Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 January	1 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arumuga Koundanur Teachers Colony Ground[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:N. M A A Z T A L K 23:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable ground. A bunch of articles created by the same user that fail to demonstrate any notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly detailed coverage of non-notable ground. No indication what is notable about this ground over 1000s of other cricket grounds around the world. Spike 'em (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to WISE J224607.57-052635.0 as an obvious duplicate article. ansh 666 19:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W2246-0526[edit]

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

This page is actually a duplication of WISE J224607.57-052635.0. It was likely an honest mistake, because an article describing the phenomenon here uses one name, and links to a second article that uses another name, though it is clearly the same galaxy. Enwebb (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I didn’t know it was a duplicate.--

File:IloveRumania (Signature 4).png Yes, I know my signature is a license plate. 23:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Video[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG, as none of the sources provided are secondary, with several merely being promotional forum posts created by the developers of Rice Video. No secondary sources that establish notability could be found after a search of reasonable time and effort. A template requesting that secondary sources be added has gone unanswered for an entire decade(!), because Rice Video has received virtually zero coverage beyond a handful of threads on an emulation forum. Because notability has not been established, and it seems very unlikely that it ever will be, I'm nominating this article for deletion. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2018 (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/2018 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claim of notability. I tried an online search and found virtually nothing beyond the WP article and its mirrors.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommi Makila[edit]

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

I declined a speedy deletion request, which cited no credible claim of notability. The claim of notability appears to be that the subject will be a candidate in a state primary election in the USA.

I am putting the article up for discussion here with the expectation that it will fail general notability. Tóraí (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's announced candidature for a forthcoming state primary is not sufficient for WP:POLITICIAN criterion 3 and the other coverage is a mix of primary and passing mention which does not demonstrate WP:BASIC notability. AllyD (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in still-pending party primaries — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he already cleared a notability criterion for some other reason, then he has to win the general election to clear WP:NPOL. But there's no other claim of preexisting notability here, and the sourcing is not marking him out as a special case who's somehow more notable than most other candidates in most other primaries. Nominator is correct that being a political candidate is enough of a claim of notability to preclude the speedy process — where any claim of notability at all, even one that would fail an AFD discussion, is still enough to make the article non-speediable — but they're also correct that it's not enough to actually make the article keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DJ Project. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Șoapte[edit]

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

Not a notable album. Mattg82 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DJ Project L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect fails WP:NALBUM Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DJ Project. Plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Digital audio radio service. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Satellite Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

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

Only claim to notability, apparently, was to fail to win at an FCC spectrum auction, or something like that. Almost all the rest of the article is spent talking about the winners, instead of about this company. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital audio radio service which needs expansion and where the events covered in this article would be appropriate to include. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Redirect to Digital audio radio service. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment can anyone actually source this? Mangoe (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital audio radio service is my vote, although I will never understand the reason people feel the need to delete Wikipedia articles. It's a big system, it's well-indexed, and it's relevant, but if you really think merging and deleting articles pushes forward some "Greater Good," then go ahead. I just don't see the point. Someone nominated to delete the article on the first direct-broadcast satellite TV service ever, too, which is an equally pointless merge/delete as this one. KJRehberg (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Not opposed to merging but I haven't been able to find sources except primary (Code of Federal Regulations) - its not enough for notability, but it could soure some of the content if merged and no one at the other article challenges it.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beccy Armory[edit]

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

Non notable actress, No news sources[1], There are however a few books[2] but IMHO none of those come close to establishing notability, Fails ACTRESS and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the episode she is "known for". If she receives coverage going forward the article can be restored. WP:Preserve. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet requirements for WP:ACTOR
Delete It is way past time we started following our own guidelines and stopped treating IMDb as a reliable source. If someone is "known for" (no reliable sourcing for that to boot) one eipisode, than this seems like a sign of not being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMdb can't be used for notability, can't find additional sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeevan Hospital[edit]

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

A non notable hospital. All the results are from classifieds/ads/listing services. Fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Shashwat Group of Hospitals and broaden the scope. The hospital group is notable and it's worth distinguishing this hospotal from Sanjeevan Hospitals, a pair of major hospitals in Delhi. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsensical !vote.Please prove The hospital group is notable rather than vaguely hand-waving.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 22:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noyyal Ninjas Cricket Club[edit]

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

Simply non-notable. Half of the references don't even mention the club. Google gives less than 1000 results and mostly just passing lists. The "website" is just the city's. (Would have done a PROD if this hadn't just been rejected CSD. May as well settle properly.) Thank you. Gaioa (t,c,l) 20:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The opening line states "...currently playing in the 5th Division Coimbatore League..." I think that says it all really. Non-notable local club, with the article being used to promote it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the same user created this article, which is along the same lines and was previously deleted at AfD. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cricket team that plays at a low level. Spike 'em (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satish kumar Pendyala[edit]

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

In principle, a speedy candidate, but it is safer to have it gone through AfD since references mention some awards. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non-notable lawyer fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 16:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG failure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Glass[edit]

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

Absence of rs so fails gng and N. Both sources in article appear to relate to her father so a dose of NOTINHERITED too. A BEFORE found this article and her linkedin only Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All I could find was coverage of her as a young actress in one of her parent's productions. I would redirect to Philip Glass for now. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Nothing semblant to sig. cov. in RS.I am utterly opposed to the redirection of a BLP to another BLP, on utterly flimsy grounds of acting in her parents production!~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite News[edit]

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

Non-notable news website. No significant coverage in third party reliable sources and current sources are either unreliable, primary or self published. The article has been created by a SPA user and appear to have close connection with the subject which they should disclose. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The news site seema to be quite well established and gaining traction but the coverage of it seems to be lacking. Perhaps too soon to meet guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator of this article Khanna125 has been blocked by CheckUser for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a regular reader of Dynamite News. I landed on this page via Google search result. While going through this discussion, I feel that this user User:GSS-1987 needs to know some important information about the country he hails from, which is India if I am not wrong. While going through the page I saw that the article talks about two reports. One of them being from some blogger, Sanjeev Singh, who supposedly is a reporter at The Times of India, has mentioned about a tweet from Dynamite News in the very first paragraph of his blog which is removed as an unrelated source by Mr. User:GSS-1987. Also the second reference which this guy thinks as unreliable is from a news website of the Qaumi_Awaz which is a sister concern of National_Herald_(India) as per Wikipedia. This user seems to be someone looking to be paid to create this page. I will thus urge Wikipedians to take strict action against this person and restore the Wikipedia ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.184.244 (talk)

@47.30.184.244: First I removed that link earlier because I was unable to find the name of the subject and blogs are generally not acceptable as reliable source because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. Secondly I never questioned the reliability of Qaumi Awaz and at last this is your first ever edit and the way you are talking and pointing out things I can say you are the same person who created this page and was blocked by checkuser so you must disclose your COI. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 04:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987:I have not created an account on wikipedia, as I can not regularly contribute to wikipedia and thus using IP for communication. The only COI is that I am a regular reader of this organisation's news articles, if at all this is a COI. I am just a common man with ethics. I am just worried about the way you have removed and reverted back the links when you were exposed by me. Please make sure that you read the content of any source before making any decision. Instead of being concerned on my way of talking, please evaluate your way of talking as well. You still seem to be a Wikipedian looking for money. Also, when you do reasoning, please paste the complete statement about any guideline. I went through WP:NEWSBLOG and it clearly mentions about blogs that "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". Your actions seem to be questionable. Also when you mentioned initially that "current sources are either unreliable, primary or self published", this in itself generically questioned the reliability of Qaumi_Awaz.

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NMEDIA. FITINDIA 17:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Fails NMEDIA and NCORP. Nothing resemblant to significant mentions across RS.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially per PatarKnight. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdaran[edit]

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

Per WP:TWODABS, the two articles linked here can be disambiguated with hatnotes.

If either page merits WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Pasdaran (district) may be moved to Pasdaran, or else Pasdaran may be redirected to Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Ibadibam (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there's no primary topic for the term, which I don't really see here and which the nominator hasn't argued for, then a 2DABS page is warranted. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was hoping this would generate sufficient discussion from knowledgeable editors to determine a primary topic, but there's not much activity. Ibadibam (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems okay. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Einhorn[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "needs further check for sources.". Well, I still don't see anything but few mentions in passing: he existed, he was tied to some spy-stuff, but I can't see even as much as a short paragraph / bio dedicated to him. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, possibly to NewsGuild-CWA- I have been able to find some sources that mention him, but he doesn't seem to have been a major player and the available information looks quite thin to support an independent article. Here are some references:
- "Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America" mentions he was a secret communist who orchestrated the recruitment of Winston Burdett to the Comintern.
- "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America" and "The Venona Secrets" both mention him as the brother-in-law of Zalmond Franklin, and also that he reported on Franklin.
- Some of the same material is mentioned in passing at this index of KGB archival material.
- I wasn't able to find a transcript, but it looks like he may have testified before Congress at one point, and was definitely mentioned in Burdett's testimony, so there may be more information available there. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discussed in several books sich as Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America on page 420. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- despite being a stub, this article is a mess. "...allegedly served as a major link between Soviet intelligence and the CPUSA"^{[citation needed]} is uncited & inattributed defamation. The subject does not appear to be notable in any case, so "delete" is the way to go here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Hassony[edit]

