Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 August	28 August >

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 merge to Miss California USA. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Hogan[edit]

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

Hogan's closest claim to notability is having been Miss California USA. This is not enough on its own to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Runner-up at Miss USA is pretty good, but it's not enough on its own to claim notability that meets WP:GNG. Unfortunately I cannot find any other info about her that would raise her to level required. Given that it's been over 10 years since her most notable moment, I find it unlikely that further sources will arise. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss California USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't have a career after her runner-up. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reconsidered, appeared as a celebrity candidate in a TV show. (At first I thought, she would have been a normal candidate.) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PSEUDO biography in a WP:BIO1E situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Avoiding harm is an essay and has no apparent bearing as a delete argument, although I see elements of a merge argument. As for the 1E, I suspect this includes the crowning as Miss California USA, the competition on TV in Baltimore, the year-long reign which includes publicity appearances, followed by some kind of a one-year role as Miss USA runner-up. I see this as a merge argument trying to come out here, in spite of what is marked in bold. Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (keep until an editor decides to merge) Runner-up as Miss USA passes ANYBIO#1, and I suspect Miss California USA would be the same as a state with an economy larger than most countries, but we are not required to handle notable topics as standalone articles, nor are content contributors required to implement merges from AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Farrell[edit]

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

Ferrell is only really notable for being Miss Teen USA, but that is not enough on itself to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JPL's claim that being Miss Teen USA national titleholder is non-notable is disingenuous. Subject meets notability criteria and article is well sourced. PageantUpdater (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. p b p 19:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Miss Teen USA is notable by itself. MB298 (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am making my decision based on the fact that there is multiple secondary sources, and a controversy that tends to attract attention, and not on the possible tainted copy pasted reasoning that an editor is problematic. Otr500 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Addis‎ - Miss Teen USA 1987 also up for AFD PageantUpdater (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above as a WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG with the Miss Teen USA win. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like lots of coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Blair[edit]

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

Blair was Miss Teen USA in 2006. I do not think there is any indication that the winners of teen titles like this are notable, and no other coverage of her comes even close to showing her to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's had numerous pageant crowns, and was one of four stars of a national reality TV show. That's plenty. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National Miss Teen USA titleholder, in addition to being Miss CA USA PageantUpdater (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. p b p 19:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above: Comments; There needs to be a source concerning the otherwise OR MTV entry especially using it as a reason to keep. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have sources lined up, just haven't had a time to edit the article yet. Hopefully in the next day. PageantUpdater (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary autocorrect fail: can't should have been "cmt" PageantUpdater (talk)

Keep: This one's national and a major pageant. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy one, won a major title which covers WP:GNG right away. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Addis‎ - Miss Teen USA 1987 also up for AFD PageantUpdater (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above as a WP:GNG pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won the title and then made news after winning the title, easily passes ArchieOof (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Pack[edit]

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

At some level I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors. However, Pack is not a female doctor as far as I can tell, and clearly no where near being a notable one. She was in her 3rd year of undergraduate studies at UC Irvine in 2012. She might be in her 3rd year of medical school, although the interview I found with her from 2014 in a totally non-reliable source did not seem to suggest she was in medical school, it mainly spent time posting pictures of her in bikinis. Her role as Miss California USA is not enough to be notable, and her role in America's next top model, does not seem to cut it either. Her modeling career to date also does not seem to rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do have this [1] from October 2013 that suggests that Pack had not yet graduated from UC Irvine at that point. So she would not have started medical school until 2014 at the earliest. More to the point it is the level of coverage we are getting, and despite its attempts to say that Pack is a notable model, nothing it says suggests to me she is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; clearly notable. Honestly, I question whether nominator has done a single Google search of the subject. Just the first page of the first link under "Find Sources" gives:
- Model Natalie Pack's Fomo-Inducing Instagram Feed Has It All | GQ That's from 2016
- Instagram Girl of the Week: Natalie Pack - Maxim That's from 2014
- Guess model Natalie Pack looks like Cindy Crawford, but wants to be herself Fox News, 2015.

I haven't even looked at the subsequent pages, these are three non-trivial articles by three national publications, over three years. And she was Miss California 2012. And she was on America's Next Top Model, a national TV show. Honestly: "I wish we could keep all articles on female doctors"? She's not a doctor, she's a model. Sure, she doesn't meet notability standards as a notable doctor. Well, neither does Barack Obama meet notability standards as a lawyer. Strangely enough, not everyone becomes notable as what they went for university for. That's not a reason to delete an article about someone who clearly meets WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted by GRuban, passes notability with the three sources he's provided. Nominator (who's created over 2 dozen boilerplate AfDs in the past week) is too focused on the occupation of the subject and not enough on the sourcing of the article. p b p 12:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the information provided by GRuban. The coverage is there, and with exposure on ANTM, this to me would be a cinch to meet WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasons, and the examples posted by GRuban.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GRuban's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above keep comments, plus a suggestion, given the nominator's boilerplate machine-gun AfD nominations of all beauty contestants -- nominations which cause the community a lot of work and checking -- and nominator AfDing articles without an ounce of checking beforehand, that administrators restrict his power to propose AfDs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Mejia[edit]

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

She was Miss California USA in 2016. This is not enough alone to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable PageantUpdater (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes GNG. Also agree with PageantUpdater that these mass nominations, which seem to not consider GNG at all, are very problematic. p b p 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a mass nomination. This is a single nomination of a single article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite obviously @Purplebackpack89: was talking about the other 60 or so articles you've afd in the past couple of weeks. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not seeing how the claim that the sources pass GNG works. One source basically is "the daughter of someone notable won a local beauty pageant, and we only care because he dad was notable", notability is not inherited, and so coverage that is just about incidental actions of family members of celebrities does not help towards GNG. Others are from Diamond Bar sources, which is where she is from, and is the ultimate in local coverage. Another is a media interview with her. Interviews with the subject do not count for passing GNG, only articles about the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not exactly. That Daily Mail article's pretty lengthy and all about her, not her pops. p b p 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto People --- PageantUpdater (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miss Cali is not enough, as the nominator mentioned. The only other mentions of her in reliable sources are due to a flubbed answer she gave to a question in the pageant. Those sources do not, in my opinion, raise her to the level required by WP:GNG CrispyGlover (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in article currently (sept2nd 2016) meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doba (dropshipping company)[edit]

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

Business with no significant coverage - all the sources are either press releases, trivial or primary. The one exception is a single piece in Mashable, which is not enough to establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC) Bilby (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. No significant independent coverage in RS. Even the single piece in Mashable is NOT an exception - that is an article about the concept of drop shipping and provides a trivial reference to DOBA in one-sentence as an example. MB 18:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR information with PR sources for a company willing to have PR, none of that suggests substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Liberal Arts and Medicine[edit]

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

A curriculum is not an entity for which even turning it into a redirect to the University hosting it can be justified. Delete as a non-notable set of course requirements. KDS4444 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable academic spam. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete 2 gnews hits, it's not normal we outline academic programs on WP unless they meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg city councillors[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. At one time, Wikipedia consensus accepted Winnipeg as a city large and notable enough to give its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass just for serving as city councillors, because it was a member of one of the classes of city listed in our article about global cities at the time the discussion was undertaken. However, consensus has now changed: Winnipeg is not named in that article as it exists today, and more recent discussions have established that it is not internationally prominent enough to retain "city councillors are notable" status anymore. Accordingly, the Winnipeg city councillors listed here are no longer appropriate article topics, as they have no stronger claim of notability and are not sourced well enough to claim WP:GNG instead. This affects a significant number of existing articles, so I'll be listing them in small batches rather than all at once. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These city councilors are not such in significantly major enough cities for them to be default notable, I would say the same for similar significance cities in the US like Des Moines, Iowa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NPOL; recent related AfDs closed as delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Bearcat and K.e.coffman: I didn't get a reply to my concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike O'Shaughnessy. Why would we assess the notability of a municipal politician based primarily on their city's "connectivity measured through 'advanced producer services': accountancy, advertising, banking/finance, and law"? Graham (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham11: I did not participate in the earlier discussions (around 2008 when some of the Winnipeg city councillors came for deletion), but my interpretation is that at that time these subjects were considered to meet WP:NPOL #1, due to Winnipeg being listed as a global city. Since then the consensus appears to have evolved, so that these city councillors are no longer accepted as qualifying under NPOL #1. So the criteria at this time is that they need to pass GNG for their articles to be kept. This does not appear to be the case, hence I voted delete. I hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, that's not exactly what's happening. The notability of a city councillor is always dependent on meeting WP:GNG through sourcing. However, if a city is in the global city class, then its councillors are extended a presumption of notability — meaning that the article is allowed to stand even if it's not in a fully GNG-passing state of development yet, because there's a reasonable expectation that GNG will be met even if all the necessary work hasn't actually been put in yet, and there's enough broad reader interest in the local politics of major world cities that a broad audience for the article can be reasonably expected. Outside of the global city range, however, there's much less of a guarantee that a city councillor will fully satisfy GNG and less of a guarantee that enough people will be interested in the article to keep the wikimodel working properly — I'm Canadian, for example, and even I can name some of the city councillors in New York City and Washington DC and San Francisco and Chicago and London, because I've heard of them often enough in nationalized or internationalized media coverage, yet at the same time, I couldn't name you most of the city councillors in the suburbs of my own city, because they don't get the same degree of extralocalized coverage. So outside of the global city range, a city councillor does not get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but rather their notability and sourceability have to be shown up front before they qualify for inclusion. Technically, any city councillor in any city has the possibility of satisfying WP:NPOL's "major local political figures" criterion if the content and sourcing are good enough — the only difference is in whether the article is allowed to exist before the content and sourcing are good enough (global cities), or has to wait until after the content and sourcing have already been shown as good enough (everywhere else). Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I landed here after puzzling through the Jeff Browaty and Mark Lubosch AFDs. My news archive search establishes tat each of each of these 2, and presumably some or all of the others, has had demonstrable impact on municipal affairs (stuff like public smoking regulation; bike lanes). There can be no doubt that have had more impact than most members of the New Hampshire legislature, and yet there are sound reasons for deeming members of provincial legislatures as a category, but not city councilors of cities below a certain significance. Where that border lies is always going to be fuzzy, (I have only been ot Winnipeg once in my life, and know little about it) and yet I have little trouble putting Winnipeg on the "too small" side of that fuzzy line, not least because pop. of metro area is under 1 million, but also because it truly does not have much of a profile in the world. I think that I would iVote to keep a city council member in a city this size if I found that he had played a significant role in shaping something local that became a model for other cities, or if he got even minor attention in the media beyond the region (and even then, only if the attention was for some accomplishment, not because he happened to have the same exact name as a British Prime Minister (I recently iVoted to delete the other Theresa May). I just looked at WP:POLOUTCOMES and it seems pretty good. Feel free to ping me if you think any of the pols on the list merits a closer look. Otherwise, I'm comfortable deleting Winnipeg city councilors with no claim to notability beyond coverage of their political activities in the Manitoba media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Martell[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about Martell. She was Miss Delaware. This is not enough to make someone notable. The coverage of her has nothing to do with her, and merely trivia. This trivia can be mentioned and is mentioned on the Miss America page without justifying having an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Miss Delaware as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon revisiting, keep. Meets WP:BASIC and not a WP:BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRedirect probably to Miss Delaware, with a note about being the first bald Miss America contestant. Weird enough to mention, if not enough for a stand-alone article. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Changed to KEEP per GRuban and WP:HEY, noted below. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Delaware, as above. Cavarrone 11:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She may have started her career as a bald Miss Delaware 2010, but she has made continuing appearances as an activist for alopecia, and a spokesperson for wigs, and continues to get non-trivial coverage for it: Fox News 2015; again; CBS New York 2013; Modern Salon 2014; Broadway World 2013 (not in depth, but does summarize her career since). The nominator's argument would be valid if she were Miss Delaware, happened to be bald, then went back to obscurity. She hasn't, she has continued to get coverage of what is now her career and her life. (Here she is as a spokesperson and volunteer: spokesperson; spokesperson;seminar; seminar; visiting a school; seminar 2015.) --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That meets GNG for me and so I am going to change my !vote to "keep." Good use of WP:HEY to save an article . Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted by GRuban, passes notability with the sources he's provided. Nominator (who's created over 2 dozen boilerplate AfDs in the past week) is too focused on the occupation of the subject and not enough on the sourcing of the article. p b p 12:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above PageantUpdater (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, clearly meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect may be created (and discussed) as a normal editorial action, but there is not enough support here for that to be an option right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Furrer[edit]

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

Furrer's only claim to even marginal notability is being Miss Arkansas USA. This is no where near enough to make her notable. There is only one source, a source from the pageants themselves. This article is so far below the level of notability I hardly see it worth even being discussed. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2016 (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/2016 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arkansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm not finding any RS for this BLP. A redirect is unneeded, as it's unlikely that the subject has been noted enough for the name to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serdar Sabuncu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki my first. Serdar Sabuncu Turkish profesyonel coach and profesyonel footbal culub Altay S.K. coach. look at please http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=219&antID=8791 help me please. thanks FUTBOL KARİYER (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG clearly not met; also hasn't managed at fully pro level Spiderone 08:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not managed senior international football nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentActually, I think that he seems to be notable having been assistant coach for three 2nd league clubs. However, the article is crap of course. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Limitations of Windows 10[edit]

