters (and I have received some notes about their questionable notability as well), I would greatly appreciate hearing a little more from the "keep" votes. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the claim for notability is that he is the most notable character from New Frontier, and that there are enough references to support a stand-alone article rather than merging into that list. I'd consider references in the context of Star Trek (the TV series) to be sufficient; I don't believe there's consensus as to whether those exist. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response; it just would be helpful to get some links to the references that are considered as enough support to satisfy the notability standards. If I could see those links, I would be more than happy to change my vote, but I just am not seeing them when looking online. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a Google news search, [8] is the best I can find for the character, and that's a trivial reference. [9] actively avoids mentioning him by name but does reference him. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I do not believe that those two sources (especially the Hollywood Reporter one, which is extremely trivial) is enough to support the notability of this character, but I will leave the discussion to other, more experienced users. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "keep" !votes are weak but there is clearly no consensus for any other action. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man Strikes Back

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

This supposed film has no reliable sources and is just a strung together set of episodes of The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) and can be covered in that article. I redirected it but it was reversed by an editor claiming Notability is not a reason to delete an article. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same notability problem:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. --Impending IP (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series). It has received some notable coverage and reviews, but the current article has only two sources, and they're both Amazon. The articles is essentially cast and plot, both of which are at the proposed target. I have no objection to the articles being split out after the sourced content is expanded. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The notable coverage you indicate are mostly list articles, blogs or other non-reliable websites thus do not significantly cover any of the three films. (WP:N - "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") The reviews link brings up just space for reviews or short reviews (not over 300 words) not there for not significant reviews (per WP:NFSOURCES "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', ..."). Reliable notable sources do not current exist. Spshu (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Therefore, some of the list articles do count toward reliable sourcing and discussion of the subject. There are some critical reviews if you scroll past the first page of results, but the content is still pretty light. Hence, my !vote to redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the overall length of the list articles generally they have had trival mentions, not more than a few lines just to be complete. Spshu (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Though I do agree the article does need more sources.--Total-Truth-Teller-24 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors have said Keep without any further comment. Surely one of you can explain what's notable... Argento Surfer (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable. Article is all plot and the "sources" are from Amazon; I'm not sure what the three "keep" voters above are thinking. Even trying to gather out-of-universe content to improve the article would be next to impossible since a whopping two pages on Google make barely a mention of this picture, mainly by non-viable niche sites like comicreview and rateyourmusic. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found three more sources for the 1977 film: [10][11][12]. I would strongly reccomend going through JSTOr and Google Books some more before closing this. These are some of the earliest Spider-Man films, and there is some indication that sources are covering these films in that context. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These source most just indicated that the films exists and should be covered in WP but not enough signification coverage for their own article. Deseret News article has 171 out of 1356 words (only 12.6%) about the three TV series based films and is not the original sources (Sources: io9.com's "The Secret History of Spider-Man Movies," spidermanfilms.wikia.com, comicbookmovie.com, weminoredinfilm.com's "6 Spider-Man Movies That Almost But Thankfully Didn't Get Made," wikipedia.com). Using WP, WP based sites, WP sourced articles or other wiki powered site (wikia.com) as a source is not allowed. Nor is 12.6% of an article signification coverage. The IO9 has even less about (166 words) the three TV films. And none of the books give signification coverage as the books are not about the three movies, not just about Spider-Man and have brief entries. Spshu (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge I listed a few potential sources late last night because I was concerned that the deletion nomination would be closed before a proper examination of all possible sources could be performed. I went through Google Books, JSTOR and a few other places, and I am now of the opinion that a merge is the best option. There were a number of book and a few media sources covering the various movies, but they did not contain much information beyond a plot summary, the connection to the television series and a few interesting tidbits about the production. All in all, I think that these films are extremely relevant to the history of Spider-Man, but that the coverage is just not substantial enough to write a fleshed out article. (Most of the articles do not have many citations to reliable sources, which is why I am proposing a selective merge of the limited cited content). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a legit, made for TV movie (though low budget). Authorised Spider Man Marvel movie, so can't see any reason not to keep it, when others of it's nature are notable for Wikipedia. Article does need more sources. It has its own IMDB page. [[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078308/ Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an indicator of notability.★Trekker (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a review from British Mag Time Out https://www.timeout.com/london/film/spider-man-strikes-back Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per the WP:NFSOURCES section of Film notability indicates like the IMDB, "capsule reviews" which are reviews up to 300 words. The Time Out is clearly less than 300 words. --Spshu (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartBear Software