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

No notability and WP:LOWPROFILE, I'm admin in arwiki and Arabic is my first language, the references in the article are unreliable, just unknown websites (no reliable references about her in Arabic), this person isn't famous TV presenter nor make famous programs, If you search about here in google you will find nothing Ibrahim.ID ✪ 18:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a prominent public figure in ~~Iran~~ Iraq. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "seems to" is not clear answer, BTW she is Iraqi not Iranian, you don't know anything about her --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 06:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Given your consistency in making all sorts of nonsense arguments, esp. those explicitly laid out at AADD, you are slowing veering towards getting T-Banned from AFDs.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep :@Ibrahim.ID: No need for this is a personal verification criteria Wikipedia. Notability famous TV presenter--IamIRAQI (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC) (from article creator)[reply]
- this is not true, all references are not reliable, just unknown magazines that is written by amateurs, anyone can claim he is a TV presenter but the references are the true evidence --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 06:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ibrahim.ID: Mr Ibrahim I do not defend personal. But the sources are sufficient. Thank you for the intervention - I do not mind if the article is deleted--IamIRAQI (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability--مصعب (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. An unremarkable TV host. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I failed to find any sources discussing her in much detail.Thus, per Koffman.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parduman Randhawa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All we have in the way of sourcing actually relates to his father, Dara Singh. Notability is not inherited. Was de-PRODed Sitush (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to father for now. WP:PRESERVE. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per nom.I'm not convinced of the needs for a redirect.Winged Blades^Godric 06:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Isn't that the usual practice for somewhat notable children? What about Wp:PRESERVE? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could end up with hundreds of similar redirects, of people who are related to indubitably notable people and have had minor cinematic roles, political offices etc because of the rampant corruption and nepotism in India. This, of course, is not a reason to ignore PRESERVE but there is a clash with NOTINHERITED, a guideline that is so set in stone that it might as well be policy. Of course, it is also not for us to pass judgement on whether or not someone did this or that because of nepotism etc. A tricky one. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinion/discretion and NOTINHERITED supercedes PRESERVE.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a horrible practice that in all but one of the cases where I have challenged the concept, it has not been applied to living people for the obvious reason that a living person is not someone else, which means statements in the other person's article are not about them, and could easily confuse the reader and constitute a BLP violation. It's less dangerous when redirecting to a dead person, but that in itself could constitute a BLP violation as this person is very much alive and kicking, and someone who has low English language skills and who doesn't understand how the MediaWiki software works could very well be given the impression that the living subject is his dead father. No, we care about human persons more than precious article history. Deletion is the most safe outcome here. . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirecting. The problem with a redirect for non notable people is that these redirects are often removed to reinstate the content and have to be reverted numerous times. This person had a very short career as an actor that ended 40 odd years ago if he is not notable now it is unlikely that he will be notable later. If it were for a young actor that is not notable yet why not. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not inherited makes no argument about including a few bits about a marginally notable actor in the personal life section of his father where family are noted. And WP:PRESERVE makes clear the importance of preserving article histories and sourcing. If articoe restoration against consensus is a problem a protection of the page would be the appropriate remedy not violating our policies and going against the best interest of the encyclopedia's readers. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You now seem to bemixing apples and oranges. Did you read what I said above? And, bearing what I said in mind, in what sense is he "marginally" notable? For example, the third assistant cameraman's runner on a film would qualify on the basis of your argument if and only if that person was related to someone who is genuinely notable - it gets a bit ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject in question has not done any notable work and being the eldest son of a famous father does not warrant a stand alone article. FITINDIA 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this article has created Amrik Singh Randhawa his half brother, Malika Askari his aunt and Randhawa (wrestler) his uncle. FITINDIA 17:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Randhawa is ok, the others perhaps less so. I did mention this issue on the creator's talk page some days ago. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under no circumstances redirect horrible practice of redirecting living people to other people is dangerous and is just a BLP violation waiting to happen, and in this case might actively be one since the father is a relatively recent death and it could easily confuse readers into thinking the subject himself died 5 years ago (since, you know, it isn't unheard of for someone in their 60s to die). No evidence of notability, and no one seems to be arguing for it. Protecting living people is more important than preserving article histories, and just because we can redirect doesn't mean we should. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However much I appreciate the sentiments to delete, we bow down to the number of references who have discussed this topic. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger versus lion[edit]

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

I'll come right out and say it, this is a silly page on a silly topic. "Tiger vs Lion" is a debate like "Pirate vs Ninja" or "Cats vs Dogs" that is rather subjective. Now, I could maybe see this being an article looking at the scientific relevance of lions and tigers living together (which even as I type it sounds like an OR issue), but as it stands it needs to be nuked from orbit. The sections are (in order)

random quotes from people choosing one or the other
random examples of "tigers beating lions" or vice versa
a semi-valid section about their coexistence (though there's a lot of speculation involved)
a physical comparison between the two
a "temperament" comparison
random examples of the animals in the Arts

There's just way too much OR and it pretty much bombs the ~~NOTCATALOG~~ NOTANY2CATEGORIES guide (as well as NOTCASE from the next section as well). Primefac (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for synthesis of comparisons of animals. That is pure original research, and eligible for deletion under WP:DEL6. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 205 citations and so the claim that this is OR is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. Please state the supposed synthetic proposition and why this can only be addressed by deletion of the entire page and its history. Andrew D. (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is a synthesis of sourcing to create a topic that is more suited for Wiktversity than it is for Wikipedia. We literally could create an infinite number of similar articles such as Apples versus oranges, Day versus night, Hot versus cold, Humans versus pigs, etc. You could find more than enough sourcing to write each and every one of these articles, but they would intrinsically be a synthesis and that is what any comparison article must be by definition. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't invent fake examples when we have plenty of real ones such as comparison of web browsers; comparison of the AK-47 and M16; and comparison of top chess players throughout history. We have so many pages of this sort that there are even categories for them such as category:Comparison of sports. Andrew D. (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like three additional AfDs that should be started. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this page, you have supported someone whose main reason for nominating this adequately referenced^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] and hence WP:notable article for deletion is either WP:personal opinion or a lack of proper research. This is in contrast to when you declined another user's request to be unblocked, over the issue of personal opinion. Leo1pard (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you know this means dropping OTHERSTUFF (since we're throwing essays around). Primefac (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have your work cut out for you as there's a large tree of such pages – see category:Comparisons. These clearly demonstrate the acceptability of such content. Primefac has yet to produce a single valid policy issue here. Essays don't count and WP:NOTCATALOG is a joke because that's a prohibition of sales catalogs. Perhaps there's some confusion about the nature of big cats? :) Andrew D. (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to point #6 of that section, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. I've amended my link above. Thanks.

Also, if you want to talk about "vague waving", pointing to a huge category is doing just that. I'm sure I could find a half-dozen pages in that cat that should be deleted, and a half-dozen that absolutely make perfect sense to compare. Tony making up examples might not be valid, but neither is your counterargument. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Primefac seems to have missed the word "unless". As noted above, we have lots of articles where categories are brought together. For example, another page I worked on was the list of women aviators. That covers the cross-categorisation of women and aviators and that's fine because the combination is notable, just as lions vs tigers is notable too. Andrew D. (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Andrew D., because the 6th rule in the link that Primefac provided says "Cross-categories ... are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon ..." and there are so many references in the article that deal with the issue of the lion versus the tiger, including the ones that I mentioned below,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] which obviously means that the issue is dealt with heavily even outside Wikipedia, that this topic should be considered culturally significant or WP:notable, that this is not original research or synthesis, and that the main reason for this being nominated for deletion is WP:personal opinion, or a lack of proper research into this article. Leo1pard (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The issue was discussed at length before – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger vs lion. The topic is highly notable as there has been plenty of coverage of it in a variety of sources going back to Ancient Rome. The sources include books devoted to the topic, scientific papers and even several TV shows about this specific issue, including one by the BBC. The nomination is clearly a blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and their appeal to WP:TNT is not a policy-based argument either. Our actual policies are WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE and so there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR, and I would really love to see anyone touch Comparison of the AK-47 and M16, and I too thought this particular one was a bit silly until I looked into it. Comparison of a unicorn and a dragon would be a deletion candidate because it's components don't exist. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 23:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is actually down several comparisons such as T34vTiger, SMLEvs 91/30vs G98vs M1903, and a few other milhist ones. Civil aircraft probably has a couple of notable planes too. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 02:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the title will suggests a not too serious article, but actually the references are strong. Any other problem of this article can be solved by editing but the topic is notable and backed by reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not OR, and is adeqautely referenced, take the initial sentence for instance, which is detailed to the extent that I would trim it down for this discussion, especially as it has no less than a dozen references which actually are related to the topic of the lion versus the tiger, and therefore renders the argument of those who say that this is a synthesis as invalid:

"Historically, the comparative merits of the tiger (Panthera tigris) versus the lion (Panthera leo) ... have been a popular topic of discussion by hunters,^[1]^[2] naturalists,^[3] artists and poets, and continue to inspire the popular imagination in the present day.^[4] ... ^[5]" Leo1pard (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not exactly Wikibollocks, more of a ridiculously over-referenced and poorly constructed article, shittily named. If this is a notable topic (and I haven't time to assess that right now), it definitely shouldn't be hyped as if it were an Aliens versus Predator film. A neutral encyclopaedia doesn't aim to get you to read certain topics by a clever over-emotive title. It should by a steady and perhaps historic assessment of two interacting, notable species, rather like Interaction between monetary and fiscal policies. So, Interaction between lions and tigers, with a redirect from Interaction between tigers and lions, plus a 'See also' at Interspecific competition seems the very least we should do to stop people laughing at us. Seeing some of the names of their other AFD-ed articles, the article creator really needs to get a sense of perspective and academic realism in the pages they put together. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I haven't time to assess that right now," which suggests that you have not researched this properly, especially the references that have been provided in the article, or even the few ones that I have provided here.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] If you are not going to access the references, then there is no point in calling this article "ridiculously over-referenced and poorly constructed article ... named," or arguing for it to be changed the way that you have suggested, or that "the article creator (whose account is not active on Wikipedia nowadays) really needs to get a sense of perspective and academic realism in the pages they put together," and suggests that you are merely expressing WP:personal opinion, and by using that S-word, you have done something WP:Wrong. Leo1pard (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

grudging Keep - this article is a singular magnet for bad writing, bad research, and - excuse my Klatchian - fanboy wanking, and I wouldn't get stuck in there editing if you paid me. Nevertheless, it is a topic that has been very popular across the ages, and the references are there to prove it. How long this can survive tottering on the border to trivia list/obsessive essay territory is anyone's guess, but nuke-worthy it is not, and I don't think one can make a real case for deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d José Ortega y Gasset (2007). Meditations on Hunting. ISBN 978-1-932098-53-2.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d John Hampden Porter (1894). Wild beasts; a study of the characters and habits of the elephant, lion, leopard, panther, jaguar, tiger, puma, wolf, and grizzly bear. pp. 76–256. Retrieved 2014-01-19.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 9780815515708
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d William Bridges (22 August 1959). Lion vs. tiger: who'd win?. Retrieved 2016-02-28. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Thomas, Isabel (2006). Lion vs. Tiger. Raintree. ISBN 978-1-4109-2398-1.