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

Uneeded article, I don't understand why we would need an article for this. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All sources provided do not appear to be substantial enough to justify an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Sri Guru Viswa Sphoorthi[edit]

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

Fails notability, unsourced, overly promotional BLP. MikeLynch (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a start we need to drop the "Sri Sri Sri Guru" nonsense and look for sources that use the guy's name rather than include the multiple honorifics (I've been told that some Germans with two doctorates insist on being called Dr. Dr., but three Sris really go too far):

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

That doesn't really get us any further in the search for reliable sources in the Roman alphabet, with just a couple of short articles in The Hans India. At the moment this looks like a "delete", unless someone less linguistically challenged than I can find some good sources in another writing system. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, entirely unsuitable WP:PROMO content. No independent and reliable English-language sources found - both available Hans India articles lack author details and factual information. They read more like guest authors' columns for regional events than professional journalistic articles. Even if reliable Telugu-language sources could be found, the article would need to be re-written from scratch anyway. Almost the entire current article violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. GermanJoe (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

′′′Don't Delete′′′ : Coverage in The Hindu since last 6 years check it.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.36.58 (talk)
- These sources show only passing mentions, and do not contain in-depth coverage (at least a few sentences) directly about the topic (please read up on WP:GNG for more information). I formatted your message a bit for readability without changing its content. GermanJoe (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-downtown/water-camps-opened/article3402185.ece
^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/towards-making-their-future-brighter/article1801577.ece
^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/in-vijayawada-today/article3127078.ece
^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/tirupati-book-festival-a-big-draw/article692449.ece

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chike Kandi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no fully pro appearances Spiderone 12:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2014 series)#Priya. That other people have articles does not mean that this person merits a separate article as well. We need evidence that this person is notable before keeping their article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Malik[edit]

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

I do not quite see why this person is notable. She was a contestant of two reality shows, one in Australia and another one in India, and as such was mentioned in the media and interviewed a couple of times. Outside of the shows, she is an ordinary teacher without any claim of notability. The only two references in the article are the two interviews (which are btw primary sources). Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Restore Redirect and Salt: I made this as a redirect long ago while patrolling pending changes, because I saw no independent notability either. Looks like it has been made into an article and subsequently restored to a redirect multiple times. -- ferret (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable reality competition contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2014 series)#Priya as quite a few articles link to the page.- Managerarc™^talk 23:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priya is a very notable celebrity as you can see there is Prince Narula, Jasmin Walia who have been reality shows as well so PLEASE dont get rid of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.94.37 (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the sources, if present, are not enough to satisfy notability requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armani Versace[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources. The only references included are either unreliable or primary sources. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The only reliable source is not about the subject, but about the murder of his father (if it was his father). Plain puffery of a local hero who won some local prizes. The Banner talk 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It has plenty of reliable sources and references on this article and it highlights authentic facts about Armani Versace. Please help to keep this article up for the national LGBT Community. I would love for somebody to actually help and do this article if they want in order to keep it up on Wikipedia.--Quanfrank (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Is very informative sources and facts about his career and yes that is his real father that was killed in Memphis tennessee the proof is in the sources at the bottom of the page--Quanfrank (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Significant sources that are cited correctly and accurate information that meets Wikipedia requirements for a article--Quanfrank (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note triple vote above is by creator of this version of the article StarM 02:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Noted, and the duplicate !votes have had strikethrough formatting applied, as as standard for AfDs. —C.Fred (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keepif there is any notability to the Aurora Award. Having issues googling it. Otherwise it doesn't seem as if he meets notability guidelines StarM 02:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Change to delete, although I think there's enough to avoid an A7. I've done some googling and this appears to be the aforementioned Aurora Award. I don't think there's any notability to that and therefore attaining doesn't confer notability to Versace. Any non social media references seem to be false positives coming from the fashion brands StarM 03:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Nairspecht (talk) (work) 07:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Arjun[edit]

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

It still looks promotional to me. Was deleted per G11 before. Please discuss. Nairspechtive Talk 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: My search results have insufficent coverage but he is only mentioned in some RS. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He? Methinks you didn't search. Methinks you didn't even eyeball the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The actress is an award-winning, notable person who has starred in lead roles for mainstream films in several languages. The article is sourced accurately with reliable references. Editor 2050 (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When an article gets 500+ pageviews per day they have a following. Do I need to check for sources? No. References currently in article already. Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ten references look impressive at first—until one follows and reads them. #1 is a short "lifestyle" type blurb that's at least primarily about her, but pretty thin stuff. #2-5 don't mention her, not even in passing. #6 is another brief "lifestyle" type blurb. #7 provides the briefest of passing mentions: "...while Sara Arjun’s Misha is irresistibly cute." Not a thing else about her. I would additionally doubt that it would qualify as terribly reliable. #8 does refer to an "Arjun" without a first name, but says that the individual named Arjun plays some type of auto driver, so I kind of doubt that it's referring to a five year old. It seems to be referring to some other "Arjun". #9 is actually about her, but is also a blurb and also looks to be written anonymously, so probably not terribly reliable for a BLP. And #10, once again, doesn't even mention her, not even in the briefest of passing. Before saying something is supported by reliable sources, always check for ref bombing. That appears to be exactly the case here. Most of the cited references don't even mention her once, and what remains is far too thin for any article, but especially a BLP on a young child. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seraphimblade, have you never heard of WP:NEXIST? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have checked sources 2-5, 8 and 10, and contrary to what you are saying, Sara Arjun is mentioned in these sources:

2. "Sara, the child artist in the film"

3. "it is baby Sara who steals the show"

4. "Baby Sara is charm personified"

5. "Baby Sara is a darling!"

8. "Baby Sara"

10. "This film wouldn't be half the film without the abundant charm and screen presence of Sara who plays Tamil."

Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching for "Arjun". That's not even entirely certain, as I'm sure there's more than one Sara out there. Regardless, passing references by first name are very trivial mentions, those references certainly are not about her. Trivial mentions and mentions in passing do not contribute to notability, substantial reference material about the subject does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to add some FYI titbits here. She is known as "Baby Sara" because Indian cinema distinguishes between adult and child actors by this prefix ("Master", in case of male). So, while we are searching for existence of substantial reference material, we should go for both "Baby Sara" and "Sara Arjun". Nevertheless, like Serpahimblade mentioned here that the Sara mentioned trivially in these articles could be any Sara. Additionally, searching for news on Google about "Sara Arjun" or "Baby Sara" throws up sources that are much about the films she has played a role in. Of course, those cannot be considered "enough" to generate notability for a BLP. I also think it is technically too early (?) for the kid to have a Wikipedia article. But then again, what do we say about Gaten Matarazzo (he's received great coverage, though)? One more thing, Editor 2050 mentioned here that she has won an award. Can we have a source for that? We can cite WP:ANYBIO then. Best, Nairspechtive Talk 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two of the many awards in 2011 and 2015 at the Vijay Awards. Editor 2050 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. This article is about a very famous Indian child actor. We have multiple sources that tell us she is the highest paid child actor in India: [2], [3], [4]. And we have in-depth coverage in reliable sources, such as [5], [6], [7]. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won already two serious awards for Best Child Actress. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Change Project[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially-toned article about an organization, referenced only to a single entry on the White House blog rather than to any reliable source coverage about it in media. And even that blog entry mostly comprises first-person commentary blurbs by people associated with the group -- so even if we accepted the White House as a valid source because White House, the content of the entry still tilts toward primary sourcing. Something like this might be eligible for an article if it could be written neutrally and sourced over WP:GNG, but Wikipedia does not grant an exemption from our content rules to non-profit organizations just because they do admirable work -- we're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better -- but this isn't appropriate for inclusion in this form. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Tagged {{db-g12}} COPYVIO of organization's main page. Jbh ^Talk 05:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Awad[edit]

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

Not yet notable; the refs are the usual advance publicity for a beginning performer. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources also WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, nothing actually establishes her own independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the subject is not notable yet as demonstrated by lack of sufficient RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kenner Star Wars action figures[edit]

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

This is just a catalogue of toys better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major toy line, quite influential at the time. Plenty of RS'ing for line in parent article Kenner Star Wars action figures, list is complete and substantially not individually notable entries, meeting WP:CSC points 2 and 3. Not likely to attract excessive entries. Why would we actually delete it? "Belongs on Wikia" is not a deletion criteria, and they can choose to have one there if they want one. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of toys are excessive details that would be removed from any main article. There is nothing of general encyclopedic value in knowing the production number or in which model line the various toys debuted. That is the level of detail that belongs on a Wikia where such lists are more suited. TTN (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your opinion, which I do not happen to share. Is there even an essay to back it up? Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG in spades. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide some sources? @Catfish Jim:Hobit (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course I could. [8] is one, [9] is another. How about [10]? The nominator has been warned previously about spurious AfDs based on WP:BELONG.Catfish Jim

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

and the soapdish 18:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:LISTVERIFY - Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources and also per WP:NOR - To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. There are numerous wikilinked articles throughout the list, but none of the articles linked "directly support the material being presented", including Kenner Star Wars action figures.Keep - article now has references and GNG is met.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a stand alone article, rather a sub page of that main article, but there are plenty of references out there. I've added three to the article. The collectors' market on these action figures is huge and people drop tens of thousands of dollars on some of these things... there is a lot of material out there about them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is an article - Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles composed of one or more embedded lists...Many stand-alone lists identify their content's format in their titles, beginning with descriptors such as "list of" - Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.

And as you accurately point out - The collectors' market on these action figures is huge and people drop tens of thousands of dollars...So in light of that, collectors that come to Wikipedia to read/research this topic and come across this article should be able to see sources that verify the content. Thanks for adding references.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a lot more work, but thanks. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep #1 the nom didn't provide a reason to delete. #2 there are plenty of sources [11] has a ton of books that appear to discuss the subject (I'm no expert on the different Star Wars action figures...) Hobit (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Rajhans[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist and film festival programmer, written with a marked advertorial skew and referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which a person is entitled to have an article just because he exists; he must be reliably sourceable as satisfying a notability criterion to earn an article, but the content and sourcing here don't accomplish that. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two relistings, no consensus has been reached. Of note is that "no indication of significance" could be interpreted as "non notable", but the nominator did not state the latter directly. Also of note is that at the time of nomination for deletion, the article did not contain "large portions" not in English (diff), although two image captions were not in English. The majority was written in English. The image captions were later written in English by a user who copy edited the article (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigappunada[edit]

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

No indication of significance and large portions of the article are not in english. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relltechno7 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Since i am new to wikipedia,I am trying my best to improve the articles,the above article is about the history of an old magazine.some words are in Tamil language cause the magazine title was derived from a tamil word for red tape.Talk to me[reply]

Previous post posted at 2016-08-13T12:59:02‎. Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Relltechno7: Please append your posts with four tildes ("~~~~"). Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that's not in English, let alone "large portions of the article". Searches for the correct Roman alphabet spelling:

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

There is some book coverage of the legal case in English, but a search for Tamil sources (by someone less linguistically challenged than I) would be needed to determine whether the publication meets our notability guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to [12] an editor in 1983 was "lodged in the Madras Central Prison May 20 to serve a sentence after being convicted of scurrilous writing and contempt of court, ' Indian Express' ..." This happened after a Supreme Court case in regard to accusing the High Court judges of Madras of corruption, at which time an apology was made and ten days later retracted. One of the books covering this case at Google books is dated 1997. [13] ties this journal to a restart of the journal in 2008 using a different name. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination has only looked at the article. "No indication of significance" is WP:A7, an inapplicable speedy deletion argument. New editors can't fix problems that either haven't been identified or don't exist. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR No argument for deletion, no WP:DEL-REASON cited. Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koyal Rana[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMODEL, notable only for a single event. Article is full of fancruft. - Managerarc™^talk 22:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 23:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG - unclear that India Times is actually RS BlueSalix (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable breauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one is a national winner of a feeder pageant to Miss World, which is one of the 2-3 most notable international pageants. Plus she's done stuff since. Article needs work, but I think she passes. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Femina Miss India 2014 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as winner of the pageant. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep national pageant winner. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Texas USA. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Moore[edit]

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

Actually at first I just redirected this page because I had three editors tell me that that is what I should do with articles on people whose only claim to any notability was being Miss USA of some state or other. However, since someone reverted this action, I am now nominating this totally unnotable person for deletion. Winning a state beauty pageant title is a one event incident of the type that does not make someone permanently notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Texas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Northamerica1000. Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Texas USA . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lanning[edit]

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

Basically Lanning shows us everything that is wrong with articles on winners of state Miss USA contests. First off, the coverage of her winning is local. While one of the sources from Houston is a significant paper, it is telling that we only have sources from Houston, this is local news. If Miss Texas USA was a significant title for all of Texas and if winning it was the key, instead of a hometown woman winning it, than we would see sources from Dallas and other places in Texas as well. I think it has now become agreed that Miss whateverstate USA winners are not notable for this. So where does this leave us? It leaves us with her being a local news broadcast figure for a few years, which is not at all by any stretch of the imagination enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Texas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (after delete) per WP:BIO1E; the subject is otherwise not notable. It's unlikely that she will be in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Rhode Island USA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leeann Tingley[edit]

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

Tingley is just plain not notable and the coverage comes no where near justifying having an article on this thoroughly non-notable person. Tingley was Miss Rhode Island USA. That is all, period. Her life since than has been totally obscure, and when she eventually dies her death will only be noted if her family pays for an obituary, she is so non-notable that not even a super local paper will write up her death on its own. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Rhode Island USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:PROMO. The largely uncited content is advertorial in nature, such as:

She is currently an independent contractor, with her own fully comprehensive styling and image consulting business. She specializes in multi dimensional hair coloring, and has created her own cosmetic line, LeeannNicole Cosmetics.