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

I do not think there is any credible claim of notability here, nor are the sources substantial enough to confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous AfD has many sources and more have been created since. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major player in its industry area. Sufficient sources exist. --Michig (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The result of the previous AfD was Delete and the article does not appear to have been improved since then, nor are there any new sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Can the previous "Keep" !voters explain point to which of the sources meet the criteria to establish notability please? All of the references are either advertorials, mentions in passing or PR releases, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly promotional; this content belongs on the company web site, not here. No indications of notability or significance; "sufficient sources exist" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. I've reviewed the sources from the first AfD and they are not independent reliable sources. Should be again deleted & perhaps salted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources to the page, (see sources 12-15) and made a few edits (see the last sentence under "History and founding" with sources 7-10). I am curious if you have any recommendations about which specific aspects of the page need the most attention, and how I should go about improving it so it does not get taken down? Eugene450 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is that the existing sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You've added more references which is great, thank you, but the references you've added also do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You say you added references 12-15. Reference 12 is the same as 18 and fails WP:ORGIND as it is a simple regurgitation of a Press Release and/or not "intellectually independent". This is the same problems for references 14 and 15. Reference 13 only mentions the company in passing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that the sources do meet RS and the quantity do help subject meet GNG. Have a nice day. PS: I have correctly formatted your indenting per MOS:LISTGAP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very kind, thank you. So what are you saying? That *all* the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability? Or some sources? Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable please and it gives everyone an idea of which sources to look at in particular because the article has a lot and most of those are PR statements or interviews and all of that type of reference fails WP:ORGIND. I've commented on the most recent ones that were added above and they clearly do not meet the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can, but it's going to break indenting.

RSes that discus the company

Diakantonis, Demitri. "Francisco Partners backs SmartBear, a maker of tools for software developers". The Middle Market. SourceMedia. Retrieved 15 May 2017. Only partial access, but clearly discusses the subject in detail
Galen Moore. "Triple merger creates SmartBear Software in Beverly". Business Journal. Discusses the creation of the company in five paragraphs

RSes that discus the companies that were bought by SoftBear and mention SmartBear

Arnold, Ed. "Memphis tech firm sold to Boston company". Business Journal. discusses sale of company and one it absorbed
Engel, Jeff. "Source: SmartBear Software Sold to Francisco Partners for $410M". xconomy. Xconomy. Discusses sale of company to another company
Zaroban, Stefany. "SmartBear Software buys AlertSite, a web and mobile monitoring firm". Internet Retailer. Discusses the sale of AlertSite to SmartBear
"Top Places To Work 2013". Boston Globe. Discusses the sale of AlertSite to SmartBear

SmartBear's role in development centres

Kennedy, John. "SmartBear to create 25 jobs at new software centre in Galway this year". Silicon Republic Knowledge & Events Management Ltd. Silicon Republic. Retrieved 15 May 2017. SmartBear's role in Galway
Vaccaro, Adam. "Somerville's Assembly Row Signs Up First Tech Tenant". Boston Globe. Discusses the company in terms of its tenancy in a new tech region, Assembly Row, in Boston, but goes into detail on the company
"Assembly Row signs up first tech tenant, SmartBear Software". Boston Globe. BetaBoston.com. Assembly Row discussion again