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moopi Mothibeli[edit]

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

NN actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article already includes citation tl very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are hardly in-depth, non-trivial sources. Unless you count items such as 10 Facts You Didn’t Know About Moopi Mothibeli as substancial. reddogsix (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An actor An actor meets WP:Ent if they have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Also, have you reviewed the foreign language sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accurately quoted; however, I see no evidence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." reddogsix (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role is not enough to show notability for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR, with a single role, and lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Gordeziani[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up anything to show he passes WP:GNG, the article is virtually unreferenced, and his anemic citation count does not show how he passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Apparently it was a draft which was simply moved into mainspace. The history has disappeared, so not sure if it went through AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS, h-index of 3, etc. It's pretty much as nom stated. Agricola44 (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agricola44 How are you computing the h-index? When I search Google Scholar for author:d-gordeziani I get h=17. Which is still not high, but mathematics is a low-citation field. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on the GS link in the AfD header above. It gives citation counts of: 43, 41, 6, 3, 3,... Sounds like we're looking at 2 different lists. I agree that, for mathematics, 17 is a new ball game. Is there a link you could paste here? Agricola44 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GS link only finds papers with the author name exactly "David Gordeziani" and he appears to have published many of his works as "D. Gordeziani" or "D. G. Gordeziani" or "Д. Г. Гордезиани" or... See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3Ad-gordeziani for a search that finds all the Latin-alphabet variants and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3AД-Гордезиани for the Cyrillic ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll leave my "delete" stand, based on what you've described below. Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In terms of notability, this may in fact pass WP:PROF. (Here is a link to the Scholar search that Agricola is asking for above.) However, I believe that the article in its current form is unsalvageable. It is essentially a promotional piece, and all of the information given is unreferenced and fails WP:V. I did a bit of google searching, both in Russian and in English, but did not find anything substantive, except for the subject's CV[3]. I don't see how this article can be improved to a reasonable state unless somebody is willing to completely rewrite it from scratch and to produce a stub that would still have to be entirely sourced to the subject's CV and his own publications. Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since a pass of WP:PROF by way of "decently high citations for a low-cited field" has been suggested as a possibility, I went ahead and stubified the article. XOR'easter (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was a WP:TNT case but XOR'easter fixed that. And I was about to !vote a weak delete (on the basis that borderline citation counts and no sources with in-depth detail about the subject don't provide us enough content for an actual article) but then I found his curriculum vitae [4] where it says that he was president of the "Georgian Academy of Natural Sciences". Then I was about to !vote keep on the basis of WP:PROF#C3 until with a little more digging I realized that this was not a proper major national academy, but what appears to be a made-up title for a made-up organization [5]. All the other impressive looking titles on the cv led to similarly sketchy results when I ran searches for them. So I think that this casts enough doubt on the cv that it cannot be taken a a factual and reliable source. And without even that, what content do we have? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Balthrop[edit]

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

pure press release, intended as a tribute to the individual, not as NPOV--I do not see how it is fixable. Removing the italics for quotes of praise would help only a little. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional copy. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 17:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Il Palmerino[edit]

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

No indication why this would be a notable villa, all that is left after sources not about this villa have been removed is a doctoral thesis (i.e. an unpublished sourced) and a passing mention in a book. Looking for sources reveals other sources stating that Vernon Lee lived in a villa called Il Palmerino, and that's it. Fram (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's a lot out there in Italian, which doesn't do me much good since I can barely speak English sometimes. But if it's primarily known for being the home of Vernon Lee, why should we ever want to delete it instead of redirecting, and using what sources we have on the currently unsourced paragraph there talking about the villa? GMG ^talk 14:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. I re-wrote this, which was originally created as a coatrack for content about Mary Farhill, who according to all reliable sources actually lived at the much grander Villa Palmieri, some three kilometres to the west of this one. I did that on the assumption that it was notable – though by no means among the most celebrated of the dozens/hundreds? of such villas overlooking Florence from the hills below Fiesole – mainly as the home of Violet Paget. Some more non-passing mentions of the villa:
- According to this apparently reliable source, it is a UNESCO World Heritage site (perhaps they mean that it is part of one? – it isn't among those listed here)
- This conference, organised by the Regione Toscana, the British Council, the Gabinetto Vieusseux and the Associazione Culturale Il Palmerino, was partly held at the villa
- According to this page, visitors to the house have included Rainer Maria Rilke, André Gide, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Berthe [fr] and André Noufflard [fr], and John Singer Sargent; of course they weren't really visiting the house, but Paget. Berenson was there a lot too, for the same reason.

The main source for the page is a doctoral thesis. A doctoral thesis is a reliable source for our purposes; as it happens, this one is published, by the University of Bristol, on its website. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More: in-depth coverage in older sources: La parrocchia di S. Martino a Majano: Cenni storici (1875), pages 59–60, I dintorni di Firenze (1906), page 70. History is documented from the fifteenth century; I've added a little to the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above. A merge is also worth considering. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Hazem[edit]

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

fails WP:NSPORT and WP:ANYBIO. This is a junior swimmer and none of the sources mention him and are just links to home pages. This is case of WP:TOOSOON The page reads like an autobiography. I started cleaning it up but he is clearly not notable yet Dom from Paris (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon to meet guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a sportsperson, Youssef Hazem does not get have significant coverage to meet WP:NSPORT. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King County Metro fleet[edit]

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

Purely fancruft which fails GNG. Article has sources but mainly point to manufacturers websites or standard press releases created either by the metro company or local news outlets. I see most of what is here is also been placed in shorthand on the main KCM page. Nightfury 09:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fleet expansions are covered by The Seattle Times (example) and other local news outlets. The historic fleet has also been covered (example), even listing the models and year of manufacture. If anything, the Fleet section of the main KCM article should be moved to this list, as it is quite detailed and should be in summary form there. Sounder Bruce 09:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FANCRUFT. Generally these long arduous lists of every type of bus in a transit company's fleet (right down to the series number) come with a lack of depth of sources which still does not provide indication of notability. In this instance most of the sources are primary from King Country Metro, many others are from self-publishes sites such as busdude, plus a few other trivial mentions here and there. Ajf773 (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major American bus fleet, meeting GNG as the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability. For those pondering the encyclopedic nature or lack thereof of the topic, we cover airline fleets, this seems analogous. Carrite (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the largest transit systems in North America. Wikipedia has several pages like this (many that are not as well maintained) for bus fleets, rail fleets, and airliner fleets. A core concept on Wikipedia is to write in summary style and that means that some readers only need a quick summary (the lede), some need a moderate amount of information (a set of multiparagraph sections), and some readers need a lot of details (links to full-sized separate subarticles). For that reason, this subarticle is an important part of the King County Metro article, letting some readers do a "deep-dive" and get lots of details without cluttering the main page. While the page may need improvements, it's a good and notible article and should be kept. --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a summary style article. It's a exhaustive list of bus enthusiast cruft. Wikipedia has only a few articles for bus fleets and plenty have been removed during AfD as of recent. Summary content should remain in the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG due to substantial, consistent, and reliable coverage as described by SounderBruce Chetsford (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a bit 'fancrafty' but suitable for a list; sources check out. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Passes GNG. Monikasj (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of King County Metro facilities[edit]

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

Cruft verging on advertising. Most sources link to news reports/planning permission reports etc, no need for this on Wikipedia. Rather than have its own article, most of this can be summarised in KCM's own article. Nightfury 09:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of secondary newspaper sources for most of these facilities, which could be added in an expansion; some are even notable enough to pass GNG as independent articles. Even the maintenance bases have well-documented coverage in The Seattle Times from the time of their construction (with considerable neighborhood opposition) that could be incorporated. The tables are kept out of the main article to keep clutter down, since they take up a lot of space. Sounder Bruce 09:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, SounderBruce, to me it looks like a bunch of buildings with addresses, most of them don't show how they are important. If you think they are through the sources, can you expand them? As is however, like I said in the main summary the most notable ones can be mentioned in the same article. Regarding your term "clutter", there is no such thing in my eyes, if it is properly sourced. I will agree however that tables on the main subject page are inappropriate. Thanks Nightfury 10:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into adding more content, but trying to save two articles from AfD at once is a hard ask. Next time, can you space out related nominations? Sounder Bruce 00:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What is this advertising? The existence of a bus depot? Thank you for trying to improve the encyclopedia, but this isn't doing so. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Most (if not all) of the bases are not inherently notable and use routine coverage or primary sources merely to prove they exist. Any salvageable content should be merged to the parent article King County Metro. Ajf773 (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter point: there's news coverage beyond mere mentions, not to mention the articles from the planning process (which is well covered in this city). Most of the content (tables with images) cannot be placed in the main article without going beyond reasonable length (of the page). Sounder Bruce 08:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A core concept on Wikipedia is to write in summary style and that means that some readers only need a quick summary (the lede), some need a moderate amount of information (a set of multiparagraph sections), and some readers need a lot of details (links to full-sized separate subarticles). For that reason, this subarticle is an important part of the King County Metro article, letting some readers do a "deep-dive" and get lots of details without cluttering the main page. While the page may need improvements, it should be kept. --RickyCourtney (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- many entries have stand-alone articles; useful for navigation. Appropriate under WP:LISTN. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 X Factor (Bulgaria). Sandstein 18:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet 16 (group)[edit]

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

Unnecessary article. This group has never been a thing outside of X Factor and dissolved after they left the show on 8th place with no official releases beforehand. Gery-Nikol and Tita are notable for their own individual accomplishments, and nobody associates them with the group in the major Bulgarian medias. Quickfingers (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically meets WP:NBAND #6, but a redirect to X Factor (Bulgaria) might be more sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dharu Megh[edit]