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Many comments on both sides are simply variations of "Meets / Doesn't meet WP:GNG and / or WP:NFOOTY" without expanding on the rationale. Only two editors supplied sources for discussion, and only one editor gave any sort of refutation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Benko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Benko has never made an appearance in a fully professional league (the cup match he played in was against a team in the Regionalliga, which is not fully professional), has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Benko is a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is notability. He has made his senior debut for the club. Regardless of opposition, the DFB Pokal is a fully professional tournament. It's the German equivalent of the FA Cup or Coppa Italia.Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The DFB-Pokal is definitely not a fully professional tournament. The point of it is to include amateur sides from the lower leagues. A player participating in a cup match would only meet WP:NFOOTBALL if both teams are from a WP:FPL. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd argue that on two points. 1. He made his debut for Bayern Munich (a WP:FPL club) not the amateur club. 2. The notability surely lies in the stature of the competition and not the opposition? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player still fails WP:NFOOTY, the cup game he played in was not between teams from fully professional league , Carl Zeiss Jena do not play in a fully professional league. Fenix down (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is notability. Besides his debut in the DFB-Pokal, there is coverage in the media: [14] [15] [16] --Jaellee (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this is any different from the last deletion discussion, where two of those sources were mentioned. The third link is another minor, one-sentence comment by Guardiola on Benko. Once again, the DFB-Pokal match was not between two teams in fully professional leagues, and therefore are not notable per WP:NFOOTY. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jaellee and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably passes GNG - but people who say he passes NFOOTBALL are simply incorrect. Giant Snowman 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it passes GNG, there are very few articles, just like the last deletion discussion, and they all seem to be short and based off a short quote from his former manager Guardiola. A short comment on a youth player at his former club might become a talented player at some point in the future is not significant coverage. There are no interviews with the player, nor are there any significant articles summarising his career to date, which is to be expected, as he has not actually done anything noteworthy yet. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non WP:NFOOTY with far more GNG sources are routinely deleted. Article can be undeleted next week. Agathoclea (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agathoclea's argument. Can always be recreated in the near future but WP:CRYSTAL Inter&anthro (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with enough media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 16:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What media coverage? The few articles there are seem to be based off a short quote. Not much has changed since the last deletion discussion, nor have there been many new articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not hard to find detailed significant media profiles of him. Here's one [17]. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Fenix down mentioned about the article last time, this is not as much about the player in question, but rather an article on the wider Bayern youth setup/experience. "Benko is mentioned briefly with the article noting a couple of friendly appearances. This is not significant coverage, despite the fact that his name is mentioned in the headline." Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also to note is that the article has been deleted from the German Wikipedia after being created, as they clearly state he is currently not notable. Just a youth prospect. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non WP:NFOOTY - Modern Sciences (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet notability guidelines, having played at the senior level for a pro top-level club, and having some media coverage specifically about him to boot. Together, I believe those two factors make him notable enough for inclusion. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance in the DFB-Pokal is entirely irrelevant, per WP:NFOOTY. There is very little media coverage about him other than listing him as another one of Bayern's youth products. Which is exactly the reason why his article on the German Wikipedia was deleted. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not been able to get any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. As other users have mentioned, much of the coverage is nothing more than routine mentions. The article can easily be restored if he does make his pro debut. Spiderone 08:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for his cup match for a professional side. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely irrelevant, as WP:NFOOTY clearly states that only matches between two fully professional teams make a player notable. The cup match he played in was against a team in the Regionalliga, which is not fully professional. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Agent Julio: I came along hoping to close this. I find many folks making this argument, but NFOOTY does not actually appear to say this. Where are you getting this from? A fair bit of the arguments here hinge on this point. Vanamonde (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is from consensus from a lot of AfDs historically. Often, young players will get their first appearances in cup competitions for experience. The way we apply NFOOTY there is to consider the relevant leagues the two competing teams were in. For example, in this instance, Benko's one appearance to date was against FC Carl Zeiss Jena, who play in the German regional leagues. A league appearance against this team would not fulfill NFOOTY given that the league the club plays in is not fully professional, therefore it is considered that a cup competition appearance against such a team, even if the other side is from a fully professional league is also not notable enough to demonstrate subject-specific notability. Either way though, Benko has failed to make a league appearance so far and therefore fails NFOOTY. There is still, as was established in the previous GNG, no clear wider coverage beyond multiple regurgitations of the same brief quotes by his manager. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, even German wikipedia doesn't have article..That should indicate something? And for English, he's already listed here: List of German football transfers summer 2016 . External links will provide more info for those who want it.Fruitmince (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY. Many of the keep rationales are inaccurate as just playing a cup match for a pro team isn't enough, it has to be against another pro team. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played as part of the official line-up of a top club in an official competition. If WP:NFOOTY does not consider that notable enough (but considers players who have appeared in third-level professional league games notable), that is a problem with WP:NFOOTY, not a reason to delete this article. —Kusma (t·c) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, playing a few minutes in a 5:0 win against an ametuer team is not extremely signfigant, and does not make one notable. Being a minor match, he was substituted in as a test to gauge his talent (which is why he has not started/been on the bench for any more important matches yet). WP:NFOOTY prevents such minor appearances like this from being notable for a reason. Also, NFOOTY is an official guideline based off a long-standing consensus, this is not the place to argue against it. His article was deleted on the German Wikipedia as they understand he is just a youth prospect, who eventually may warrant an article, but not at the moment. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relationship between GNG and the SNGs varies. In the case of sports, it's a limitation, necessary because of the very large amount of coverage people in this field get. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the WP:GNG claims which have gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Kennard[edit]

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

She was apparently interested in horse racing, but I fail to see how she was notable in any way whatsoever. Tataral (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer merge to Anastasia de Torby or Harold Augustus Wernher. Opera hat (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - The article reads like a family tree. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Based upon reliable sources under her birth name, the subject appears to easily pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She cropped up in the newspapers and on television from time to time as an associate of the Royal Family (this kind of thing). Her funeral was covered by the Court Circular in The Times. The files of the National Portrait Gallery, London have an entry on her. She only became "Lady Kennard" late in life, through her second marriage, so other search terms might turn up more (such as this from Country Life). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "Gina Wernher" turns up a fair amount. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invulnerable Coat of Arnd[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons or Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), or, if that is not appropriate, delete. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, as this was the original target when this article was first created as a redirect. The "Invulnerable Coat of Arnd" is a highly probable search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as the most appropriate target. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Batton[edit]

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

Prod tag was disputed. Lots of sources from Minden, Louisiana news as one would expect regarding a local official, many of them simple election-related coverage, but no evidence of wider and deeper coverage necessary for WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local law enforcement official. This is not Louisianapedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local sheriffs are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just because they can be locally sourced as having existed — all sheriffs who exist at all could always be locally sourced as having local prominence. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, rather, a sheriff has to be extralocally sourced as having notability that approaches national in its scope. If coverage in The New York Times or the Washington Post could be shown, there would certainly be a case for inclusion — but if Shreveport, just 28 miles away from Minden, is the most "extralocal" coverage you can come up with, then that's just not enough. Bearcat (talk)
Keep From Politicians notability rules: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. ... Meets notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.2605:6000:FB03:1F00:20B3:B764:E2DE:9A6D (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 2605:6000:FB03:1F00:20B3:B764:E2DE:9A6D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Every single sheriff or police chief on the entire planet could always claim to be "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" if the expected range and scope of local coverage were all it took. Which is why local coverage is not all it takes: the coverage is not "significant" enough to pass GNG or NPOL unless and until it snowballs far beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." It doesn't require that the coverage be national or international. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a person who does not have an automatic claim of notability under any subject-specific inclusion test, but must rely solely on the existence of media coverage as their notability claim, purely local coverage most certainly is not sufficient to pass GNG. Smalltown mayors do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Outside of the extremely narrow range of internationally famous global cities, city councillors do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Local neighborhood committees do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Local law enforcement officials do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just because local coverage exists in their local paper. And on and so forth: local-interest topics which cannot claim passage of an SNG by virtue of a specific accomplishment, but are relying solely on the existence of media coverage as the basis of their notability claim, do require that coverage to expand beyond the exclusively local. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not your standard 3 line article for a local politician. The referencing is solid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Local official with some 50 sources cited. Rules do not say sources have to be non-local. The type of local official is not specified in the rules. No mention of size of city or county either. Local sources perfectly acceptable.64.134.51.41 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my DEPROD. Wikipedia does indeed cover subjects with local notability meeting WP:GNG because locals are clearly interested in this stuff and there is no limit on the size of the encylopedia. As far as I know WP:AUD applies only to institutions, is somewhat controversial and should not be applied to other topics. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for demonstrating that a person of purely smalltown local notability should be covered in an encyclopedia or not is not whether locals in his own town might care — it's whether non-locals, such as people who live 15 states away or in other countries entirely, might have any substantive reason to care. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading any of that in WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Both appear to be met in this case because there is significant coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing that says a local source can't be reliable. Is there somewhere else I should be looking? ~Kvng (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said local sources are inherently unreliable — but what local sources can't necessarily do is confer notability by themselves on a topic that would be expected to garner local coverage. Every mayor who has ever existed at all in any place on earth that has ever had a mayor would always be eligible for a Wikipedia article if purely local coverage were enough, because all mayors always generate local media coverage. What's necessary to get a mayor into Wikipedia, however, is evidence that they're more notable than the norm for some substantive reason, such as (a) serving in a city large enough that there's some broad reader interest in its mayors, or (b) being sourceable as having garnered more than just local coverage. It's for the same reasons that we can't necessarily keep an article about every municipal fire chief or police sheriff or city councillor or non-winning candidate for political office or pub rock band or restaurant or comic book store that exists at all, even though local coverage of such topics exists — if the topic doesn't have any objective claim to passing any of our subject-specific notability criteria, but instead you're shooting for "notable because coverage exists", then that coverage does still have to demonstrate a credible context for considering the topic more notable than the norm (i.e. the coverage expands beyond the purely local, or it demonstrates something unique and distinctive about the topic.)

Not all possible types of sourcing automatically cover off both "reliable" and "notability-conferring". There are some types of sourcing which are reliable enough to be valid support for content, but cannot in and of themselves be the GNG — and the purely expected level of local coverage of a topic is one of those types. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bar is sometimes lower for WP:V purposes than it is for WP:N purposes. My contention here is that WP:GNG is met here because there is significant multiple reliable sources independent of the subject cited. To convince me otherwise you need to make an argument that the coverage is not significant or the sources are not reliable, not independent or not abundant enough (and you should try to use fewer words too, if possible, to avoid TL;DR problems). ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Local Politician notability with independent sources of the subject. Has multiple sources at that. There is no requirement for "beyond purely local" in the Wikipedia rules. There is nothing about "notability-conferring" in the rules. 24.153.207.70 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a person's basic notability claim does not exceed purely local interest, then yes, there is a requirement that the sourcing go beyond purely local. If local coverage were all it took, for example, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever served on any town or city council in existence — yet we restrict the notability of city councillors to those who can be shown as having more than just purely local notability, and we restrict the notability of mayors to those who can be shown as having more than just purely local notability, in both cases on the basis of either (a) the city surpassing a certain minimum size, or (b) the sourceability expanding beyond the purely local. And yes, there is a difference between sources that can count toward the conferral of notability and sources which can merely verify stray facts after notability has already been demonstrated by stronger ones — for example, an unsigned local garage band does not get over WP:NMUSIC just because the local alt-weekly printed a concert review of their show at the local Elephant and Castle, but once they've signed to a label and released a hit single and won a Grammy Award and passed WP:GNG for those achievements, then that same concert review can be cited in the new article as supplementary verification that their first ever show took place at the Elephant and Castle. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid reason has been presented for deletion, "Non-notable website" isn't really a valid reason - You need to explain why you don't believe it's not notable ... but anyway either way it's a keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers (website)[edit]

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

non-notable website Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this article isn't much to speak of, The Numbers and its founder Bruce Nash are frequently cited in media coverage of movie box office results. See The Wrap, CNBC, and The Keene Sentinel (via the Washington Post), just from the last three days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: To me that just shows the website and its' founder are useful and famous respectively. It does not suggest that either are notable enough to warrant an article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 10:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This subject and website is notable, it is quoted in many publications in terms of box office grosses for movies, it is perhaps only second to Box Office Mojo. Both are notable and cited frequently by the film industry and both are popular sites, they are both notable. I'm the author of this article. I vote Strong Keep. Neptune's Trident (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Numbers is used extensively as a source of analysis in reliable sources. Some of the sources go fairly in-depth about the methodology used to make market predictions, such as this source. The article is expandable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as covered in reliable sources such as the one identified above passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a boxoffice nut this site is great in that it actually has more accurate International numbers than other sites like boxofficemojo which, since it has been taken over by Brad Brevort, has really been unreliable (I was a fan of that site since the Brandon Gray days). So because its being used more and more as a citation for boxoffice grosses it only makes sense for it to have its own page. A little off topic here back awhile back I asked Ray Subers at BOM why the numbers on his site were always behind and he told me via E-Mails that We don't have the time to constantly bother distributors for International numbers. If they come in they come in. He also told me that if there as a discrepancy between BOM and Thenumbers to use the numbers since they’re able to nag these distributors more often than we are. Ryan Urban of thenumbers told me their International tracking is more accurate than BOM's in an E-mail he sent me (this was in regards to why they have a different number for Rogue Nation than BOM has) where he stated Yes, our numbers are accurate. We have more complete international tracking than Box Office Mojo. If you compare these two charts, you can see that we have international grosses for some territories that are missing from BOM's international total.