RSes but do not discuss the subject directlin in detail

Handy, Alex. "SmartBear points new hire at new product". Software Development Times. Discusses a senior hire at SmartBear, but focuses on the hire not the company
Dortch, Michael E. "SmartBear 'Opens' SoapUI Open Source API Testing Tool To Monitor Live Systems". iDevNews.com. the open sourcing of SoapUI, a SmartBear product
Taft, Darryl K. "SmartBear Collaborator 10 Enables Collaboration Across Dev Teams". eWeek.com. Focus is on Collaborator and only a one-paragraph intro on the company
McCarthy, Vance. "SmartBear Adds Test Automation for HTML5, Rich Media for Visual Studio 2012, .NET". iDevNews.com. Discusses one the company's tools.
Janet, Wagner. "SmartBear Releases CoAP Testing Plugin for Ready! API Platform". Programmable Web. Discusses Ready! API, a SmartBear product
"2012 Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide Recognizes SmartBear's AlertSite as No.2". CMTNet - InfoTech. SmartBear product AlertSite is the focus
"New LoadComplete by SmartBear dramatically reduces time to acquire data for blazing fast load testing performance". Software Development Times. SDTimes.com. Discusses LoadComplete, one of SmartBear's products
"SmartBear AlertSite". PC Magazine. AlertSite, smartBear product
"SmartBear Moves APIs Beyond Code With SwaggerHub". eWeek.com. discusses SwaggerHub, a SmartBear product
"SmartBear Software Acquires Eviware". Stockholm Innovation & Growth. discusses Eviware, a SmartBear product
Hof, Robert. "Startup Mecca Rises From Abandoned Guinness Storehouse". Forbes. brief mention of the company. Focus is on the tech sector in Galway
O'Dowd, Barry. "IRELAND IS NOW THE NUMBER ONE LOCATION OF CHOICE BY MARKET SHARE FOR SCALING BUSINESSES BETWEEN 10-200 EMPLOYEES". Irish Tech News. 2017 Irish Tech News. Retrieved 15 May 2017. Another discussion of Galway
"Three firms to create jobs in Galway and Dublin". Raidió Teilifís Éireann. Retrieved 15 May 2017. SmartBear's role in Galway, but focus is on Galway
"Software firm to create 100 new jobs in city". Connacht Tribune. Connacht Tribune Group. Brief mention of SmartBear in Galaway
"Los líderes mundiales en tecnología se fijan en las 'start-up' catalanas". El Periodico. discusses SmartBear leaving the region
"Outsourcing software development to Russia: Destination Tula". GoalEurope.com. Discusses Tula, a tech centre in Russia, where SmartBear has set-up

Not RSes (press releases, self-pub)

none

Unclear as site requires membership

Cooper, Laura. "SmartBear Receives Investment From Francisco Partners". WSJ Pro. Retrieved 15 May 2017.
O'Brien, Kelly. "Somerville software company sold for up to $500M". Boston Business Journal. American City Business Journals. Retrieved 15 May 2017.

Is this a special case of Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU where you are unintentionally being "disruptive and time wasting"? It seems to me that you made up your mind before you looked at the sources in the article and did not do a Google search at all. If that's the case, you're a waste of space and you desrve a topic ban from AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Wow, disruptive and time-wasting? Feel better? You could always have waited until you were less cranky to respond (unless this is your normal mood). Had I known that the breaking of your beloved indentation would prove so traumatic, I could have asked an easier-to-understand question - saved you the bother of creating an answer to a question nobody has asked. Nevertheless, you've put a lot of effort into your response....

You appear to understand what WP:RS is all about (great) but I asked specifically about CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which maybe you missed in what I've now assumed was a red mist of rage (inadvertently) caused by my asking a simple question (which I thought is the point, after all, of discussions on AfD). I asked Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable with regards to those criteria but there's nothing in your vinegary response to indicate that you have critically examined the *contents* of the articles being referred to and I apologize for not anticipating the trouble you obviously had with the word "couple".

For example. Here's the "official" Press Release for the Francisco Partners acquisition at the start of the month. Compared against the first RS you list I would say it fails ORGIND as the news article is plainly regurgitating a Press Release.

Similarly, the other RS you proclaim is this blog post from bizjournals. I was always under the impression that blogs are considered self-published and therefore fail RS.

But, you know Walter, it is clear that all you really want is to drive away collegiate editors that are interested in quality articles who ask really simply questions (apologies again for using that difficult word "couple") so I'll just leave this as it is and leave my !vote unchanged. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 07:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really care about CORPDEPTH or ORGIND since they all die in respect to GNG. Sorry to have pissed you off. No, no all blogs are not considered self-pubs. If it's a self-published blog it certainly is. If it's writing for a company that has an editorial process, it's not. I won't comment on the rest of your diatribe per WP:TROLLFOOD, but I will say, in relation to assuming that I was responding in anger (or rage), you might want to read about psychological projection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T/C) 04:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Ling High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG. Clhs (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Unless things have changed, we usually presume notability for high schools, as independent sources can usually be found if one digs deep enough. (See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). LK (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chung Ling is one of the most notable schools in Penang, with an excellent academic record and alumni that include the likes of Khaw Boon Wan, Lee Koon Choy, Ming Tatt Cheah and so on. In fact, deleting this article is a lazy solution, when a lot can be done to improve this article.Vnonymous 10:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep sources are possibly in Malay, I presume they exist based on the number of notable alumni and 2010 Penang dragon boat accident. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - As others said, Chung Ling is a notable school on Penang because of its history. It still need more references and expanding though. 2001:D08:1810:6195:75FB:79E6:2BAE:9125 (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per LK. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raluca Andreea Rădulescu