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

Recently created article that fails criteria A7. The only claim that is asserted is unsubstantiated. M A A Z T A L K 13:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:A7 only requires that there is a credible claim of significance, which this article on its face seems to pass as claiming to be a saint is a significant claim, and I don't see anything not credible about the claim, but I'll leave that debate to users with some experience in this area. Iffy★Chat -- 14:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and if you think it fails A7, you should add the A7 tag to the article yourself and possibly end this AfD quicker. There's no rule against CSD and AfD running together. Iffy★Chat -- 14:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has absolutely no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I could find was a passing mention. If a saint, he kept a low profile. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stawka większa niż życie. Content can be merged from history. "WP:PRESERVE" alone is not a valid reason to keep an article in the face of valid deletion arguments. Sandstein 18:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Kloss (fictional character)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination; this was proposed for deletion with a rationale of "Unsourced fancruft, no out-of-world notability". I've declined the PROD, as the four other-language versions, particularly the lengthy Polish one, makes me think this is potentially a genuine cultural phenomenon that just isn't well-covered in English-language sources. (He appears to have been enough of a staple of Polish culture that at one point there was a museum dedicated to the character.) Procedural nom so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 12:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Really a merge discussion. But given the characters role in various series and performances which would be the appropriate merge target? Keeping independemt seems appropriate and in keeping with other Wikipedia outcomes. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stawka większa niż życie which depicts this character; not independently notable. Unsourced fancruft and trivia. Does not meet notability requirements for fictional elements; anything that's worth saying about the subject can be said in the parent article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anno Domini (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Couldn't find significant coverage of the group on reliable sources. Kb.au (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the bio says they are an unsigned band. Reception is nothing than a couple of amateur reviews. Mattg82 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more reviews. They are "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" per WP:NBAND#1 and so are notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - passes notability মাখামাখি (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Hiranandani-Vandrevala[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Tacyarg (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Arguably notable, based on some of the references in the article. Business Standard Economic Times Alternatively, Redirect to her father Niranjan Hiranandani --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Niranjan Hiranandani. Lack of major coverage in independent sources. Anmolbhat (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect I agree that the sourcing doesn't qualify for notability. I oppose redirects from a BLP to another BLP on my standard grounds that it is a nightmare of a BLP violation waiting to happen. Living people are different, and they have control over their articles in a way because they are in control of the actions that they take. By redirecting to another BLP, we are making it so that the things that are associated with their name on the 5th largest website in the world are things that are completely beyond their control, even if it is a relative. Most people don't know how the MediaWiki software works, and redirects of this kind are confusing to readers. The BLP policy ranks above PRESERVE, and since there seems to be agreement that this is borderline notable at best, and likely shouldn't be an independent article, deletion is the best outcome and in order to protect the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Pure promo spam with the typical culprits, as to sourcing.Echo TB, as to opposing a redirect.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Canal+ Group#Former operations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canal+ 3D (France)[edit]

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

Not notable to have a page on it's own, I say Merge to Canal+ Group if it could improve the main article. Otherwise just Delete ^{[Username Needed]} 11:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Nominating Canal+ 3D (Poland), Canal+ 3D (Spain) and Canal+ Extra HD 3D+. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Canal+ Group#Former operations 3DTV is dead for now and these were all part-time operations, like most 3D channels. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge best covered in the broader article. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crystalized Movements[edit]

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

Aside from an AllMusic bio, I couldn't find anything in the way of secondary sources. This article reads like a review, at times, of their albums, none of which charted or appeared on major labels. Clear case of failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some passing mentions in old mags but nothing that could be described as significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allmusic bio and two reviews, Trouser Press, Chicago Tribune, and a few briefer mentions including members' subsequent bands: [6], [7], [8]. For band that was around in an era that is a bit of a dead zone for internet coverage, that's enough to suggest sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and sources cited by Mivhig. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Delete per nom মাখামাখি (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Rabin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no quality reliable source coverage to support it. The only discernible notability claim present here is that he exists, as the article states nothing about him that would actually pass any NMUSIC criterion at all -- and the sourcing is parked almost entirely on primary sources and Twitter tweets and blogs, with the article's only acceptable source being a mere blurb about him posting a Jimi Hendrix cover to Soundcloud. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this, but nothing here entitles him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No Better Than This" is a major credit on Jeong Sewoon's new album. He is an A list Korean artist as well as LUNA, another person he has a credit for. These are in fact major publications that justify a page for him. His credit on LUNA reached the number one spot on the Bilboard charts and his big writer/arranger credit on Jeong Sewoon's album is most likely going to chart in the coming days. Wouldn't be shocked if it was a top ten. I keep a close eye on the music charts.

^[1]

^[2] This article shows the legitimacy of the Sewoon album. It is a major publication, it has just been recently released and I am sure it will chart in the coming days. Propellerhead4 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/k-town/7400369/fx-luna-free-somebody-solo-debut-charts-world-albums
^ https://www.soompi.com/2018/01/08/jeong-sewoon-announces-comeback-plans/

Rabin is not mentioned in either of those articles, however. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Jeong Sewoon's album was successful doesn't have any bearing on Spencer Rabin's notability. Notability is not inherited, so Spencer Rabin doesn't get an automatic notability freebie just for working with Jeong Sewoon, unless and until Spencer Rabin is the subject of reliable source coverage about Spencer Rabin. Which you haven't shown any of. Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rabin is in fact mentioned in the soompi article. Note the photo under January 17th where he is credited for "No Better Than This"

Additionally, I did find a couple articles that are exclusively about him.

https://www.guitarworld.com/artists/16-year-old-guitarist-spencer-rabin-covers-jimi-hendrixs-voodoo-child-slight-return

http://brotherhoodoftheguitar.com/?team=spencer-rabin

I also read many articles about his album "Apollo II" however, Apollo II never charted, unlike some of the K-Pop projects Rabin has been involved in.

Propellerhead4 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propellerhead4 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentioned in a photo" is irrelevant. He must be the subject of coverage that is substantively about him, not just have his existence namechecked in coverage of other people, and Soompi is not a reliable source in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:COMPOSER

NOTE "Recordings"

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, "

Luna's Galaxy Sewoon's "No Better Than This" , and his other credits were all released by major Korean Labels: SM Entertianment, and Starship Entertainment.

That criterion means "is the subject of media coverage", not "has credits on other people's albums". Albums are not media coverage about a person, so they are not "publications" for the purposes of getting a person over a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart."

Galaxy hit #1 in the K-Pop Charts in Billboard, Sewoons Album will probably chart as well, i will post in here in the coming days to update you. The Lydia Lee songs also charted on Spotify. Rabin is more than qualified.

That criterion refers to the performer of a song, not its writer, and even then the performer still has to be the subject of media coverage. It is entirely possible for a person to have a single hit a pop chart but not receive media coverage for that, and that person still does not get a Wikipedia article until the media coverage kicks in. It's the media coverage that gets them in or out, not the song itself. And charting on Spotify counts for exactly nothing on Wikipedia, either, as we only accept IFPI-certified national charts on the order of Billboard. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propellerhead4 (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Is mentioned in the WP:BLP guidelines. Rabin has many of these.

Has received media coverage about their writing or cowriting of a notable composition. It's not the claim to passing an NMUSIC criterion that passes NMUSIC — the determining factor is the quality and depth of reliable source coverage in media that can or cannot be shown to verify the claim. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be a few sources that would be "unreliable" I would argue that some of these sources are, in fact, reliable. In the days following the Sewoon release, there will undoubtedly be more sources regarding Rabin's Credits. I will be sure to update you and add them to the article. In the meantime, I will be sure to additionally remove some of the more obsolete sources and replace them with the reliable ones.

Propellerhead4 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sewoon Album has been released. When I checked the itunes charts yesterday, it was at #6. I'm sure the numbers for Gaon and Billboard will come in the following days and I will update the page accordingly to the chart numbers. I have also added a source directly from the record label to the article, and will continue to add more as they come out. This credit meets the criteria for composers in WP:COMPOSER. In addition to these charting credits, he also seems to have a decent following for a songwriter. I don't often see songwriters who have a "verified" badge on their facebook page.

I believe this page should remain in the mainspace. I will be more than happy to keep a close eye on the young mans career and re-evaluate his notability if he was to not have more notable compositions in the coming years.

The topic of musicians, and especially songwriters, who work behind the scene, can be subjective when talking about notability. I believe that Rabin's credits are indeed notable enough to be on the mainspace.

Propellerhead4 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by reliable source coverage about a person in media. Nothing that can be claimed about any person ever hands them an automatic notability freebie in the absence of any proper media coverage, because media coverage is the notability test. We do not keep an article just because somebody makes unverifiable claims that the subject has a "decent" following, and we do not keep an article just because their social media profile has a "verified" badge on it. (That badge is not a mark of notability, as such, but is a thing that's granted to anybody who undertakes the process required to get it.) And charting on iTunes is not an NMUSIC pass, either — again, we require IFPI-certified charts on the order of Billboard, not single-vendor charts from online music stores. And even if the song does eventually the Billboard charts, that still won't exempt Rabin from having to be substantively the subject of media coverage in reliable sources before he qualifies for a Wikipedia article — no number of credits, even on charting songs, exempts a musician from having to have media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. The best coverage in the article is the Guitar World piece, and even that feel more like a press release that journalism. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rabin meets the criteria for composers in WP:COMPOSER. He has credits notable compositions such as "No Better Than This" and coverage in the mainstream media such as "Guitar World." His other non-charting credits have been picked up by reliable sources such as AllMusic. Propellerhead4 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We require multiple reliable sources, not just one — and the Guitar World piece is a mere blurb. And AllMusic assists in supporting notability if AllMusic writes some editorial content about him, such as a biographical profile and/or actual critical reviews of his releases — however, since AllMusic tries to the best of its ability to maintain at least a basic "list of credits" page for every musician who exists as any participating credit on any album, having that kind of page does not assist in supporting a musician's notability if there's no editorial content added to it. You're simply not getting what's required, and please also note that while you're allowed to comment more than once in an AFD discussion you're not allowed to vote more than once. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find that he meets the relevant notability criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 16:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case of songwriters not getting the credit they deserve. Happens all the time. Spencer Rabin is not an artist. He is a songwriters/producer who has notable compositions. This means his notability should be jugged by his credits first and media coverage, which he still has, second. Even the biggest songwriters don't have huge mainstream media coverage, and Spencer Rabin still has coverage in notable sites like guitar world. After being resisted, No Better Than this, (one of his compositions) was 3# on the Gaon charts. (South Korean Charts) If it wasn't notable enough a week ago, it is now, and it most certainly puts him in the criteria for WP:COMPOSER. I have already updated the article with the proper sourcing for that.

http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon #3 on the album charts.