Examples: Indonesia, India and Mexico.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Mission-Impossible-Rogue-Nation#tab=international

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=mi5.htm

Slight variations in total box office for some countries between the two charts are the result of different reporting sources and exchange rates.

Thanks for you interest in The Numbers. We recently started international box office tracking and we are continuing to expand our international coverage.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically rather close, but unlike the "keep" opinions, several "delete" opinions assess the quality of the sources and are not substantially refuted in their analysis. Sandstein 17:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Ozurumba[edit]

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

PROD removed with the basis of sources but the depth of these sources show they are not actually substantial, and instead are either simply interviews, trivial coverage or other unconvincing coverage, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indepth coverage from reliable sources could be found about the subject to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable social media figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hard to tell under all the promotional fluffiness, but there is one reputable mention that are at least semi-significant: [18]. The others aren't that useful, while on google I only found this [19]. Not enough for me to vote keep, but maybe someone else is able to search sources that aren't in English better than I am. Yvarta (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: By the standards apt to be extant in her home country, we have one clearly acceptable source in the article, plus the one Yvarta linked. I think it's got potential and worth pinging WP:Women in Red to see if they can salvage it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
leaning Keep: the article should be able to be sourced surely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still rather on the fence, but will try and clean it up some, at least to get a springboard going. Might be in there awhile. Yvarta (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) -- I would give this article the benefit of the doubt, hoping that it may improve in the future. The work Yvarta has done is helping already and there are some claims to notability for the subject's social media work. Given the poor coverage of non-Western world in Wikipedia, I think keeping this article would be a net plus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. notability not sufficiently established. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The name change provides more sources: an interview on HuffPost, interview, spotlight feature. Some of the sites look amateurish, but they appear to be legit and independent. Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, per Montanabw. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the sources presented by Yvarta, have found also 3, 4 and 5. Stanleytux (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - particularly considering the context. Hmlarson (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks to pass WP:BIO with the sources in the article and those linked by Montanabw and Stanleytux. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, I would to like to actually hear the opinion of some Nigerian editors on this. I'm sick of this whole "third world, disadvantaged country" nonsense. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and this will need to be relisted for better analysis as the Keep votes are in fact still not convincing how these are convincing for her own independent and substantial notability, not sinply social media profile attention. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts. While the current version of the article is an improvement, the sources presented at this AfD do not sufficiently establish subject's notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like there's enough sources to make the subject pass notability tests. Article can also be expanded further with those sources. IllinoisPolska (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person looks like she is a journalist with a massive social media presence.Pyrusca (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Many of the sources cited are not reliable, dead link or has casual mention. Appears to be a case of Wikipedia:CITEKILL. Following is what I found on quick search;

Not a reliable source
Primary source
Not a reliable source
Dead link
Linkedin source. Not reliable
Dead link
Dead link
This is a blog
Not reliable
I am not too sure of this, but looks like "placed" news
This source does not even mention her name
Dead link
Casual mention
Her name is mentioned along with others
Casual mention
Casual mention.

Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like some more discussion on the sources provided by Montanabw and Stanleytux is needed, which are the main claim of notability right now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The analysis of the sources by AKS.9955 is spot on. Many of them are clearly not reliable or secondary sources. (GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject). In addition I looked at the ones presented earlier

Huffpost interview Firsly an interview is a primary source. Secondly this is one of the HuffPost "blogs" which I tend not to trust after my encounter with a paid editor who was actually writing articles on HuffPost blogs and then creating a Wikipedia articles for his clients. These are apparently not subject to the same editorial standards as those by a staff contributor.
Trivial mention in BBC Sorry but this is a trivial mention.
Nairaland forum This is a forum which is not a reliable source at all.
Usergenerated content on Globalvoices Not reliable as Globalvoices allows anyone to publish on their platform, essentially reducing it to a user generated content/blog. Also an interview which is a primary source.
KonnectAfrica blog This looks like a blog and is essentially a WP:SPS. In addition, this is an interview again which is a primary source.

The smokescreen of sources deluded me at first, but on closer look at the sources themselves, I see that the subject is not notable as of yet. Hence, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, still delete -- sources are insufficient for independent notability and somewhat of a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Casual mentions are referred to. User-generated blogs pop up. Well... it's concering. The expanded analysis of the various articles cited as sources is troubling, and I have to agree what we don't have the truly reliable media coverage that we need for a biographical page. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. on two grounds: first, non-notble based on the analysis of the sources. Second, clear promotionalism. This manner of writing an "article" based on a multiplicity of very low grade sources is a standard technique of promotional editors, paid and unpaid. The real give-away, though is in the Early life and education paragraph: the emphasis on her early motivations, express in terms designed to make an emotional appeal, is the real staple of paid & unpaid promotional editors. You'll find it in the same place in thousands of articles. It's not a ring or conspiracy--it's a common trope learned from current techniques of advertising. We need to eliminate it from WP, and any article on an actual notable person contaminated with such stuff needs to have it removed; if it's too pervasive to be removed, it needs to be rewritten. She's not important enough to be worth the rewrite. rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroth's Quill[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons or Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), or, if that is not appropriate, delete. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, as this was the original target when this article was first created as a redirect; highly probable search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Earth 2010. That other Miss Thailands have articles may simply mean that nobody has tagged them for deletion yet. This is why WP:WAX is not usually a keep argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watsaporn Wattanakoon[edit]

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

There is no real indication that Watsaporn is notable. She won a few not that major beauty titles, and is said to be an actress, although the article says nothing of what she has done as an actress John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Earth 2010 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Earth 2010 per WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see, every Miss Thailand has an article just like every Miss America. There doesn't seem to be consensus to delete them. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kutumb[edit]

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

Non notable company with no reliable sources. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. See examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Gulf News
The Hindu
The Hindu
The Hindu
The Hindu
The Hindu

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references Northamerica provided are good. Here are two more sources: [20] [21]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuity calculation in Dubai UAE[edit]

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

The first version of this page contained a spamlink; that has been removed, but this is still not an encyclopedic subject. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual for details of gratuity or tax calculations. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very much WP:NOTHOWTO. Maybe some of the information could be taken and merged with the Economy of the United Arab Emirates HR & Employment section, but I don't know that it would really add much to that article, as it's probably too much of a niche-sub-topic to be in that broad of an article. PGWG (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced essay, possibly based entirely on original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMANUAL. I may regret this if I ever need to pay a tab in Dubai, but that's a risk I'll have to take. GAB^gab 03:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Octopussy and The Living Daylights. MBisanz ^talk 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Property of a Lady[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax. It's completely unsourced, and I ~~can't find any mention~~ could only find this passing mention.[22] The notion that people gamble on this so-called game, whose outcome the article itself states is "entirely chance", is hard to believe. Its claim to have gained popularity from the poker boom is head scratching. Poker players try to take advantage of skill, not pure luck. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as HOAX. It's 9 years old and there's zero sources. The title's relation to cards appears to be in a James Bond context - it was to have been the title of the sequel to the film of OHMSS. (Clarityfiend's link is not a passing mention but the name given to one of seven games of Bingo on a James Bond theme night. My guess is that the prizes of that particular game are oriented towards women) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Octopussy and The Living Daylights. The Property of a Lady was a short story by Ian Fleming which appeared in the aforementioned collection, published in 1966. I guess this could be a useful redirect to that article. This is Paul (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deorphaned this and it looks like it is having the exact effect required, getting the the wikicommunity's attention now. By the way the original created item was as a redirect . . . Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no references that I can see relevant to the current article. Also the card game creator is an SPA. What is the record for a hoax, this one seems to have stood for nine years ? Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the record is currently held by Sheer Perfection, a fictional HBO miniseries supposedly aired in 2006, and which made it to 10 years 10 months before being deleted at the end of July. This has to be fairly high on the list though, and one wonders if we've maybe started a new trend among the card-playing fraternity. This is Paul (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Alternatives[edit]

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

This app does not meet the general notability criteria or notability criteria for software. It is a new app available for only a single platform. The article has a single source - just a short writeup in a specialist website. The article was WP:PRODded, but it was removed by the article's author, a single-purpose account, without explanation. Deli nk (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to expand the article a few days ago, but the sourcing just isn't there. FourViolas (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. FourViolas (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FourViolas (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - WP:TOOSOON at best - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with other voters, seems like an advertisement article ArchieOof (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this basically would be speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas K. Wright[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Being president of a notable org doesn't make this subject notable. Nothing in the article asserts notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, plus the org itself is of questionable notability; tagged. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I could not find any significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Agree with Staszek Lem that even the organization might not be notable. ArchieOof (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Even the references in the article amount to practically nothing. Ref1 is a press report from the organization announcing he is becoming president - but it is cited as a Wall Street Journal article. Ref2 is a paper he supposedly "edited" but I did see his name mentioned, and Ref3 is a dead link. Also noted article created by a SPA. Should have been gone with the PROD. MB 23:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear after relist. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AutoUncle[edit]

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

I see no indication that this is a notable website. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable website. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 00:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given references are start-up coverage. In other coverage, I found mention of using their database [23] but don't see the substantial coverage required (nor are the Alexa ratings indicative of more importance). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and not meeting WP:NWEB. Advertorial copy on an unremarkable website. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khazinatul Asrar[edit]

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

I can find no indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I saw the author's name (Muhammad Taqi) and the DAB list it leads to, I thought that the author might be a notable historical figure. However, the book's ar-wiki counterpart speaks of a Muhammad Taqi al-Muqaddim (محمد تقي المقدم), about whom I can't find much, leading me to believe that this book was written by some recent religious scholar and does not pas WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The attribution of the book is unclear, and the only proper citation for the article is a link to GoodReads. This seems like an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 21:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wo India ka Shakespeare[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, with no assertion of notability, or reliable sources to verify content. A movie without basic IMDB page and no mention anywhere other than their own paid websites. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment simple search result tops with youtube videos and news search results don't show anything about this movie. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United Academy[edit]

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

Youth sports league which fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH, almost all youth leagues are non-notable, and "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." SanAnMan (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a youth league and academy. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither a youth league nor a local affiliate of a national organization. Nomination is completely wrong and neither reason offered is accurate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What about the GNG claims? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a lot of reliable secondary sources covering this organization, within a general Google search, a Google News search, and even a Books search. I feel that means it easily passes WP:GNG ArchieOof (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Eco[edit]

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

No evidence at all of notability, such as circulation figures (the notability of the (unsourced) celebs isn't transferable; refs are to the publication itself and ELs are written by its Editor-in-Chief.