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

No real indication of notability, as defined by WP:PROF. For starters, there are no sources, which is kind of a problem. She doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria, but I'll just zero in on point 6. The subject is indeed an administrator, but a rather low-level one. She is - see here - a prodecan, or "vice dean". That's below rector, vice rector and dean. She's one of five vice deans in her faculty. It's a step above department head, but a long way from establishing notability under point 6. For the rest, as noted, nothing stands out. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF WP:GNG. Why did we bother translating this when we could have been translating a featured article or a highly notable topic? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not cited anywhere. Please correct if wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sky of Avalon – Prologue to the Symphonic Legends

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

totally non-notable album that does not meet the requirements of NALBUM: there are no professional reviews, nor is there any discussion of the album in reliable sources. the best of the internet is this link, [13], and that is just another webzine. I had redirected the article but it was restored here, [14], by User:Yk49, who said he added references--but that's to Roth's own website and to Blabbermouth, which is just a zine and not a reliable source. User:Atlantic306's revert is not very useful either: he clearly didn't see that there is no proper sourcing for the article, which is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards. Mindy Dirt (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If a bold redirect is reverted it should go to AFD or at least be discussed on the talk page. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources Blabbermouth is a reliable source for reviews but not for news so in this case as it is a news item it is unreliable but not in every case. Reserving judgement on notability incase offline or non google sources are found.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth is generally considered an WP:RS. It's usable for news too, the consensus is just to be cautious on BLP stuff. See WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(User:Sergecross73, that is news to me, and it's somewhat surprising given Blabbermouth's lack of editorial oversight and their tendency to (re)publish everything they run into, including press releases. There is a claim of reliability in their article, sourced to the London Free Press--it was introduced in 2009, but that supposed article is nowhere to be found--look. So I don't believe that Blabbermouth is that reliable, but more importantly I don't believe that it's that important. One review on Blabbermouth, one user-submitted review on a website that seems to lack editorial oversight, isn't enough for notability. Mindy Dirt (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular situation, I do agree with you - that Blabbermouth source is rather short - not exactly siginificant coverage about the article subject. But in a general sense, I'd be rather shocked if it wasn't deemed reliable in a general sense. I've used the website heavily these last 5-7 years in writing articles and saving articles at AFD, and I don't recall ever running into any opposition over it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I couldn't find enough reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG - a very short Blabbermouth.net source is not enough. Open to re-evaluating should someone come up with better sources off-line someday - the album was released in the mid-90s, before online sources were prevalent, and judging by some the type of coverage he receives in later albums, they may exist out there somewhere. (Though, then again, even Allmusic doesn't cover this release, despite covering others, so who knows.) Very little can be sourced now, so its best to redirect for now, and spinout if/when sourcing is provided and prose is written. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just what Sergecross said. It's 1996, sorta pre-internet era. I can dig out mid-90s old Burrn magazine myself. He is at least interviewed and covered in Feb 1996 issue [15]. Kerrang! at the time did not cover much of European hard rock scene but I'm sure Metal Hammer probably did record review of some sort. --Yk49 (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete all except Damien Teo, which is no consensus (WP:NPASR) due to an objection. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regene Lim

Keep Damien Teo as he is also a wushu representative for Singapore.

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

A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, she is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actress' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene. DerricktanJCW (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all of the following are also pages about Singaporean child actors who do not have much notability in Singapore. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability.

The following are the articles that are in question:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Wood