Propellerhead4 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is always dependent on having reliable source coverage in media — even a President of the United States would be non-notable if he somehow managed to hold the role without getting media coverage for it. The reason for this is partly to protect our article subjects from harm — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we cannot guarantee that everybody is editing responsibly, and our articles regularly have false or libellous or contentious information added to them. As well, if we exempted people from having to have reliable source coverage just because the article made impressive-sounding claims, then publicity-seeking wannabes could get into Wikipedia by lying about what they'd actually accomplished. So no, notability cannot be judged "the list of credits itself is paramount and reliable source coverage is only secondary" — the reliable source coverage has to be paramount, because being able to properly verify an article's content in reliable sources is the only tool we have to keep our articles accurate. The bottom line is, we're not a free publicity venue on which people are automatically entitled to have articles, but an encyclopedia which has to be referenced properly — so a person who cannot meet our reliable sourcing rules on their face does not get a special exemption from them just because the article says things that sound impressive. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are myriad reliable sources in this article. There is the Guitar World article, There is the Sompi article, there are official discographies and references galore. There are 14 sources in that article, that is much more than the typical songwriter/producer on wikipedia. There is reliable media coverage about Spencer Rabin. This is especially impressive given the fact that he is a songwriter and producer. These people never get as much coverage in the media because they work behind the scenes. The fact of the matter is, there is more than enough coverage in the media to qualify him for an article, and his compositions meet the criteria for WP:COMPOSER. He had a #3 on Gaon this week. This qualifies the recording as notable "the single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." As well as another requirement for musicians: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." Additionally in notability for musicians, Rabin meets "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." He has met this multiple times. Propellerhead4 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are not myriad reliable sources in this article — what you're failing to understand is the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one. A reliable source is not just any random web page that happens to contain the statement you want to support — a reliable source is media coverage about him, and nothing else. For example, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by self-publishing a website on Wix.com, or by having a Twitter or Facebook or YouTube profile, that "supports" the notability claims, a person does not get a Wikipedia article by getting blogged about, and a person does not get a Wikipedia article by having his own label issue press releases — a person gets a Wikipedia article when real, independent and unaffiliated media have taken notice of his achievements, and written their own editorial content about him. Which means that Sompi is not a reliable source, his "official discography" is not a reliable source, a press release from the record label is not a reliable source, and on and so forth: they are not media coverage about him. There is only one reliable source in this article — Guitar World — and that is not enough all by itself. We require multiple reliable sources, not just one, and you have not shown multiple reliable sources.

And again, there is no notability claim that any person can make which exempts them from having to have reliable source coverage just because the claim has been asserted. Charting single? Has to be supported by reliable source coverage before it counts. "Placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network"? Has to be supported by reliable source coverage before it counts. Nothing in NMEDIA can be passed just by stating it, and a person can technically pass any NMUSIC criteria and still not get an article if reliable source coverage is not available to support one. It's not the claim itself that gets them into Wikipedia, it's the depth and volume of reliable source coverage that can be shown to support it.

Please note, as well, that if I have to respond to you one more time in this discussion with a rehash of stuff that has already been explained to you above, I'll be forced to consider editblocking you for being disruptive. The only way you can get this article saved is to find better referencing, namely media coverage, which counts as reliable sourcing — you are not going to get this saved by simply bludgeoning it over and over again with the persistent refusal to understand what's already been said to you multiple times about why the sources present here are not what Wikipedia requires. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propellerhead4 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some reliable sources in the article that you are not recognizing.

Rabin is recognized as a “Fender Artist” by the brotherhood of guitar--an organization that seeks out and recognizes talented young musicians. They did a piece on him.

Additionally, his charting single is backed by the official Gaon charts as well as on official release by the record label starship entertainment that credits him by name.

These are reliable sources.

This source comes directly from the label which Rabin is unaffiliated from as a songwriter and is reliable:

http://www.starship-ent.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=newrelease&wr_id=57&page=710

Here is the piece that Brotherhood Of Guitar did:

http://brotherhoodoftheguitar.com/?team=spencer-rabin

And here is the Gaon Chart again: http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/chart/album.gaon

These are "real, independent and unaffiliated reliable sources that support and credit the evidence in this article.

Propellerhead4 (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the Starship press release shows is that he was the arranger on a song. Being one of four arrangers does not, in and of itself, rise to the level required by WP:NMUSIC, nor does his name being mentioned once as an arranger constitute substantial coverage for WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood of Guitar is not independent. Quoting its about page: "I reached back out to Fender, and asked if they would support me in putting together a web site of young Fender unsigned guitar players, giving them a window to show who they were, and what they wanted to do."^{[emphasis added]} Thus, all BoG is doing is hosting text written by or for Rabin. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaon chart does not mention Rabin by name. And again, being an arranger on an album that charted is not the same as being an artist. Rabin is not notable. Based on this level of grasping at straws, I'm ready to change my !vote to strong delete. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand.

This wikipedia article needs some work. Rabin is young and I'm sure there will be reliable sources that come out in the future or with future credits. May we move this back over to my draft space, and I'll keep an eye out and continue working on it/improving until it is ready to be on the mainspace?

Propellerhead4 (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection if the discussion is closed as a delete but the page history is moved to Draft:Spencer Rabin. @Bearcat and Bonadea: Does that sound like a good idea to y'all? —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have no objections to that. --bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable as well, though to be honest I think Propeller's user sandbox might be preferable to draft space. There are no limits on how long a page can be kept in userspace, but in draftspace the page can get deleted again if it takes longer than six months to get improved enough to return to mainspace. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Northamerica1000for assistance, since that was the last person to make a relist. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, can we please do that? Have it in my user space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Propellerhead4 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys for having such a stick up my ass. I'm new to the editing process, so this was a valuable learning experience for me, thank you guys! Propellerhead4 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be able to just move it into my draft space or is there another process?

Propellerhead4 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be moved for you, because the history of Draft:Spencer Rabin would need to be combined first. You need administrative assistance to do that. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best Gain[edit]

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

Can't find sources to indicate topic meets WP:GNG. Following discussion here, bringing to AFD Ajpolino (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G5 or otherwise. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaygee Macapugay[edit]

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

Fails NACTOR and GNG, actor with mostly minor parts so far. May meet notability standards in future, but does not at this time. Created and maintained by blocked sockpuppet ring. James (^talk/_contribs) 12:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G5, under the now normal interpretation. Large sock rings for promo articles can be assumed to have been blocked in the past. That is the case here. Deletion per G5 makes sense, and is within the norm of practice. Excluded by NOTSPAM as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuren Group[edit]

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I can find no coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be significant coverage, for example in Sin Chew Daily which is a major newspaper in Malaysia - [9], [10], the Malay Mail - [11], BFM 89.9 (a radio station) - [12]. Also TechCrunch [13], Sina [14], Focus Malaysia [15], Digital News Asia [16] and others, not to mention related articles such as [17], [18], [19]. Hzh (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill business. Hzh lists a number of references and states that there appears to be significant coverage but fails to mention that the references rely extensively on interviews with company officers or a VC that invested in the company, company announcements and even a passing mention in relation to discouraging people from eating shark-fin soup. None of the references are intellectually independent, all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Nowhere do they say no interviews, independent means independent sources, and that include interviews conducted by the independent sources. WP:ORGIND covers press releases and other work published by the company itself or promotional material done on behalf on the company, while WP:CORPDEPTH cover trivial coverage based on brief, routine or simple reports of the company, or mere quotations from the company's personnel. If they read those sources, they are nothing of the sort, this Sin Chew article [20] (try Google translate if you cannot read it) for example is quite an extensive article of which any quotation forms only a part of article. The "shark fin" thing is a campaign partly organized by the company, hardly a passing mention (there are sources in 3 different languages). They are different kinds of sources, some cover various aspects of the company, others mention it as one of the significant new online companies in Malaysia. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it is you who appears to misunderstand the meaning of "independent" in the context of "independent sources". "Independence of sources" is interpreted to mean that people, independent of the company, published a non-trivial non-routine work that focuses on the subject. WP:ORGIND does a good job explaining how GNG is to be interpreted in the context of notability of companies/organizations. Another useful interpretation is that a source must be "intellectually independent", not just corporately independent. Determining whether a reference is non-trivial and non-routine requires examining the article for non-trivial and independent opinions/interpretations in relation to the company. The references you've provided show none. The references simply repeat what they've been told and assign facts and opinons to the company or their officers or related partners. You may be of the opinion that "interviews by unconnected publishers" meets the criteria for establishing notability, but ORGIND specifically excludes "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it", "any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly", "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people" and WP:CORPDEPTH excludes "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". Hard to see how a "story" (such as the sinchew reference) which is based on a study performed by the Nuren Group and which relies on Nuren Group personel to rely and interpret the facts can be considered "intellectually independent". The reference is chock full of "facts" attributed to Nuren Group and nothing to demonstrate any independence. The entire article references Nuren Group data and peppered with their message. All this reference (and the others for that matter) demonstrates is that Nuren has a marketing department. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by a source must be "intellectually independent", given that the term you put in quote "intellectually independent" is nowhere to be found WP:ORGIND. It looks to be your interpretation of what is not written there, whatever it is that you may mean. I am not sure how you can misunderstand what is meant by any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it or any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly, something written by an independent journalist is none of these things. It is not for you to make random claim about the lack of independence of what a journalist writes. Presumably you also want to claim that a journalist in China (in addition to others) is not independent by putting the company as one of the noteworthy new companies. The point about using quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources is about the triviality of the coverage (spinning a few quotes into a story) which is clear from the examples given of routine and trivial report, not applicable when the coverage is extensive. Hzh (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just agree to disagree. I provided a comprehensive explanation of the meaning of "intellectually independent". Nowhere did I state that it is contained in WP:ORGIND (although recent discussions indicate it may find its way in there shortly) but you've chosen to create a strawman argument on the issue of it not appearing in ORGIND rather than debate why the phrase "intellectually independent" consisely encompasses what is intended by ORGIND. Similarly, your interpretations of those guidelines are different to mine (and also different to the interpretations expressed on multiple AfDs by multiple other editors) - but hey, that's fine, that's why we have an AfD process, everyone gets to have their say. All I can do is provide clear explanations for my interpretations when asked and that is what I've done. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot discuss this based on a vague idea that you have invented rather than something specifically stated in the notability criteria. Anyone can make claim as to what WP:ORGIND means, but if it is not actually stated, then it is a pointless argument. (BTW, when something appears within quotation marks, it may mean it is something quoted from somewhere else. Unless you are using it as a scare quote, which would make what you said very nonsensical, or a personal special usage, which makes the reference to WP:ORGIND odd as you are admitting it is something you made up yourself. Read quotation mark on its use so you can avoid making groundless accusation of straw man.) Hzh (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - as I said, we'll agree to disagree, but I don't accept your attempts to put your words in my mouth or to create disputes based on your attempts to re-interpret something that is written in clear English and easily understood by native English speakers. I love your assertion that there's apparently only two reasons to use quotation marks as a way of starting another strawman argument, I found it amusing and it made me laugh. For clarity, in that situation I used it to "extract" the phrase so that my explanation was clear - obviously a failure on my part as I made assumptions on comprehension levels of readers. If you have the inclination, you might check the Talk page on WP:NCORP or historical AfDs - you'll find that the term "intellectually independent" is not my invention and is used by made editors - especially those that are experienced AfD editors. I also *love* that you then try to tell me that somehow I admitted "intellectually independent" was something I made up myself. Sure ... probably more groundless accusations of straw man though. Anyway, lets wait to see what other editors have to say on the sinchew story and the other references - who knows, maybe the phrase "intellectually independent" might even pop up again? At least this time you'll know what it means! HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't argue based on what someone else had said, we argued based on notability guidelines and deletion criteria. If you are assuming others might understand what you write based on what other people had written somewhere else you'd be mistaken, particularly when you were referring specifically to WP:ORGIND and nowhere else. If your argument is actually based on other people's usage and argument, then that is worse, because you are admitting you are not arguing based on WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP themselves, but on other people's interpretation and argument. It may explain why you put forward arguments such as interviews being invalid and "intellectually independent" which are not actually found in notability and deletion criteria. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaannnnnddddd ... here we go again. Nope, not going to engage with you if you keep puting words in my mouth and tell me this is what I said/meant. I've explained clearly the reasoning for my !vote. Rather than produce better references or use policy/guidelines to argue, you're just trolling. My !vote stands. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a directory listing for a nn company. Raised $2M which is an insignificant amount. Sources offered above are not convincing: passing mentions, routine news, etc. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Money raised is not one of the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. WP:CORPDEPTH clearly describes what kind of works might be considered "routine", and multiple non-trivial sources have been given that does not fit these descriptions in WP:CORPDEPTH. Better explanations of what you said to be "routine news" might be in terms of the criteria set out in WP:CORPDEPTH and how the sources would fit those "routine" descriptions would be helpful. It is otherwise just a random claim not supported by WP:CORPDEPTH. Hzh (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing. Störm (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Griselda ghost[edit]