Tone is promotional too. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I removed a reference to the magazine's homepage, which was not independent anyway, but also turned out to be a dead link, and a second reference to a page which did not mention the magazine. With those meagre references gone, the article has absolutely no verififiability. The editor, Anna Griffin, appeared to be notable because her name was wikilinked, but I removed this too because it linked to a completely unrelated fictional character. What remains is an article that has absolutely no legitimate assertion of notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more commentary Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no evidence anyone cares in the article or much I can see in the outside world. To its credit it appears to still be a going concern - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:COATRACK listing all the notable people who appears on the publication's cover :-), such as:

figures featured include:

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I did a fanzine in my youth. I could list all sorts of notable cover stars!! - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nava Praja Rajyam Party[edit]

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

A non-notable political party with almost no coverage in multiple reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Don't think the subject deserves an article, at least not yet. Prod was removed without an explanation by editor(s) with a potential conflict of interest —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 09:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and absolute conflict of interest. Page creator has exact same content on thei User and talk pages. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N, per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irina D. França[edit]

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

No verifiable significant coverage in RS, either in the given references or via Google. —swpb^T 12:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having previously done a a clean up of the article and search for further sources, I'm afraid I have to concur. Karst (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Doing a search without the middle initial, I found a number of sources, but they are all in Portuguese, so we may need to take a bit of time and run them through translation or get someone from a wikiproject to help. But my findings are: an interview(?), this, looks like a bio, might be a society page, this, and a few other pages that are, at the moment, down (like this, might be worth looking at the wayback links. Montanabw^(talk) 15:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop trying to make others do your work for you. If you want any of that link-dump to count for anything, the burden is on you to prove it. —swpb^T 17:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again with the personal attacks. Let's avoid personalizing the debate and focus on content. I did post a message at the Africa and Angola Wikiprojects. We can wait and see if someone turns up from there who has knowledge in the subject area; I tread with caution with a declaration of "not notable" on people from the third world who work in a language I do not speak. Also, there exists a rebuttable presumption of notability, the way I read the guidelines, hence the AfD nominator carries the burden. Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a data point, I found the links helpful to my analysis; it saved me some work rather than adding to it. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an analysis of the sources provided by Montanabw. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please do ping me if the sourcing situation changes but as things stand, I think we should not keep an entry on a living person on the hope that someday someone will identify and translate enough sourcing to make the entry balanced and reliable. I'm regretful about this, I certainly love to see well-sourced entries on underrepresented topics like this but if the entry's unreliable, then it's no help to the encyclopedia. And while my Portuguese is limited, what I gather from the sources we have does not suggest they'd be enough even if someone did translate them. (Not that anyone asked me, but arguably the effort involved in translation might be better spent sourcing one of the many, many indisputably wiki-notable subjects of systemic bias not currently represented on WP. Or not, per personal preference--I just find translating pretty taxing and I would not want to do very much of it on an entry that might get deleted in the end anyway!) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EventQL[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are not independent, and no notability is added by external links such as a listing at the GitHub hosting service and a page which merely gives a three-sentence inclusion in a list. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

KEEP: There are two links to external and trusted news sources (heise.de, highscalability.com and oschina). If you go to twitter or github you can see that a lot of people are using the software and found it interesting. The code is available - it's clearly not a hoax or vapoware. What else is required to proof notability?

Here is a list of independent articles/discussions around EventQL [From the wikipedia policy: Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.]:

http://www.oschina.net/p/eventql
http://highscalability.com/blog/2016/8/19/stuff-the-internet-says-on-scalability-for-august-19th-2016.html
http://www.heise.de/developer/meldung/Developer-Snapshots-Programmierer-News-in-ein-zwei-Saetzen-3281003.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12166370
http://www.piaoliang100.com/news/tech/263849.html
http://udn.yyuap.com/article-12515.html
http://www.tuicool.com/articles/MrmYBvm
http://www.wandoujia.com/items/5719350939885781862
http://news.shamcode.ru/blog/eventql--eventql/
http://www.web520.cn/archives/16725
http://cpp.ctolib.com/eventql.html
http://b.hatena.ne.jp/entry/eventql.io/
http://www.shuogesha.com.cn/t/b750feff68b1472ba4f2a4f877df1add/index.htm
http://www.codesec.net/view/457743.html

Please also consider that EventQL is the open-source version of BigQuery and compare with the BigQuery page. The BigQuery page does not add _any_ references or external links. For EventQL you can go to GitHub and check that it has received a lot of interest from developers, for BigQuery you have to rely on google press releases (it's the only linked information). Why are different rules applied here?

Either both pages should be deleted or the EventQL page should be kept. Deleting EventQL but keeping BigQuery would be highly unfair and uncompetitive to open-source. 62.251.60.126 (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being "unfair and uncompetitive" is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. If you think another article should be deleted, then you are free to propose deletion of that article, but the decision whether to delete EventQL or not will be made on the merits or lack of merits of that article, not on the basis of another article which may or may not qualify for inclusion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there does not appear to be any reliable coverage in independent sources. Doesn't meet notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Github projects come and go so quickly, so someone just noting that they exist is not enough evidence of notability. BigQuery certainly needs work, but it has been around six years and noticed by those besides its developers. W Nowicki (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have the sources mentioned by 62.251.60.126 been analyzed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable 3rd party sources found in searches or in the above bulleted list to demonstrate that this project has attained notability at this point. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IP 62.251.60.126 highlights 3 sources: heise.de, highscalability.com and oschina. OSChina seems to be community page, highscalability.com blog (however some articles are nice). So only heise.de can be considered reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, but its coverage of EventQL is brief (one small paragraph among other news about software). Not enough to estabilish notability, I fear. Pavlor (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Entus[edit]

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

Article about an e-sports team. The only source is a deadlink, and it's not clear to me what's notable or encyclopaedic about this topic. —S Marshall T/C 09:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the most notable Korean esports teams and sponsored by one of the largest Korean business comglomerates, CJ Group. Adding sources now. Shoutout to Drmies for doing some cleanup work.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though there is a massive quantity of esports articles worthy of deletion, this is certainly not one. CJ Entus is one of, if not the most, notable of Brood War teams. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I speak no Korean, so perhaps you gentlemen could help me out. What is reliable about this source? This source is user-generated content (see terms of use, point 5), and should be removed. It's also only tangentially about CJ Entus; it's really about an e-sports player.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is published by the Chosun Ilbo one of the most read newspapers in Korea. The second is TheScore eSports and there's been some discussion of its reliability but no chance concensus there.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Referred to WP:RSN.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DarthBotto's reasoning and S Marshall's sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article was speedy deleted by Widr, per the rationale "Mass deletion of pages added by Brokenkent." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pechkurov (blogger)[edit]

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

Speedy A7 (no credible claim of notability) but article creator has removed the speedy request something like 14 times so bringing it to AFD. Fails GNG. Meters (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. User now blocked and article speedied by User:Widr Meters (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergejs Pozņakovs[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NGYMNAST AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 15:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NSPORT (not even close) nor WP:GNG--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Ymblanter, it's not close, no reliable secondary source coverage whatsoever CrispyGlover (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing (India)[edit]

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

This article is about a satellite TV channel that I have not been able to verify even exists. If it does exist, then the channel ha so little coverage as to fail notability.

The article appears to have been copied from Boing (Spain), including the references which aren't really references. The purported web site in the external link section doesn't resolve, and archive.org doesn't have any copies of this site from 2012 to now. A search for sources about this channel turn up no sources whatsoever. This is one of a zillion tv channel articles shovelled out by user:Prashantpking that have just been copied from another article, and then badly edited. Whpq (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; article exists solely to promote the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOMPAS-3D[edit]

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

Non notable software. Promotional. No claims of importance or significance. Sources are based on priary source press releases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually convincing, none of this amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11 as corprate spam. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Two of the given references do I think rise above the press release level and are bylined product reviews. Google Books also identifies several items of what looks like Cyrillic instruction publications for the package. If these can be confirmed as significant then they could contribute to meeting the WP:NSOFT criteria, and I can revise my opinion, but as it stands I think this is not demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

José Roel Lungay[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. And the sources I did find [24] [25] I believe are not adequate enough for WP:GNG NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khatril[edit]

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

Previously deleted at PROD and now recreated. It fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with Khatri, there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss this community. It probably is a last name but no more could be said. We don't even have an article for anyone bearing the name, and the Raj sources that are provided have long been deemed to be unreliable. Sitush (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i have discussed this article with Sitush, i am working on more reliable sources/references for this article. In the meantime, please note that reference no.2 provided from the book "A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province"

by Rose, H. A. (Horace Arthur) is quite reliable. You can go to actual page no.551 or page 1136/1188 on the pdf and other versions available of this book and refer to "KHUTRIL". There might only be a spelling issue and nothing else. So i again request not to delete this article. Yasir Yousaf (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Yasir Yousaf (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources are not reliable and I've already told you why this is so. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a list article (previous discussion) or, failing that, delete unless better sources are provided, the two in the article being unreliable (and the very cursory google books check that I made revealed nothing better). Uanfala (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As seems common with caste/tribe article AfDs, your suggestion of a redirect is inappropriate. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No context at all.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Methysos[edit]

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

A band with an article here apparently since since 2011 but actually a very recent article for which its creator has cut and pasted content from a 2011 article complete with tags - but no evidence of any notability. A very recent addition of several refs provides no new evidence of notability despite the editor involved removing a PROD tag. . Refs are either promotional, advertising or blogs. Fails WP:GNG . Now at CSD as a hoax as a cut and paste from Winter's Verge Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very unfair to call out for a hoax, when this band is in fact are alive and kicking, and selling its music on literally any music platform you search them through. Also, I went through the refs.. Chromium Sun, Metal Soundscapes, Kronos etc, are neither promotional/advertising nor blogs. Even more so, the band is referenced and listed in Encyclopaedia Metallum. So no hoax case there whatsoever.

Also the claim of a copy from another page, kindly reference precisely the text you are reffering to.

I would appreciate some community spirit here, and your feedback on how to improve this page (on the areas that you believe they lack originality or credibility) rather than taking the easy and wrongful desition for deletion. Thank you. Wackener (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the time when this AfD was started Methysos looked like this and Winters Verge like this. Other than the change of name, the articles are 90%+ the same. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am sorry Velella but you claim is clearly not true and vey unfair. Your claims are not true. The Version you refer to, is the very first draft, and lasts less than 2 hours (until the edit was finalised). It was prior to saving the editing and preparation made on the page. Visiting both the page history, as well as the page as it appeas anytime appart from these 1-2 hours at the begining of the creation, you can see for your self. if saving the file in a very premature stage is what you dont like then i accept that, but the page has been updated since. Moreover you are lying about how the page looked at the time of your request for speedy deletion. Your request for speedy deletion is on the 12 August, whereas the version you refer to, lasts for less than 2 hours on the 12th of July 2016. that is 30 days later. Wackener (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sorry Velella but you claim is clearly not true and vey unfair. Your claims are not true. The Version you refer to, is the very first draft, and lasts less than 2 hours (until the edit was finalised). It was prior to saving the editing and preparation made on the page. Visiting both the page history, as well as the page as it appeas anytime appart from these 1-2 hours at the begining of the creation, you can see for your self. if saving the file in a very premature stage is what you dont like then i accept that, but the page has been updated since. Moreover you are lying about how the page looked at the time of your request for speedy deletion. Your request for speedy deletion is on the 12 August, whereas the version you refer to, lasts for less than 2 hours on the 12th of July 2016. that is 30 days later. Wackener (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's a powerful argument here that there's no authoritative source for the use of this term in the math world. We need to be very careful to avoid putting our stamp of approval on things, because then *we* become the authoritative source, whether we like it or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclic function[edit]