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

This appears to be something personal from 2008 with no significant changes since then. There are no references and no reason for its notability. The two images are of extremely low quality and provide neither identification nor any reason for notability. It seems to me that it might merit a section and better image on Ireland Wood. I cannot see that it merits its own page. Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be a recognized place, therefore fails WP:GEOLAND. Searching does not turn up anything else, so also fails GNG. Satellite imagery shows the old quarry and no development - so it appears no housing development has occurred. I don't think it belongs in Ireland Wood since there are no sources and it is not clear if this area is within Ireland Wood. MB 04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named location which is covered in numerous geological journals. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to establish notability by editing the article. I do not know that simply being a named place makes it notable.Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:5, Wikipedia's function includes that of a gazetteer. For this reason, all valid placenames should be blue links. If the details are meagre, there will always be a higher-level geographical area to merge into and so, per our editing policy, we should always prefer this alternative to deletion. In this case, there seems to be plenty to say about the topic. I could expand the page but AFD is not cleanup and we must first dismiss this question of deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5 does not say it is a gazetteer, it says it combines features of encylopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. There are many woods in Leeds: I do not believe that all the woods in the world each deserve a page. According to WP:GEOLAND "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Clayton Wood (Yorkshire) (or a similarly specific term that meets the style guidelines), else delete. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The University of Leeds has a geology department, and thus journals in the library. I have searched the library (online) and other university libraries plus Google Scholar without finding anything other than a single mention of mushroom sample being taken there (British Mycological Society 1955) amongst other places. Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have just browsed online from home and have done much better than that. My position remains that this place is quite notable and the page should be improved rather than deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give just one citation to support your position? Chemical Engineer (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim made for notability. Fails WP:NGEO LK (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a location with no claim to notability. While AfD isn't cleanup, there's nothing at all precluding anyone who's found sources and claims to notability from adding these during the discussion, and I for one would happily revisit my opinion at such a time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg McCauley

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

Non-notable low-level hockey player and coach that appears to fail WP:GNG by only WP:ROUTINE sources and is well below any criteria in WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable hockey player and coach who is gaining international attention coaching in south korea for the upcoming olympics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeynut999 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hockeynut999: Please provide independent, secondary, non-routine sources. Yosemiter (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY both as a player and a coach by a long suit, all the sources given are routine sports reporting of the kind debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. Ravenswing 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Hard to validate users claim about coaching for in Korea for the upcoming olympics when he is not listed amongst 6 coaches and trainers that travel with the team.18abruce (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On balance it appears she does not have a significant enough body of work to meet WP:PROF. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudha Shenoy

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

Not a notable economist. No claim made for notability. Clearly fails WP:PROF. LK (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the topmost figures in contemporary Austrian libertarian economics,[16] she is acknowledged formally as the one who introduced the Tiger by the Tail theory of Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek.^[1][17][18][19][20] Here's an obit of Shenoy by John Blundell (economist). One more by Steven Horwitz. Another by Robert Higgs.[21] Another obit by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. And one more by Karen en De Coster. Quoted and praised by many researchers and economists alike,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] she was an editorial board member of The Review of Austrian Economics.[34] Based on all this, I would say the impact she has left on the Austrian school of economics is quite enduring and significant, which makes the subject qualify on WP:PROF. Lourdes 15:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Academics are judged by by the impact their work has had on others. Although she has worked with a very influential economist, her citations on GS (Sudha R Shenoy) are too small to pass WP:Prof#C1. I am open to change my vote on production of better evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Xxanthippe, I was actually looking at the impact she has had (broadly construed, as suggested by WP:PROF#1), documented by reliable sources. For example, Lawrence H. White writes that she "was one of the first to promote liberalization of Indian economic policy during the 1970s."^[35] He also writes in another co-authored report, "Nevertheless, in India in the 1940s and 1950s, no one in academic circles other than Shenoy fought against statism and central planning."^[36] The European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation considers her amongst the 6th generation of eminent Austrian economists, alongside Nobel laureates like Vernon Smith.^[37] Robert Leeson writes in his book that when Sudha Shenoy along with Richard Ebeling, Gary North, Murray Rothbard et al "initiated an Austrian revivalist conference in 1974, one of the highlights was the baiting of Friedman [...] Subsequently, US Presidents and Presidential hopefuls embraced the Austrian School of Economics."^[38] These works and many such other references point out to the impact her work has had globally. I would look forward to whether you may consider this perspective of WP:PROF#1, which says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed,... the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability." Lourdes 00:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This is an unusual case. Although she appears to have been a committed disciple of the great Friedrich Hayek (a GS h-index of 107 no less!) she seems to have done little on her own and has not held a substantial academic position. Maybe WP:GNG would help? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. With Steven Horwitz addressing her as "truly one of the founders of the Austrian revival"^[39] and John Blundell describing her as "the original pin-up model of the Austrian school of thought in economics,"^[40] I would prefer WP:PROF as that explicitly considers the impact rather than the number of her works ("Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study."). Thanks. Lourdes 01:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is the lack of citations to independent work. Her highest cited publication A Tiger by the Tail gets only 79 citations on GS and anyway was written by Hayek; she only compiled it. She evidently was a person much regarded in the circle of libertarian economists ("pin-up girl", a sexist remark if ever I heard one), as the several obituaries that you quote show, but Wikipedia is not a repository for obituaries WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I can't see a pass of WP:Prof here, but, as I suggested before, can a case be made for WP:GNG? (late sign) Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello again. I'm sorry but I think you misunderstand WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The guideline refers to not using Wikipedia as a memorial service for non-notable individuals like one's friends, relatives.... It does not prohibit the usage of obituaries written by reliable sources to prove notability of subjects. In fact, reliably sourced obits are one of the best sources on Wikipedia to understand and confirm enduring notability (e.g. in my references above Chris Matthew Sciabarra too calls her "one of the great, and gentle, voices of the Austrian economics revival." This points to the impact she has had). Notwithstanding that, I would mention that the sources I quoted of White, Austrian Economics Foundation, Robert Leeson are not obits. In my opinion, these sources – combined with obits given by Blundell, Horwitz, Sciabarra, et al (all of whom mention that she is one of the founders of Austrian school revival or that she is amongst the great Austrian economists), satisfies WP:PROF, a guideline which attempts to assess the impact of the individual on their respective field etc. WP:PROF also considers editorial board membership in respectable publications (to which part, I have provided a source above confirming that the subject was an editorial board member of The Review of Austrian Economics). I realize that you may not agree with my view, but I have to thank you for the time you've taken to assess the subject. I look forward to interact with you again across Wikipedia. Cheers. Lourdes 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the obits listed above appear to be personal blogs, and hence not reliable. Were there any obituaries published in newspapers, journals, or other reliable sources. (Not counting paid death notices in newspapers; I mean only the newspaper obituaries that the newspaper editors publish themselves.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, no. I haven't been able to find any newspaper/journal obits. Lourdes 08:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hayek, F. A., & Shenoy, S. R. (1972). A tiger by the tail: a 40-years' running commentary on Keynesianism by Hayek (Vol. 4). Transatlantic Arts.