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

Not a notable album. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 05:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 12:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bates CHI & Partners. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hornby[edit]

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

This was turned down at AfC with the comment "Wikipedia is not a job listing website or a PR webhost and that's what this article currently is, only existing to advertise what there to say about his career and what he himself would advertise about himself; the sources are all trivial and unconvincing and there's simply nothing establishing notability." The creator, an undeclared CoI editor, decided to publish the article anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see the times, (twice) an entry on the Sunday times top 500 influential list, this article from The Guardian and possibly this article I can't read (due to paywall) from the Financial Times. So I doubt the sources are entirely trivial. The nature of the article is another matter, it is questionable whether there should be this sort of article on Wikipedia when considering the WP:NOT guideline. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Redirect to Bates CHI & Partners. Best covered in firm's article. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Mass Transit Authority fleet[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT and original research. No sources (other than self published) to verify this is a notable topic Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whilst digging I also found a second article that may be suitable for AfD - this will be done separately. Nightfury 09:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge with Bangkok MTA article? Seligne (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, as this is a substantial operator in that region and so covered in works such as Rikisha to Rapid Transit: Urban Public Transport Systems and Policy in Southeast Asia and Cities, Transport and Communications: The Integration of Southeast Asia Since 1850. Those works provide high-level analysis and history while detail is found in local coverage such as the Bangkok Post. Andrew D. (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, would you happen to know if any of those sources go into such detail as the models and registration numbers of the buses as the article currently does? --Paul_012 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find it hard to believe that such detail would be supported by the reliable sources mentioned above, and since I haven't received a response to the above query, I'll have to assume that the content is simply unverifiable. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Pizzurro[edit]

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

fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place or manner to add this. Federico Pizzurro was a regionally significant artist and I'm adding some additional links and references to articles, shows, and collections regarding his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deky00 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep signifacnt regional artists with substantial coverage and representation in permanent collections establishing notability as such. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: Could you provide proof that the artist is in the permanent collection of a several notable galleries or museums as per NARTIST. The source provided shows that he was part of a temporary exhibition in a university museum. Nartst and GNG is not met with the sources provided. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no sources out there, as far as I can see from a search. The permanent collections claim appears to be false. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NARTIST & significant RS coverage not found. Appears to be a tribute page, as it was created with an account (Special:Contributions/Deky00) who has only edited this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The updated sources did not impress later voters and the degree of promotion is a problem. A non promotional article is likely possible so explicitly saying recreation permitted if done by a neutral editor sticking closely to sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TazaMart[edit]

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

Promotional article with trivial coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I agree with Störm that the existing article has a promotional tone. Actually, I am amused myself after discovering probably along with many others, that online shopping and delivery (Amazon type) is also catching on in Pakistan. Anyway, 5 listed references out of 7 worked, when I last checked. One reference is from Dawn (newspaper) and one other reference is from Business Recorder business newspaper. My best guess is that the original article creator has not yet learned how to give inline citations and correct references on a Wikipedia page. Not a big deal, I can do that for them and also try to remove the promotional material. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has other issues related to reference style, etc. Those issues should be addressed. But I think it is notable enough so I would vote for keep. M A A Z T A L K 22:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the fprmatting pf the citations isn't up to snuff, the articles cited provide very substantial coverage --of this business. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed 3 references and cleaned up the article on 1 February 2018. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The listed references do not establish notability. Created by a SPA, it may be the case of SEO. samee ^talk 08:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am somewhat puzzled by the above comment by Samee about notability? In my edit of the above article 3 or 4 days ago, I had tried my best to remove the promotional material and had made it a very short stub and 'factual type' Wikipedia article. Since then, User:Störm has further edited it on 2 February 2018 and has removed some external links that he thought were not RS except for Business Recorder business newspaper which he left alone. Now the article has 2 references to Dawn (newspaper) and The Express Tribune newspapers. The Express Tribune article from 2016 is a fairly long in-depth article on online shopping in Pakistan where TazaMart's company business is compared with all its competitors. Just now checked article's Wikipedia 'Revision history' and I saw only one editor's name crossed out with a black line but he is NOT the article creator. It's someone who later edited the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It would be WP:TOOSOON for a standalone entry. The listed references don't specifically compare TazaMart with her competitors. I'm more inclined towards Online grocery shopping in Pakistan or List of online grocery shops in Pakistan etc. for the time being. samee ^talk 07:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are two references that, in my opinion, just about meet the criteria for establishing notability. This tribune.com.ok article just about meets the criteria as there is sufficient independent analysis/optinion on aspects of Tazamart's business. This dawn.com reference also just about meets the criteria and although it doesn't contain a lot of in-depth information, it has enough and it also provides independent opinion. But the others fail. This dawn.com article provides no in-depth information on the company and relies on information provided by the companies and others in the sector and does not provide any independent analysis or opinion, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This brecorder.com reference only namechecks the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I cannot find any other decent references. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a couple of sources, not previously mentioned in the article. Express tribune has mentioned it, also dawn news. I think it has sufficient notability atleast for a stub. M A A Z T A L K 09:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable online grocery store. The article is a directory listing / promo page, with language such as: "As of 2016, TazaMart has almost 10,000 products in its inventory that customers can choose from"! Etc. Such articles are explicitely discouraged; see WP:NOTSPAM. In addition, fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- just a private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything that says this is more than just a plain old on-line grocery store. Maybe somebody could write an article about On-line shopping in Pakistan, and this would be a part of that, but I don't see it being an article on it's own. The WP:COI from this being written by a WP:SPA is a factor. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yogeshwar DeviDayal Mahadev[edit]

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

This biography does not have a single reliable source. The given citations are all heavily promotional hagiographies and/or self-published. I can't find any reliable sources in Google either. My PROD was removed by the same IP, and in the same second, as that for Yogeshwar Mulakh Raj Bhagwan, with no attempt at explanation. Well, that's how PROD works. I've put Yogeshwar Mulakh Raj Bhagwan on AfD too, along with Swami Amit Dev, a BLP deprodded by the same IP. Bishonen | talk 09:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All I can find online in English under his several names is press releases, and no significant coverage in WP:RS to indicate notability per WP:BIO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bish's nom. The existing sourcing is not good enough for a BLP article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogeshwar DeviDayal Mahadev ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yogeshwar Mulakh Raj Bhagwan[edit]

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

This biography does not have a single reliable source. The given citations are all heavily promotional hagiographies and/or self-published. I can't find any reliable sources in Google either. My PROD was removed by the same IP, and in the same second, as that for Yogeshwar DeviDayal Mahadev, with no attempt at explanation. Well, that's how PROD works. I've put Yogeshwar DeviDayal Mahadev on AfD too, along with Swami Amit Dev, a BLP deprodded by the same IP. Bishonen | talk 09:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All I can find online in English under his several names is press releases, and no significant coverage in WP:RS to indicate notability per WP:BIO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Amit Dev[edit]

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

Purely promotional BLP, mainly sourced to Swami Amit Dev's organisation itself. The Hindu would be the best source, except that the two references to it are obvious press releases. The article has all the hallmarks of paid editing and has had a UPE (undisclosed paid editing) template at the top (not added by me) in consideration of extensive editing by socks, until the same IP who removed my PROD also removed the paid editing template. See history. The same IP has also removed my PROD, again with no attempt at explanation, from Yogeshwar DeviDayal Mahadev and Yogeshwar Mulakh Raj Bhagwan, which articles I will also put on AfD in a minute. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All I can find online in English under his several names is press releases, and no significant coverage in WP:RS to indicate notability per WP:BIO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. MER-C 16:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tair Airways[edit]

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

This article is apparently about an airline that never got started. The only sources that actually work are directory listings and the rest of the content is unverifiable. I deprodded this because there was a previous AfD; if not for that I agree this would have been an uncontroversial deletion. Could someone with admin privileges check to see how similar this version is to the previously deleted one: it might be WP:CSD#G4 eligible. Reyk _YO! 09:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable attempt at creating an airline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- same as the first AfD; an airline that never got off the ground (literally). Non notable as such. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Hamilton (voice actress)[edit]

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

Non-notable VA with no known con appearances and lacking in significant roles. MizukaS (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I took a look and couldn't find any useful sources online. All the credits listed in the article seem to be minor roles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go Shinomiya[edit]

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

Non-notable VA with no significant roles to speak of. Stub in JP wiki. MizukaS (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be anything on the subject online except wikias and credit dumps.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelambakkam[edit]

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

Nothing here to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an nn subdivision. Article is too promotinal, almost to a point of being a G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Passes WP:NGEO.Promotion etc. is a matter of clean-up.Easily source-able to Census records!~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The area is WP:Notable in a geographic sense, and issues like it being too promotional means that it needs to be cleaned, not necessarily deleted. Leo1pard (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per LISTN, following some work. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 21:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian photojournalists[edit]