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

Non-notable mathematical term. The AoPS source is not reliable because it is a blog. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hit "scholar" in the list of links above and youwill find numerous academic papers discussing this term. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing jumps out in those search engine hits as the subject of this article. Most of them seem to be incidental combinations of the words "cyclic" and "function". Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Iterated function#Abelian property and Iteration sequences. This topic occurs in a few different places on WP: Cyclic function, Cyclic order#Cyclic Functions, and Iterated function#Abelian property and Iteration sequences. My impression is that math and physics folk talk of iterated functions and periodic orbits, whereas computer science folk talk more of cyclic functions. The best content development and context for cyclic functions appears to be in the Iterated function#Abelian property and Iteration sequences section, so that would seem the best target for a merge. --Mark viking (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That doesn't seem a suitable redirect target to me. What is described at Iterated function#Abelian property and Iteration sequences only refers to the pointwise behaviour of functions, not to that of the iterated function. Take for example the permutation (bijection) on the positive integers whose decomposition in cycles is (1 2)(3 4 5)(6 7 8 9)... Let's call it π. Then for any positive integer i, the orbit i, π(i), π²(i), ... is a cycle. Yet π is not a cyclic function, since πⁿ(n²) ≠ n² for all n > 0. By the way, the section Cyclic Functions in the article Cyclic order was recently added by the creator of the article under discussion here. I've never encountered the term in the sense used here, and doubt that it is in significant use for this concept, so I'd be inclined to remove that section. For a very different meaning, see here. --Lambiam 22:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whatever happens, the current "definition" seems to be somewhat original to me. There are many uses of "cyclic" in the literature, which range from just meaning a function that oscillates, such as sine, to meaning a multivariable function that takes the same value if the variables are shifted in a cyclic fashion. The AoPS source seems problematic, and I hope they do not become the next MathWorld in terms of making up original terminology. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the concept lacks a standard name, is that a reason why there should be no article about it? The article need to have some name. This is about functions that generate a finite cyclic group under the operation of composition. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it is not covered in any literature we can find, we shouldn't have an article on it. Otherwise we would have articles on all sorts of unremarkable mathematical topics. The general standard is that we should only have an article once there is enough interest in the literature to justify one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notion seems useful, but I don't think the name "cyclic function" is standard. I edited the article slightly but I don't know that it's enough to save it. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the concept lacks a standard name, is that a reason why there should be no article about it? The article need to have some name. This is about functions that generate a finite cyclic group under the operation of composition. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonnotable concept. The concept would, at first sight, appear to be most of interest in discrete mathematics, in particular for functions on finite domains. But the latter are easily seen to coincide with the bijections. I can't think of any interesting properties (beyond being the generator of a finite cyclic group under composition, which by itself is a somewhat boring observation) that applies to these "cyclic functions" in general, which may go a long way to explaining why we can't find anything about them in the literature under any name. --Lambiam 20:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and modify as editors above have noted other definitions in sourced literature that should be mentioned. There is clearly no standard definition of the term, but one of an encyclopedia's main uses, especially in technical work, is to be a guide when something is encountered in a publication that doesn't give adequate context, such as for example in an isolated excerpt from the Bostock/Chandler textbook above. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a bunch of unrelated uses of the term. In many cases, these uses derive from the definitions of the English words "cyclic" and "function". That is a very poor basis for an article. If there are established "technical definitions" of the term, that requires sources, which I'm not certain exist. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the original source is AoPS, the right place to look for sources would be in the math competition literature. I have a relevant book or two at home, I will try to remember to see if I can find anything there. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just found a decent reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek378 (talk • contribs)
- The issue is that this term seems to be made up by the Art of Problem Solving site, so pointing to a book by the same author doesn't show much. We had similar issues with MathWorld, which liked to make up terminology not used in the actual literature. If there is no source independent of AoPS that uses this term in this way, then I would view the article as a neologism, and so I would be in favor of deletion. I did some quick searching, but I could not find a reference apart from AoPS. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, but the people who wrote it are different. Besides, there is the meriam webster reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek378 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above: it doesn't seem to be notable, it seems to be the invention of a single person, with no other citations. More seriously though: no examples at all are given, aside from involutions. I can actually think of a pile of additional examples, all well known from the study of topological groups. However, these additional examples are "well known" or "obvious" or have famous, distinct names and theories of their own, e.g. cyclic groups. So, for this article: no theory is developed: what can one do with 'cyclic functions'? Do they have any interesting properties? Are they applied in any field of study? It sounds like an idiosyncratic invention with no depth to it. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm still not convinced there is a notable topic for an article here. The sources cited in the current article are clearly pretty marginal (an Art of Problem Solving blog post, a dictionary, and an entire book entitled "Intermediate algebra" also published by AoPS). Such sources alone do not establish notability. Even the most permissive criteria actually require independent sources, and we do not have suitably independent sources here. The chant of "Google it" turns up very little of relevance to the subject of this article. For example, one of the google hits refers to the "cyclic function of the kidneys". That has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this article. Many other Google and scholar hits are of this kind, or are incidental combinations of the words "cyclic" and "function". So, absent more solid and specific sourcing, I am inclined to vote delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument that the available references merely establish the subject's existence is convincing; however, this AfD clearly highlights a blindspot in WP:ORG. It requires a broad reading of that guideline to conclude that it applies here. The precendent established by the previous AfDs highlighted below suggests that an update to the guideline is warranted. A Train^talk 10:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andorran ambassador to Spain[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. A number of similar articles have been deleted at AfD Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Gbawden (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete all coverage merely confirm it exists and who was ambassador. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. No real argument has been advanced for deletion. WP:ORG obviously doesn't apply since it's not an organisation. Perhaps, however, it is better to keep these as a list article: List of Andorran ambassadors to Spain, etc. It is true that Category:Lists of ambassadors to Spain has only six articles, but we need more of these lists, not fewer. St Anselm (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Nothing worth mentioning here that isn't already covered in Foreign relations of Andorra, which lists the countries where Andorra has embassies. The ambassadors themselves aren't notable (unless they've done something else that makes them notable). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The articles have in common, that they discribe official representatives of one subject of international law to another. Reg west (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so? There is no inherent notability of ambassador articles. LibStar (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I consider that all embassies should be notable. This is a slightly odd case, since Andorra is a co-dominion of the two adjacent states, not a sovereign state. If not kept it would be necessary to merge to the foreign relations articles. However the individual ambassadors may not be not be notable, and should thus be delinked. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing for inherent notability of ambassador articles. That is not the case as many have been previously deleted. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Knight[edit]

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

Largely unsourced BLP or sourced to personal bio and AVN nomination listings. Subject fails PORNBIO as the awards listed are not significant and well known. Sufficient RS coverage is not available to meet GNG. Previously dePRODed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BLP, as an article about a living person with no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The small pile of nominations for appearing in group sex scenes really does nothing to support individual notability, and the article contains no non-trivial reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable porn actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. "Mainstream" work consists of low-billed appearances is a softcore series, far short of PORNBIO criterion #3. No reliable source coverage to satisfy GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the awards are minor and a lack of rs coverage so WP:BASIC is not passed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other users --SamWinchester000 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalika Chanda[edit]

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

This actress played the lead in a non-notable film. Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. She has acted in few supporting roles in movies. IMDB page

She herself raised herself her name to lead actress in the list of cast here and in this article.

Some reliable sources which mention about actress Kamalika Chnada is that she will play the role of Pinki Pramanik in a movie. But those news articles are basically talk about Pinki Pramanik. They don't discuss much about this actress, other than that she is playing the part. And there is no article about that movie. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is a Bengali actress acted in seven films. The article is notable enough. Disagree with deletion, and removing template.Kamalikachanda (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one raised her name, it was already there in the article idiot, I have just added brackets. Kamalikachanda (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Kamalikachanda: Please do not remove AfD tags from articles like you did with this edit and this edit. Also, please do not refer to other editors commenting in this discussion as an "idiot" because that is not in the spirit of what we are trying to do on Wikipedia and is something which could easily be considered a personal attack. You should focus on showing how this person satisfies the Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and avoid commenting on other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: The actress is Indian Bengali Cinema of West Bengal, not Bangladeshi Cinema of Bangladesh. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. My mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What the nom is referring to is the editor moving her name from near the bottom of the cast list to near the top. This grossly exaggerates the size of the role the subject had in the films in question. I've reverted those edits. As for notability, the subject doesn't appear other than by name once in several of the references, and she isn't mentioned otherwise in others. She did have a starring role in a film, but it appears to be a NN film, as its not even mentioned in the article of the person it's about. Basically, she's an adult film actress who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:PORNBIO. MSJapan (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MSJapan.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LSSP (linear algebra library)[edit]

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

Not notable. No refs and a search turns up nothing. Not that this is a formal criterion, but a Github project with a single maintainer and no other participants suggests it is largely unknown and unused. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I initially tagged this for speedy deletion as a copyvio and promotional. The article is mostly a copy of the github page. To me, the fact that author links the first words of the article to the page is evidence of promotion -- the article was written not because of notability but as an advertisement for the software, and we are to have every detail on it and every possibility of reaching it, with no concern for explaining why the software is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of software libraries, but that is how this article is using it. ubiquity (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing establishing both independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, clearly WP:CSD#A11 as made up by the article's creator with no indication of any notability, and heading toward rather obvious WP:SNOW anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of New Texas[edit]

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

WP:ONEDAY WP:N No news coverage, no articles (some blog posts), no diplomatic recognition etc. Savonneux (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly non-notable imaginary "nation" on Canadian territory. I could find no coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cullen. This micronation was created just two days ago and has apparently not become the subject of attention in the real world. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is probably made up. It contains the sentence "Male Homosexuality is encouraged." Gulumeemee (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC) The calling code, +226, is Burkina Faso's country code. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no serious sources The Banner talk 17:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna (norbert kristof album)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Not sure if there's anything here worth merging into Norbert Kristóf. Adam9007 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It helps the fans to understand the work of the artist and contains an extra picture you can't find anywhere. alieninvasion (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album by non-notable performer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- performer in non-notable. This could have been speedy deleted, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. The artist had an article when I nominated this. Adam9007 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it fails WP:NALBUM. Ayub407^talk 13:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete singer article was deleted per A7, so there is no suitable redirect target for this. SST flyer 04:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Grand Rapids tornado outbreak[edit]

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

This was a minor tornadic WP:EVENT that barely warrants a section in the yearly tornado article. Even though tornadoes impacted Grand Rapids, damage was not particularly significant and there were no deaths or injuries. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not news.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP. Does not meet WP:GNG -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "Late August 2016 Great Lakes tornado outbreak". The August 24 event is notable, so I think that deserves its own article, and this precursor event could be a section in there. I would be fine with Delete as well, though. Jdcomix (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go with a merge since there is too much of a gap between this event and August 24 to call it an outbreak sequence. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article (Merge some info in article-at reduced amount-with yearly article). Regrettably, I can’t justify its existence as it currently is. Hopefully the author can bring more info that will do so. As it is right now it only talks about half the outbreak, the storms around Grand Rapids. This only makes them notable in that area (not national or international news), and seeing how they’re only EF0-EF1 storms, their notably had very likely already waned there enough that they'd already stopped talking about it as well. Lastly, a bunch of its current info is already covered in the monthly list article (with better detail). On a side note I do support Jdcomix suggesting of starting the "Late August 2016 tornado outbreak" (or "Late August 2016 Kokomo tornado outbreak") article.--Halls4521 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Don't know whose idea this was, but this little group of tornadoes is hardly deserving of a section at Tornadoes of 2016, very much less deserving of an article. United States Man (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Hello. I am the one who created the article and I'm not familiar with how articles surrounding storms or tornadoes are determined notable or not. I decided to take on this challenge after these series of tornadoes passed through near where I live. There are quite a bit of reliable sources discussing this outbreak, including this one from the Associated Press/New York Times (international press) and NBC Nightly News. The tornadoes passed through some of the most populated areas in Michigan without injuries (though they were only EF0s and EF1s, it is very uncommon for tornadoes to rip through our downtown metropolitan area). I'll see if I can provide more to this article to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. The NBC video tells of other tornadoes that occurred as well, though the majority of them occurred near Grand Rapids. I would gladly expand the article to include those events. Sorry if I wasted anyones time with this article, like I said I'm new to the storm/tornado side of Wikipedia :).--WMrapids (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, we usually give articles to major outbreaks with at least a few strong tornadoes or outbreaks where at least one significant tornado (EF2 or stronger) strikes a major metropolitan area. Most outbreaks do not get articles. From what I've seen of articles, I wouldn't recommend an article for anything less significant than the April 2014 North Carolina tornado outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: With that article, there were about 11 tornadoes. The NBC video says other tornadoes came from the same storm in Ohio and other states. This article also shows that the Grand Rapids outbreak's 6 tornadoes was about half of what Michigan sees on average annually happening all in one day. I'm not sure of what our state's largest outbreak number was, but the 1953 Flint–Beecher tornado outbreak had 8 spread across Michigan in one day (albeit they were stronger tornadoes). The 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak was probably the largest in Michigan's history with about 12 tornadoes in one day. Looking at this site, I believe this outbreak was the third largest in Michigan's history, although the tornadoes may not be as strong as in other states, F0 and F1 tornadoes are the most common here.--WMrapids (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of tornadoes alone is often less important a factor than the significant tornadoes. A single EF3 tornado may be more notable than ten EF0 and EF1 tornadoes. The article I link to was not much larger than this one but it was more notable because it produced several significant tornadoes, one of which was a killer. Weak tornadoes generally do not warrant much consideration. Comparisons to older outbreaks should be taken with a grain of salt since before the 1980s we missed most weak tornadoes, so many older outbreaks were larger than records indicate. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: That makes sense since the 2011 New England tornado outbreak had only 7 tornadoes but it had an EF3 that caused casualties. But why do articles like the 2000 Brady, Nebraska tornado, the 2006 Westchester County tornado, the 2001 Myrtle Beach tornadoes and the 1997 Miami tornado exist then? There are many more on the list of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks article.--WMrapids (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion at least those articles should not exist, especially not the stubs. I may even look into cleaning house on some of them after this discussion is concluded. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't want to be rude, but this is definitely the worst article I have ever seen when it comes to notability. Therefore, it should not have an article. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 22:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneGonzalo: Are you sure?--WMrapids (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment – This article is not passes WP:GNG:

"Significant coverage" (addresses the topic directly and in detail)
"Reliable"
"Sources"
"Independent of the subject"
"Presumed"