Delete. As discussed above, she does not appear to pass WP:PROF but might pass WP:GNG. However, all sources in the article and provided about her above are either unreliable blogs or (for one reference currently in the article) an interview with the subject, something that past AfDs have found not to contribute to GNG notability. So I don't see a pass at this time, but I would be willing to change my mind if better sources turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article presents her as an academic, hence, the relevant guideline is WP:PROF , which is generally more lenient than WP:GNG. She clearly fails to pass any of the criteria at WP:PROF. In her field of Economics (broadly construed, as suggested by WP:PROF#1), or more narrowly Development economics, the impact she has had is negligible to non-existent. Austrian school economics is a methodology, and should not a considered her field of study. LK (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW--no other conclusion is imaginable. This was tagged for G11, and the tag was unwisely removed. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demian Kalach

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

Not in English, not notable, promotional, COI, deleted repeatedly from Spanish Wikipedia. There should really be a way of swiftly getting rid of this kind of junk without invoking a full AfC and expecting people to translate it so its "notability" can be evaluated. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:57, 19 May 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 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor-league actor, does not appear to meet notability guidelines.PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actor not remarkable.--Philip J Fry ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:TNT. No sources and the entire content is in Spanish. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're talking Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or Speedy per above. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment proper procedures were not followed in creating this Afd, am trying to repair now... Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in the middle of listing this at Afd log May 20 when I got an edit conflict, and User:cyberbot I butted in, and listed it at 19 May instead. Let's see if the bot also publicizes it to WikiProject Afd lists.... Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:GNG and WP:SELFPROMOTION among others. MarnetteD|Talk 02:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Comment: creating editor has been notified, and Project Delsorts as well per above. Nom, please take care to follow all procedures when nominating an article for deletion. Any ticking clock on this Afd, should be zeroed and reset as of now. Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Which means no Snow, per "reset the clock" just above. updated by Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow deletion doesn't require a clock, by definition. It also WP:IGNORES wikilawyering and WP:bureaucratic technicalities because it follows WP:Commonsense to do what is best for the project without pointless delay Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Hayek, F. A., & Shenoy, S. R. (1972). A tiger by the tail: a 40-years' running commentary on Keynesianism by Hayek (Vol. 4). Transatlantic Arts.

[1]