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

A pointless list that would be better off as a category. Unlikely to pass WP:LISTN as it is a cross-categorisation and is not a group normally discussed in independent sources. Kb.au (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kb.au (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Australian photojournalists. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete occupations are much better covered by categories than lists. The sum total of people in a nation who are in a profession of this level is never going to be well covered in a list, a category will be much better maintained.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- much better served via a category. At present, this is merely a link farm, with no added value whatsoever. It's also unclear why a list is needed anyway, since there's not discussion present of what makes these individuals notable as a grouping. Fails WP:LISTN in the present form. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List upgraded, now an encyclopedic list, no longer a "link farm". Aoziwe (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per aoziwe JarrahTree 06:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't really see what this does that a category wouldn't do. Or, even better, a small tree of them: Category:Photographers in Australia, Category:Photojournalists in Australia. In any case, I've cleaned up the truly horrible formatting. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A bold merger or redirect can take place outside of the AfD, and if that is objected to, a discussion/RfC can take place on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash[edit]

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

Just simply does not meet WP:Notability. If anything, it should be merged into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. While it can be argued that it meets WP:GNG, so does President Trump's penis, but it's not notable enough to have a separate article.. KingForPA (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. See also: WP:NTEMP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has sufficient Notability under WP:Notability. Numerous articles have been written with more than "trivial mentions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorFreedom (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4].[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – I'm for whatever, but judging from the general consensus of the three prior nominations it seems like it has garnered enough attention to merit further discussion. also, a similar discussion is taking place via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Singles for Bernie Singles.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 11:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d7ypwa/bernie-sanders-dank-meme-stash-facebook-page
^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/23/how-bernie-sanders-became-the-lord-of-dank-memes/?utm_term=.047dc29f5995
^ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/socialists-seizing-memes-production/
^ http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/bernie-sanders-dank-meme-stash

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Inappropriate renom with no new justification. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Internet_memes. Not independently notable; a couple of sentences would suffice. Wikipedia is not know-your-meme indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FloridaArmy and NorthAmerica1000. No new reasons that would change the outcome of an AfD from the last two times. Davey2116 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016 or Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Internet_memes. That is what is notable here. This Facebook group is just one minor example of the role of social media and internet memes in the 2016 election. 23:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davish Jain[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG the sources are either affiliated (1, 3) passing mentions in "greatest brands" that seems to have only come out once and no longer exists. Passing mentions in books about soya bean production and other passing mentions "managing director Mr Jain says ...etc) routine coverage in identical churnalism pieces (business standard and India today) and PR pieces. His awards are either affiliated or unsourced or highly doubtful "Open International University" for exemple!! Dom from Paris (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business person. Fails WP:GNG and as per the normal consensus only Fortune 500 CEOs are kept WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME --Hagennos (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurooms[edit]

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

Not enough coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Believe this would fall under WP:NCORP. Either way, it fails notability as there is no WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see very much in the way of bright-line policy-based arguments on either side. Most of this is WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was tempted to close this as NC, with a note that people should work on cleaning up the specific issues pointed out here, but it's been tagged for cleanup for 8 years now, so that doesn't seem useful. I'm also taking into consideration that if the closer of the previous AfD had a a crystal ball and knew to ignore all the users who would eventually be shown to be socks, it would have been unanimous to delete.

I'd be happy to userfy this for somebody if they want to mine it for data to merge somewhere. But, please, only ask if you really want to do this, not just to warehouse it.

Full disclosure: I'm not entirely uninvolved here. While I'm not (to the best of my knowledge) royalty, there are two (that I know of) instances in my family of first cousins being married, including my grandparents. Maybe that explains something about me :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin relationships between British monarchs and consorts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cousin relationships between British monarchs and consorts (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endogamy in the British monarchy

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

Since its creation this has been a repository for WP:OR. Article consists almost entirely of extensive tables reporting the results of original research using on-line unreliable genealogical databases. Previous closing admin found convincing an argument based on it being interesting (not a criterion for notability) and that the tables took a lot of work (also not a basis for notability, and passing unnoticed the fact that all of this work was Original Research). While every time there is a royal marriage, some people try to cash in on the publicity by reporting how they have found the couple are related, but unlike, for example, the Iberian royalty of the early middle ages, I am unaware of any scholarly study of endogamy in the British royalty, nor of popular press reporting of the broad topic (as opposed to individual instances). This indicates a lack of Notability that means the article can't be fixed by simply removing the extensive OR and stubifying it. Agricolae (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I can't figure out how to get the template to report the first AfD which was under a different namespace: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endogamy in the British monarchy. Agricolae (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article could be seen as a sub-article of List of coupled cousins - I don't like grouping AfDs and don't recommend that here, but I do want to point this out. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - My impression is that a list of couples who are very closely related may be notable, but including people whose relationship is more distant seems OR. Further, this article basically comes down to adding how closely related a monarch and consort is to the lists at Monarchs of the British Isles. Such an addition seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In the previous AfD, one argument is that endogamy in the British monarchy is notable. I agree that it is, but as an article with notable examples discussed and not as a list with no context. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article's subject could be seen as notable, but the article as it stands looks like it could be partly based on original research and I share the concern that it is tending towards WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think something could be written on this, with proper sources that make clear that specific royal marriages to relatives were notable (William III and Mary II is an obvious one) and that there is a notable trend, but I think the list format here is not really suitable for Wikipedia. Dunarc (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said in the last deletion discussion, the content that can be cited here is already covered in articles such as Royal intermarriage, and where the relationship is individually significant, in the individuals' articles, but there aren't any citations that draw together all of the relationships in a list like this and most of them cannot be cited anyway because they are original research. I also note that all of the accounts who voted to keep the article in the last discussion are now blocked, two of them for sock puppetry. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a useful thing to devote a whole article too.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an interesting subject (to some). It is surprising how many British monarchs where within what the medieval church regarded as prohibited degrees. I note that it is heavily tagged, including for further referencing, but I do not think that this is a case where it is particularly useful to show the full workings. I think this is a case where the info is verifiable, rather than verified. This is partly because monarchs were marrying into a limited pool of foreign royal and noble families; in the case of Scotland often into Scottish nobility. The non-monarch section at the end is limited to those through whom the throne was inherited and those who might inherit it in coming decades. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not feeling it. Sure, it is possibly of interest to some reader, but that's never a good argument. Is it a topic? It doesn't seem to be, or it doesn't seem to want to be--it is merely a set of lists; there is no lead that explains what the topic is. Is it a list? Well, yeah, but a list of what? "(1st, 2nd, 3rd, ...)" indicates that there isn't a well-defined criterion here, and toward the bottom it seems to be getting really random. It is possible to have an article on this topic (for Spain one can easily imagine it), but this isn't it. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination says "I am unaware of any scholarly study of endogamy in the British royalty" but a quick search soon turns up book-length works such as Monarchy and Incest in Renaissance England and Royal Kinship. Anglo-German Family Networks 1815-1918. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books that focus on a single limited period do not justify blanket coverage of all of English and Scottish royal history based on Original Research. There may be room for a article on this generic topic, but this isn't it nor is the current article an avenue to get to that generic article. It would need to start from scratch anyhow, so TNT. Agricolae (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TNT is not policy; not even close. The actual policy is that poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Andrew D. (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect is one thing. Big steaming pile of OR is another. Agricolae (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consanguinity is a topic in each biography of the, nice to have one sortable list. --RAN (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable due to all the coverage of such relationships both in anthropological fields as well as more recently in popular culture 92.9.152.175 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. Of interest to some, perhaps, but tables like this are not what Wikipedia is for. George VI marrying his 13th cousin is not really an example of cousin marriage. Srnec (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies. This is a poorly defined topic that is essentially pure original research. That is a valid deletion reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with merge possibilities to Garland Independent School District. Per the redirection, content of the former article is present in its Revision history, which would enable a merge of some content if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Technology Center[edit]

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

Needs to be redirected to Garland Independent School District due to the lack of secondary sources and lacking high school level classes. Merging content is fine! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the School District, no evidence of independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Garland Independent School District and Merge the articles in a Middle Schools Section for all the schools. Recommended to merge all the middle schools in Garland ISD to the district page. Quile78 (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect which is how we usually handle these. DGG ( talk ) 11:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Douglas Cowan[edit]

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

This seems to be a vanity biography of a lawyer and businessman who does not meet our notability guidelines, written by a single article, CoI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious paid spam created in violation of the terms of use. No need to go past that. It has no right to even be on the servers. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Price (businessman)[edit]

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

No notability independent of the company. )and apparently nothing encyclopedic to use for article content) DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To be "the first male managing director of Topshop for eighteen years" is not inherently notable. A Sunday Times magazine feature on the subject's home furnishings may be a closer call, but neither that nor a "This is Money" piece on his appointment is, I think, sufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Film Institute releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE --wooden superman 14:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep worthwhile subpage to the main BFI article, alternative would be an ungainly merge. Artw (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be merged. Per the guidelines above, this information doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --wooden superman 16:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the applicable clause there? I'm not seeing one. Artw (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legitimate and notable list topic. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has reliable sources. Ciccio.santini (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete As WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Being able to source something is not a valid argument, and never mind that at present there aren't any sources given. Really, the quality of AFD arguments reaches new depths every week now. Mangoe (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic, you quote a guideline but fail to offer any argument. You should try and explain how the guideline applies. NOTCATALOGUE warns against articles that include "product pricing or availability information" - but there is none here. A list of films from a film studio or production company is a valid Wikipedia article, and BFI has produced many films. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I was under the impression that Seven Samurai was a Toho release. Come on: the mere lack of prices doesn't make this less of a catalogue of things sold by the BFI. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The polices under WP:NOTCATALOGUE are not limited to examples in WP:NOT. The absence of pricing doesn't make it any less of a catalogue. Ajf773 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of that page applies? Please be specific. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list article is essentially a product database. i.e. a catalogue. Ajf773 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article, without RS coverage it is just a catalogue. I looked on google and news, nothing. I have sympathy for the keep votes but this has been open for 3 weeks or so, and still no refs. Szzuk (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Indoor League[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the league apparently never got off the ground. No games played. PK T(alk) 12:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG per only local announcements made by a local businessman with dreams of a league of his own. He would launch a website each time and when no one wanted to put down the money to have a team, it would disappear, seemingly failing the intent of WP:SUSTAINED. And while the announcements did receive some reliable and independent coverage, they could just be WP:NOTNEWS sources. Yosemiter (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American Arena League. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Pro Football[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements (as well as the team pages) RF23 (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Arena League (or just a weak keep). Upon a search for sources, the APF gets several passing mentions but mostly in regards to the merger to create the AAL or as standard coverage of the former APF teams (primarily the Richmond Roughriders with their proposals to controversial football players). But as there does not seem to be any feature news articles on the league itself (such as independent coverage of its championship game), a merger, like the league itself, seems to to be in order for this one season low level league. (Perhaps @Ringerfan23: should also nom the Can-Am Indoor Football League for the same reason.) Yosemiter (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with American Arena League. I agree with this one. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New United States Football League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Football league that was proposed but never went anywhere, non-notable. Recreation of a previously deleted page (user who created it has created many other articles that appear to fail notability guidelines) RF23 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it was proposed ten years ago and still hasn't even kicked a ball, it isn't coming any time soon. Social last updated in 2015 tells us all we need to know. Nate • (chatter) 04:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is not going to happen. Yes, I wrote the article, but there's no need to keep it up. Or this could be merged. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it for now as its verifiability is questionable. M A A Z T A L K 18:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Closed by nominator per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_15#Category:Disambiguation_pages_with_Chinese_character_titles (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