I find it interesting how my article is nearly identical to the 2006 Westchester County tornado article (size, amount of people affected, few injuries), yet the 2006 article is a featured article. I would like to add more to this article as well as the damage assessments and costs should be revealed soon. There is also plenty of media from the National Weather Service that would be nice in this article as well. If I could have some help improving the article and maybe not hurrying to delete it (WP:Deadline), I think this article would be a decent one for the history of Michigan tornadoes. Like I said, it's not often that we get half of the annual average of tornadoes in one day, so this is pretty notable for this region.--WMrapids (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids, the 2006 Westchester County tornado is well written, unlike the page you created. Please ONLY create articles for outbreaks that have multiple EF3+ tornadoes, and I hope this can be useful in the future. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 20:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Westchester tornado article probably should not have been created. That it is a featured article is the only reason I do not intend to nominate it for deletion as well as this one. Regardless, that argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. This outbreak may have been a bit out of the ordinary for Michigan but it is by no means unprecedented or highly unusual. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-@WMrapids, while I hope you'll be able to prove the article's notability and improve it in time, I think you might have misunderstood a key point. Almost all the articles (existing and proposed) mentioned have higher ranked tornadoes based on destructive strength/severity of damage (only the 1997 Miami tornado had around the same strength as this outbreak). Example 1: The city I was born in, Cincinnati, Ohio had a tornado recently. It didn't warrant an article not (just) because it was just one tornado, but because it was considered a weak tornado (EF0). Example 2: One of the other times Cincinnati was hit by one was in 1969. On one hand your article is more worthy of existing than one for it since it has more reliable references found for it than the older storm (so far), but on the other hand an article for it would be more worthy because that storm was a F3-F4 (strong-possibly violent; now a days an EF3-EF4), definitely significant (EF2/F2 or higher), and (despite the low count) is one of the deadliest to hit it's "MET" area since 1950. While EF1/F1 and lower can be deadly, they are also considered really weak storms. I would suggest reading the Fujita scale and Enhanced Fujita Scale articles concerning tornadic strength and why the higher rankings are more notable. Also see the August list for an example of usual tornado listing/charting.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable event, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be worth of a WP:DRV discussion if non-English sources exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Singh (Director)[edit]

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

Non-notable director. I can't find any sources for this person, and the references listed in the article are unreliable (IMDb, Wikipedia and YouTube). Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and EBSCO found no reliable sources about this particular Gopal Singh, so does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR and none of his films have been successful.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 principal problem with the arguments for keeping is they are too focused on random searches in Google, which where then subsequently debunked (particularly by Steve Quinn) as being insufficient and / or unsuitable. As this article is on a living person, we must err on the side of being conservative. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Aniston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; only nominations are present. No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. Previous AfD closed as keep, but sourcing is still unconvincing. As an alternative to deletion, the article can be redirected (after delete) to List of Penthouse Pets. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Lacks sufficient independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability was confirmed at the first AfD, and notability is not temporary. Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't believe that AfD discussions "confirm notability". Instead, their purpose is to determine consensus on whether an article should be retained or deleted. Such consensus can change. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability at the previous AfD? Is that what you believe? Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD did not include a discussion of sources, for example:

Keep "Looks to meet WP:GNG [1] for her industry coverage (no pun intended)" (link to Google search)
Keep "Nom did not present a reason for deletion"
Keep "Trolling by the nominator"
Keep "per X & Y"
Keep "looks to pass GNG", etc.

Thus, the first AfD did not introduce any new sources or offer convincing arguments, just opinions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that there was no discussion of or consensus regarding notability? Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prior AfD had the appearance of being a vote, rather than a discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So there was no discussion about notability because it was a vote? Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prior AfD Ivotes noted by k.e. coffman had some seriously non-policy based arguments. I'm not seeing these as valid arguments for keep. I agree with k.e. coffman, the prior AfD has the appearance of merely being a vote, and of voicing unhelpful opinions.Steve Quinn (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These editors should have a chance to respond. @MichaelQSchmidt, Chillum, Scalhotrod, Subtropical-man, VandVictory, and Mojo Hand: Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another display of improper WP:CANVASSING. Violations aren't excused because porn is involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Another" display? You've not cited any other cases. Your assertion that this is improper is a proof by assertion, and since when is it improper to notify all of the previous participants in an AfD? Please cite the evidence. And the comment that this has something to do with "porn", what has that got to do with anything? Finally, User:Mojo Hand is an administrator. Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding ping @Раціональне анархіст: for User:Раціональне_анархіст Unscintillating (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple ping is quite neutral, does not state or imply how anyone else might or might not opine and as such, per behavior guidelines is not a canvas. However, unfounded WP:ADHOM accusations might violate policy WP:CIVIL. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with User:Hullabaloo. To me, this is canvassing. And I don't think Unscintilating actions in this matter are appropriate. H-m-m-m-m maybe I can come with other editors who should also have a chance to respond. H-m-m-m-m let me think....Steve Quinn (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE allows notification of "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". Unscintillating did not notify the one Delete !voter in the first AfD, but that user had already !voted here. The guideline I quoted above does not contain the clause, "...unless they all agree with you". Work to change the guideline if you think it needs improvement, but in the meantime we should go with what it says and avoid asserting what it does not say. If there are known Delete supporters from other discussions, they can be notified too, along with all other participants in those discussions, but I don't think failure to go that far constitutes canvassing. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:APPNOTE also states, "particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior." Unscintillating (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Winning an award is not the sole criteria for notability. 2,557 page views per day on Wikipedia is very impressive. She is a very popular Performer.

She’s very popular on social media. 273 thousand followers on Twitter. Over 100 thousand followers on Instagram. Over 100 thousand Likes on FaceBook. Glenn Francis (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a convincing argument and does not address WP:BLP requirements for high quality sources, to wit: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons...such material...must adhere...strictly to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...be very firm about the use of high-quality sources " (the underline is mine).

Page views are not even considered in any content policies or notability guidelines (per WP:GNG). Asserting she is a popular performer generally or on social media without reliable sources is a POV statement. Twitter is not considered a reliable source per WP:RS (lacks independent reporting standards). Instagram is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards), and Facebook is not considered a reliable source (lacks independent reporting standards). To satisfy the requirements for BLP, the subject must have acceptable reliable sourcing RS that bring it to GNG or BIO standards. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above two comments. 173.70.163.96 (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the arguments for keep are very unconvincing and do not address BLP requirements for high quality sources. The arguments for keep in the last Afd are also very unconvincing. One editor in the last AfD claims "While nice, non-industry coverage is not a policy nor a guideline." in fact it is very much connected to policy and guidelines because "non-industry coverage" translates into independent coverage which is a requirement for BLP in that it must satisfy GNG or even BIO. The same editor continues with. "It is reasonable that she would receive coverage in and for the industry for which she works". I agree that it is reasonable in the sense of the word, but not reasonable when using this coverage for indicating notability. This person then finishes with "PORNBIO does not supersede the GNG." I believe that is the only correct portion of this particular Ivote.

Another Ivoter in the former AfD said, "Sufficient sources suggests she meets the WP:GNG." Well this actually seems to be a misreading of GNG. It is the type of sources that determine the subject passing GNG. In this case, the sources do not suggest or indicate meeting GNG. Industry related promotional materials are not independent of the subject. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are what is needed. As an aside, she also fails PORNBIO because she has received only nominations. So, there is no way to establish notability for this person. Redirect after delete is acceptable to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has won no significant awards. There is no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. Neither x number of page views nor x number of social media followers confers notability, and such arguments are based neither in policies nor in guidelines. If those numbers are so impressive (which they aren't), then reliable independent sources would have been so impressed that they would have devoted significant coverage to her (which they haven't). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, since notability is never conferred and nothing in policies or guidelines says otherwise. However, evidence of attention to the topic over a period of time contributes to establishing that a topic is "worthy of notice" as per the lede and nutshell of WP:N. It is a fallacy to assert what independent reliable sources will do, since they may or may not take an interest in specific data. I'm not saying that page views and followers do or do not contribute to notability, but the evidence can be considered on its merits.
Nor is there a requirement for the world at large to notice topics in prose. An example is Barber Island. Unscintillating (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you left out this part: "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." There is nothing there about gaining attention on social media, because social media coverage is not in agreement with neutrality - a content policy WP:NPOV. Also, Aniston's attention is not noteworthy enough to be covered by mainstream sources, as was stated above. And it appears that nobody is asserting what independent reliable sources will do - this is because Wikipedia and its editors do not engage in foretelling the future WP:CRYSTAL. We can only create articles that reliable sources cover - we do not decide, or even try to decide, what mainstream sources should cover - or we would also be in the POV business of righting great wrongs WP:GREATWRONGS. And the problem with page views, followers, and social media coverage is this is not independent journalistic coverage, upon which notability relies. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple Penthouse covers plus the Pet of the Year (not just the month, that would be nothing special), top 5 in an independent pornstar ranking, unique feature as one of only two exclusive contract performers of Naughty America, a big company, in over 10 years. Contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry who have reached it all. (At the same time they are rather rarely getting awards because of their advantage to only shoot e. g. 10-20 films a year and their comfort not to do extreme stuff like others). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SamWinchester000's excellent explanation for keeping this article.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Penthouse covers,and Pet of the Year coverage by Penthouse do not qualify as independent coverage because these are Penthouse Magazine products. There would have to be independent coverage of these in reliable sources to indicate notability. Where are the independent sources stating she is in the top 5, and how much coverage is there? Please post them because I am not seeing this covered in the Wikipedia article. Where are the independent reliable sources that cover her, her contract, and the nature of that contract with Naughty America. (And what the heck is Naughty America?). Again, where are the sources that say "contract performers are seen as the big queens in the porn industry" and these have reached the top? Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass. Subject has received significant coverage. SST flyer 04:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which sources demonstrate that the subject meets GNG? The fact that Ms Aniston appeared in a magazine is not sufficient; they coverage needs to be about her. I'm not seeing such sources in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above keep votes. Sources here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell none of these qualify as significant coverage per GNG and BIO. For example, this is what she looks like with and without makeup[26] and the article and the focus is on what the make-up artist can do - it is trivial coverage. This one [27] shows the pictures she has posted on Instagram - trivial coverage. This one [28] is merely an announcement and has trivial coverage anyway. This one is gossip [29] for the fans. And this is passing mention [30]. This is gossip and trivial coverage for the fans [31]. That appears to be all of them. At least now we are having a discussion. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This ought to be seen as an object lesson as to why posts of raw search results establish nothing. A substantial share of the purported coverage of the subject are nothing more than compilations of gossip column items, with some individual items featuring Jennifer Aniston and others mentioning Nicole Kidman or Nicole Ritchie. Filtering such spurious hits and the many duplicate posts leaves essentially trivial coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:BIO per genre coverage and awards. Brought back to AFD in a hope that past supporters will not return to support, and denigrating the expected genre coverage because it is not in "mainstream media" is weak. And while yes the previous topic consensus can change... not I think this time. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought back because of notability issues and to assume otherwise is rather silly, I would suggest you read WP:AGF as well as the !votes here before making such absurd comments. –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the obvious aspersions just willy nilly cast here and there, it is remarkable bunch of assertions. How does this person meet WP:BIO? And linking genre coverage to GNG does not make sense, nor does linking awards to ANYBIO. By the way, the subject has not won any AVN or XBZ awards, she has only been nominated. The subject has so far failed to meet the criteria for ANYBIO, BIO, and GNG thereby not meeting the requirements for BLP. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to disagree with guideline explaining that award "wins" are not an absolute mandate when it clarifies... "or has been nominated for one several times"... and my math tells me multiple genre nominations are several... thus WP:BIO is met and well-sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree with you. But, thanks for clearing that up. None of these awards have the backing of independent reliable sources that demonstrate these awards' significance. I appreciate you linking to the References section of this article - but, as far as I can tell, none of these demonstrate the significance of these awards in order to meet the criteria for ANYBIO. However, if you so desire, ~~I would appreciate you providing~~ feel free to provide links for the particular references that support your contention, ~~if you so desire~~ . Obviously corporation produced announcements are not independent sources; these contradict the core content policy WP:Neutrality, and WP:Verifiability, yet, even these only provide line-item passing mentions. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and related film-industry media cannot possible verify a notability assertion of winning an industry award? Even without coverage in The New York Times or Washington Post, it is determinable that most others accept XBIZ and AVN as suitable to confirm that a person has received nominations notable to their genre... even if this is not you.

While allowed, a personal opinion can often run contrary to our core principles and contrary to project-wide consensus and common sense. However, I do not expect you to agree with either myself or any other who might disagree with your narrowing view. So sorry, I find it unhelpful to blud someone who insists that notability can "only" be determined through mainstream media. Ain't the way this encyclopedia works and grows. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all my personal opinion is not related to GNG, BIO, ANYBIO, or BLP. These have been established by Wikipedia wide WP:CONSENSUS. I have already and previously delineated these [32]. And just so no one is taking my word for it here is the policy (statement) on how consensus works:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right; participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.

This, of course, means that GNG, BLP, and so on apply to this article and every article in WikiProject Pornography. And appealing to a strawman in claiming a "narrowing view" is not an effective argument. However, the references in this article for the awards are certainly narrow in scope - because they are not independent, they are company promotional materials, they have single line item passing mentions. There are not too many ways to say this. I suppose I could reverse the wording or something like that. And bringing in the Academy Awards is, sorry to say, is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - these are not under discussion. In any case, many Academy Award winners have already received tons of press before receiving the award and will receive a ton more afterwards; especially afterwards. Also, the awards themselves receive a ton of coverage every year. Compared to these, the press coverage for the AVN and XBIZ award ceremonies is microscopic to nil. And award categories the subject is nominated for has nanometer sized coverage. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here. FWIW, the previous AfD about this subject, which is actually Nicole Aniston, was also unfortunately started as part of a pointy, mass-AfD crusade by an editor that left Wikipedia a while back when their favorite article was deleted.