高田駅[edit]

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

WP:TRANSLITERATE: Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep This page is a Disambiguation page with Chinese character title. --shikai shaw (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Swink[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012, WP:ORPHAN since it was written in 2009 by Dswink. I can find very little online coverage (no news hits, for example), and not enough to meet WP:GNG. No charting songs or albums. The article notes two songwriting competitions he won, one Mid-Atlantic and one in Philadelphia. That's something, but we don't have articles for either award and I don't think they meet WP:MUSICBIO #9 (this is the point I'm least sure on). From digging around, I think he's been with the band "Our Vintage Film" since 2011. I can't find much about them either, but it's easier to find simple mentions. If there's significant coverage of them that I've missed, I'd suggest merging this article into a new one about them. I volunteer to write it if someone gives me the sources. But from what I could find, I don't think they're yet wiki-notable either. Mortee (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mortee (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Mortee (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mortee (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like the nominator I can find nothing more than very brief local mentions of the musician's involvement in other ventures that are also non-notable. Not enough for a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent vanity page by an SPA editor. The songwriting competitions are non-notable amateur contests. Minor and run-of-mill coverage reflects this subject's involvement in his local music scene, but nothing beyond that. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation for Educational Research[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant coverage, so I think this fails WP:ORG. Tacyarg (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeI think the article should be expanded rather than deleted. While not appearing to be a "major" educational center, I think there are other Wiki articles with similar relevance. Ravenanation (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I honestly thought it would be easy to find sources to improve this article, but I'm not finding anything except their own research. Tacyarg (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I can quite see why this nomination has been made, I still think that deletion would be the wrong decision - the NFER is a distinctly reputable (and quasi-official) producer and publisher of educational research, whose work tends to be on matters of current interest to British educational policymakers and is highly likely to inform their decisions. However, for the general public, this work is not exactly bedtime reading. This puts the NFER in pretty much the situation for which (admittedly for individuals rather than organisations) we have WP:NSCHOLAR#1 - it far more often gets passing mentions (which are likely to generate reader traffic to Wikipedia looking for further information) citing the work it produces than substantial coverage of the organisation itself. In this kind of situation, notability can be fairly safely assumed, though we do need at least some reliable (if not necessarily detailed) sources to support the content of the article. And, while I hope that more and better can be found, the following, while not ideal, look at least adequate for this purpose: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] (for the last of these, a snippet suggests that the best information may be on page 94, which is unfortunately not part of the preview). PWilkinson (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 Tre G[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since creation 5 years ago!!! Unsourced tag removed by WP:COI editor before being added again. A cursory search came back with nothing of use. Probably doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC either. Mattg82 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources in Google either. (Have you considered using WP:BLPROD for completely unsourced BLPs, Mattg82?) Bishonen | talk 11:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete absolutely no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Smith[edit]

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

No real claim for notability appears to have been made for this "political analyst", despite a strange link to a promotion to a suit worn in 1911. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, probably also worth looking at the article for Statesman Institute, the group that this individual works for, which looks to have a somewhat dubious notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, had a look into this and found nothing but astroturf on him and his institute. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete no claim to notability. ThinkTanks are a dime a dozen these days. Even if his was notable, that would not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, promo. At the very very best merge into Statesman Institute if that survives AfD. Aoziwe (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Munki and Trunk[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series created by a likely undisclosed COI editor. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There can’t be 4 series for a TV show created in 2017. The sources are:

The production company’s main site;
A June 2016 Animation Magazine article about the upcoming series;
An Animation Scoop article about the same topic and from the same time period (note the lack of an article); and
The show’s page at IMDB.

There is a lack of reception/awards and a lack of non-routine coverage in WP:RS, though it may improve in the future. Maybe it’s just WP:TOOSOON. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piwik PRO[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, routine funding news, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. The company has raised $2M which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is distinct from "Piwik", recently renamed as "Matomo" [26]. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a brand/product, describing its proposition. The closest to an independent source is the July 2016 DMN item based on an interview with the founder but is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, whether by WP:NSOFT or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is no article on the Clearcode parent company (nor on the Polish Wikipedia) so a redirect is not feasible. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The goal of adding this page about Piwik PRO is fully informative. I've tried to add facts about history and connection with open-source Piwik project, add information about investments related with Piwik PRO. Another motive of creating this page was adding it to the listings of Web Analytics tools and Tag Manager which are fundamental parts of this Piwik PRO Marketing Suite to improve those listings and provide more information to the Wikipedia readers. I will be happy if you will be able to prepare some strict instructions how to improve this article to respect all the Wikipedia guidlines. Thank you in advance! User:Szymongrzesiak (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For Wikipedia it all comes down to the depth of coverage in reliable sources. There is no WP:CORPDEPTH here so the topic would not meet notability requirements. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some additional resources from the couple of reliable and established websites. Please review. Thanks! User:Szymongrzesiak (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill technology company. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or marketing. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Wedding[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage, all sources are blogs or primary sources BOVINEBOY2008 00:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON - film isn't even released yet. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Hocken[edit]

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

No indication article subject meets WP:NRU or WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for Rugby players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Arduç[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Minor actor, mostly bit parts. Possibly WP:TOOSOON scope_creep (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the early television serials in which he acted, Arduç had indeed minor roles, as is to be expected from an actor in the beginning of their career. But in two of the three films in which he played (Deliha and Mutluluk Zamanı) he had main roles, as well in his most recent television serials, Racon: Ailem İçin and Kiralık Aşk. For his role as Ömer İplikçi he received an astounding array of awards, testifying to a level of recognition far beyond being a "minor actor". --Lambiam 19:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What awards? If your going mention awards, you need to list them. Some awards tend to be more notable than others, and for every high end award, like the Oscars or the Bafta, there is 20, 30 or 50 minor awards. So lets quantify exactly what is the best award he has won. scope_creep (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The awards mentioned in the article, in the section Awards and recognition. --Lambiam 17:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a translation of the 2015 and 2016. All the awards seem to be fairly minor, and indicative of an actor at the beginning of his career. scope_creep (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best Actor (Series) (2 ×); Most Suitable Couple; Best Liked Series Actor; Inspiring Actor of the Year; Best Series Actor (3 ×); Best Actor (3 ×); Best Sequence Double; Best Advertising Film Awards; Best Youth Series Actor; Best Scolding Actor of the Year; Best Romantic and Comedy Series Actor; Most Ideal Couple; Best Comedy Series Actor; Most Spoken-of Man of the Year: I agree that these rewards, limited to Turkish film and television as they are, do not reach the level of importance of the Academy Awards or the BAFTA; still, it doesn't sound that minor to me. Several of these rewards were reported on in major Turkish newspapers with national circulation, such as Hürriyet and Milliyet, as well as in established magazines with wide circulation (the Turkish editions of Cosmopolitan [27] and GQ [28]). This also suggests they are not completely inconsequential. Disclaimer: I've never seen the actor on any screen; my understanding of the topic and assessments are purely based on the content of the article. --Lambiam 17:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first is Best Series Actor and the GQ award is Mostly Spoken Man of the Year not best actor. There is coverage per WP:SIGCOV but I think it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't meeting WP:SIGCOV already sufficient to merit an article? WP:TOOSOON is about the situation when the topic does not meet any of the various notability criteria as set out by our guidelines. It is essentially a restatement of WP:CRYSTALBALL focusing specifically on entertainment topics. --Lambiam 21:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he has had multiple significant roles in notable productions. The source section seems much larger than it is since many of the sources are unreliable ones such as IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources so passes WP:GNG, also prominent roles although only one major TV series has an article so WP:NACTOR is not proven. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The film Sadece Sen also has an article, although it is a mere stub. On the Turkish Wikipedia it is a slightly more substantial article; see tr:Sadece Sen. --Lambiam 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case he probably passes WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG, also has won numerous awards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a lot to sort out here, and the Turkish text isn't helping, but for me, being on the cover of Turkey's Cosmopolitan[[29]], GQ [[30]] and Vogue[[31]] certainly demonstrates notability in Turkey. The other info - film and TV - will have to be sorted out by others more familiar with Turkish media. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Ortega2007-1] José Ortega y Gasset (2007). Meditations on Hunting. ISBN 978-1-932098-53-2.

[Porter1894-2] John Hampden Porter (1894). Wild beasts; a study of the characters and habits of the elephant, lion, leopard, panther, jaguar, tiger, puma, wolf, and grizzly bear. pp. 76–256. Retrieved 2014-01-19.

[TOTW2010-3] Ronald Tilson, Philip J. Nyhus (2010), "Tiger morphology", Tigers of the world, Academic Press, ISBN 9780815515708

[Thespokesmanreview1959-4] William Bridges (22 August 1959). Lion vs. tiger: who'd win?. Retrieved 2016-02-28. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

[Thomas2006-5] Thomas, Isabel (2006). Lion vs. Tiger. Raintree. ISBN 978-1-4109-2398-1.

[6] ttps://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/k-town/7400369/fx-luna-free-somebody-solo-debut-charts-world-albums

[7] ttps://www.soompi.com/2018/01/08/jeong-sewoon-announces-comeback-plans/

[8] ttps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d7ypwa/bernie-sanders-dank-meme-stash-facebook-page

[9] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02/23/how-bernie-sanders-became-the-lord-of-dank-memes/?utm_term=.047dc29f5995

[10] ttps://www.dailydot.com/unclick/socialists-seizing-memes-production/

[11] ttp://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/bernie-sanders-dank-meme-stash

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]