One only needs to go to the Wiki-link for Naughty America to find out about that adult film production company. Also, the article here already has a double citation (one to AVN - one of the most notable trade magazines in the adult film industry - and one to the online magazine itself) to the claim that the subject here was ranked highly in an online magazine's list of "Top 25 Hottest Porn Stars", whatever that really ends up meaning. Guy1890 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing short of keep, (yes not even "no consensus") would satisfy me here. In fact, if this closes as anythign other than a keep it would be indicative of an abandonment of wikipedia's mission statement which is to document notable henomenon about our world in an encyclopedic manner. How can someone that draws colossal celebrity-like followings on social media be viewed as anything but notable? If wikipedia has reached the stage where it no longer reflects the real world, it means there is something wrong with either (a) our editors, or (b) our notability guidelines. I really hope that we don't reach that point where we need to go beyond discussions on delete threads into a fundamental insight on the obstructiveness that has grown on sex-related (particularly porn-related) articles Pwolit iets (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with everything Pwolit iets just wrote.Glenn Francis (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What independent reliable sources with significant coverage do you have that show this subject meets the criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG? Please see the discussion above that indicates, so far, no such sources have been presented. Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like it, but Subtropical-man is correct. The article is well and properly sourced and thus his opinion well-founded. Rather than demanding someone defend existing consensus, and with the understanding that they have survived there as sources multiple times, you are welcome to take AVN and XBIZ to WP:RSN rather than demand individuals defend them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My short answer for now is - these references (and other available sources) have been shown to be unacceptable already for GNG and hence fall far short of high standards required by WP:BLP. Besides, the fact that these article references are materials produced by the company, and hence are not in anyway independent of the awards, there are only single line item passing mentions. So these fail GNG on two fronts or even three fronts, they are not independent, have only passing mention, and they are promotional materials. So you are welcome to find actual reliable sources the demonstrate the wp:significant coverage of these awards, because these references don't make the cut, even though you obviously don't like that. And you may not like this either, but Subtropical man has been shown to be incorrect at least once, and you have been shown to be repeatably incorrect, in just this AfD. - oh, and incorrect in the previous AfD as well. Well, I guess that isn't a short answer after all. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been demanding anything from anyone - so please tone down the rhetoric. Thank you. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when every source mentioned is struck down because it does not match up with what the guidelines require, and when keep !voters merely resort to pile-on, drive-by votes that provide no evidence, it becomes hard for me to see any legitimate reason why the article should be kept. Especially since one keep !voter, after finally running up against a stone wall and being unable to continue his lawyering, instead opted to tip the balance in this discussion by appealing to several editors that he knew would !vote keep. And no, the fact that it was kept at the last AFD does not mean that it must be kept forever. Consensus can, and does, change. Lepricavark (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as none of the Keep votes are fully convincing as they either are mentioning their comments alongside with something else, or not hitting the nail exact regarding independent notability; this is still questionable for the applicable notability and the listed awards are only nominations. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are only four article references (out of 19) that apply directly to the XBIZ and AVN award nominations per this discussion. These are:

New Starlet of the Year nomination [33] - scrolling down, only the subject's name is mentioned among 15 other nominees. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as aN XBIZ promo page.
Most Outrageous Sex Scene nomination - the link does not work. Anyway these tend to be the same in that the name of the many nominees are listed under one category. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as a AVN promo page.
Female Performer of the Year nomination [34] - it is unclear how this source relates to the subject. Using the "find" search function on the browser turns up her name - but the rest of the page surrounding the name is blank. The first pages have information, but further down there isn't any. Anyway - please notice the structure is the same as the first source. It lists only a number of nominees name in any category.
This source for the fourth nominee category in this article has the same structure - [35]. This is not significant coverage and it is not independent coverage as a XBIZ promo page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why do you need multiple sources for the same thing ("only four references") and why are you actually only looking at the sources for her nominations? Indeed, nobody was using the nominations as an argument, and I thought those don't convince you, either. So why do you stick with nominations you generally won't even care? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, These are four sources, one source for each nomination in the article (references 15, 16,17, and 18). So, this is not for the same thing - it is for 4 different things. I am only looking at these sources because earlier an editor claimed the subject met the criteria for WP:ANYBIO #1 "This person... has been nominated for one [award] several times".

Well, now that I look at this - I can see there has been a misunderstanding. It was implied that because she had four different nominations, she passed criteria #1 for ANYBIO. I can see now this is not the case - rather it is being nominated for one significant award several times. So we were having a back and forth conversation about something that was not true. Oh well. That will not happen again.

You are correct, the nominations don't convince me at all - because the sources are not independent, they are company promotional materials, they have passing mentions only on a single line. My intent was to individually delineate the inadequacy of each of the 4 nominations. My comments following each external link are meant to show the inadequacy of each individual nomination. Hopefully this clears things up. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that there would be mulitple sources for one thing at the moment. It sounded as if you would want more sources for already sourced nominations. I never said that those nominations would have been the same, I stated nothing about the content of the article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC) P. S.: Writing an article, I would never source awards with other references than the official ones. Why should I? Other articles could just be wrong. Searching for an award of any genre (I don't mean only porn but e.g. a maths award) outside of its specialist literature/magazine/journal is just absurd for me.[reply]

So, I've added missing sources from the web archive and can now only say that those are indeed 4 different award nominations (but which were not my personal argument for keep). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (after edit conflict) I have been waiting for a relist for quite a while before I would bring up some fresh points beause it might take me a while to formulate them and it was rather too late to directly answer to above users and their Google News searches. However, as nothing seems to happen, here is what I found on Google News: This french website PurePeople calls her a "top star" for making classy parodies ("pastiches classés X") like "Tomb Raider, Les Schtroumpfs, Men in Black, Thor or Xena". They report from her photo shoot for a mineral water brand, call her "the wicked participant" (as there are also other normal models) and "the bomb of porn" and also point out that she's "holding the crown of Penthouse". That article is without doubt about Nicole Aniston. The argentine Infobae calls her an "influential (′impactante′) woman" who has "achieved to become one of the most popular starlets in the XXX film industry". Other Argentine ("infartante modelo" – "mind-blowing model"), French, Rumanian ("one of the most famous porn actresses") or Greek magazines e. g. have been reporting.
The next one is only a photo slideshow. However, recognizing her big Instagram presence Espectáculos Televisa says: "Nicole Aniston's sensuality always increases the temperature of Instagram.", "Nicole Aniston, one of the most famous XXX divas." This 2016 rumanian article about photos from her at home has called her "one of the most well-known actresses in adult films". GQ has listed the 10 hottest pornstars on Instagram in 2016 and commentates on Nicole Aniston as "Star of Penthouse and Naughty [America]". More sources referringt to the GQ list: [36], [37]. This is a list of 12 humans many people might know in general without actually realizing that those are porn stars. They quote her saying that in the last years she has learned how to successfully market herself - regardless of her actual profession.
An interview by a sports journalist when she hasn't already been Penthouse Pet. Yet, he states: "exploding onto the porn scene only a year-and-a-half ago". An article referring to her as the new Penthouse Pet. She's listed 2nd place in a Greek list from 2016 compiling the most famous porn stars from the 80's and the 2010's. An article about Marco Rubio's endorsement by Jenna Jameson makes a general pun about Nicole Aniston in connection with Obamacare due to her established name. An article about Veronica Vain coming from a Wall street job shortly mentions Aniston as a generally familiar pornstar who has been a benk teller. In the french reality show Les Anges de la téléréalité contestant Nelly Chanteloup wanted to achieve the same bust (size) as Nicole Aniston has, as for Nelly's fans she has been a veritable look-alike of the well-known porn actress.

I know that not each of those references might be ideal but I tried to bring up a wide range. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Rosenberg[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a TV director that I cannot find any significant coverage on. Subject's biggest mentions appear in an article about Wimbledon TV coverage on something called Sports Video Group, which looks like it's barely above the level of a blog. There are a couple of minor mentions in a couple of other articles that I found, but no articles about the subject himself. He appears to be one of hundreds of directors that have worked for NBC Sports over the years, but without any distinguishing characteristics, I believe he fails WP:DIRECTOR on all 4 counts. I did find a couple of mentions on pages that would not be considered WP:RS that talk about him winning multiple Emmy awards, but my guess is those are Sports Emmys for the Olympics - and when the Olympics broadcast wins an Emmy (which it does almost every single time) everyone on the production, from the executive producers to the dozens of directors, to the cameramen, to the cable pullers, all get to claim they "won" an Emmy (and purchase the statue if they wish). I cannot find any evidence that he individually won an Emmy for directing anything. LAroboGuy (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some articles about the Olympics which mention his name, but nothing in-depth. ArchieOof (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does not yield anything beyond a few quotes in articles that are primarily about the events that he worked on as a director. Definitely fails WP:GNG and I don't see anything that meets the conditions for creative professionals in WP:DIRECTOR. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Kassidy[edit]

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

Non-notable porn actress that fails the GNG and PORNBIO. Has had very minor mainstream appearance or two but not nearly good enough to pass pornbio #3. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2016 (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/2016 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- typical WP:PSEUDO biography, with: "Kassidy had jobs at a real estate office, a restaurant and a doctor’s office" (cited to AVN) and an "uncredited film role". Subject clearly fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My good faith search for significant coverage in independent reliable sources came up empty. All I found was her modelling with a Honda motorcycle, but nothing other than her stage name. Current references in the article are typical porn industry promotionalism, and most of the links are dead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Most sourcing is primary/promotional; principal claim to notability is a single unbilled role as an unnamed character in a B-movie. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jamzy4 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y.A.G.I[edit]

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

Subject FAILS WP:GNG Jamzy4 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2016 (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/2016 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - since there is no official album chart in Nigeria, this album passes WP:GNG per these reviews by recognized music outlets - 360Nobs, Music in Africa, Pulse Nigeria and tooXclusive. The album is also nominated in Album of the Year at the forth-coming 2016 Nigeria Entertainment Awards. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:32, 26 August 2016 (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/2016 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Search results have claims of notability. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 01:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to favour deletion. Also, Brint03, please remember the discussion is solely about the page, not about other editors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Brint Carlton[edit]

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

Non-notable attorney. Sole claim to fame as the youngest county judge in Orange County, Texas. There are over 3000 counties or equivalents in the US, and every one of them has a youngest, oldest, tallest, etc. judge, county supervisor, etc.; that does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Appears to have been created and lovingly curated by the subject of the article himself; contrary to both WP:RESUME and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

PROD removed by the article's creator User:Brint03, who appears to be the Stephen Brint Carlton himself, with the comment Still building article. More references coming. Other articles exist about current/former county judges who have done less. Appears to be no issue with 181 (part time) Texas legislators having pages., but that's just an unpersuasive WP:WAX argument. TJRC (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brint03 response to TJRC: The claim to fame is not being an attorney. The "claim to fame" is as a Texas politician who is the head of the 45th most populous Texas county. The "youngest" part is an interesting fact as it was covered by media. Greater "claim to fame" is being part of a dramatic political shift in Southeast Texas and instituting policies to create the first balanced budget in well over 20 years to a County in deep financial trouble. Additionally, the County is tackling economic development in a new way to bring more jobs and prosperity to a stagnant region of the state. The totality of the education and background helps the reader to understand how and why the above changes in policy and outcomes were achieved.

As far as there being 3000 (according to you) counties or similar entities in the US, there are also 7383 (according to Wikipedia) state legislators in the US. Every one I have looked up has a page. It seems to me that county judges/administrators are twice as rare (and therefore twice as notable) as state legislators and, often, wield more influence on their constituents. Brint03 —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For clarity, a county judge in Texas is equivalent to the head of a county commission in most U.S. states. See Commissioners' court. It's not what would normally be thought of as a judicial office. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Metropolitan90 Comment: Your statement is partially correct. While Texas county judges do have very broad administrative powers (executive branch) and budgetary powers (legislative branch), they also have broad judicial authority to preside over a wide range of cases. See the Texas Constitution, Government Code, Local Government Code, Probate Code, etc. This is what makes county judges in Texas so unique and "notable". They often have far more influence on the lives of their constituents than state or federal legislators. Additionally, because they have so much power over a wide range of issues, it is important that constituents have an understanding of their county judge and the full extent of the office of county judge. They are also often the subject of weekly media attention and their election or defeat, especially when there is a change after 20 years, generates significant local and sometimes regional media attention. The role of a Texas county judge is often misunderstood by those who do not live it Texas.

I am open to suggestions on how to improve the article, but TJCR going straight for deletion (rather than beginning a friendly dialogue) is premature. His use of the word "lovingly" is also inflammatory and counterproductive to finding an amenable solution. Brint03 Brint03 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The subject is an official in a rural county of about 80,000 people. The article is highly promotional and filled full of unreferenced assertions about details of the subject's life. This is because it seems that the subject himself wrote the article, and is writing from personal knowledge rather than summarizing reliable, independent sources, as is required. The evidence that this is an autobiography is very strong. Autobiographies are highly discouraged here on Wikipedia. The editor has a clear conflict of interest which must be declared. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cullen328: I am attempting to work with you guys, but there does not seem to be much reciprocation. There is an automatic jump to deletion without an attempt to work with the creator or offer helpful advice first. The provided information does come from various independent sources such as media, military records, school records, etc. It was already mentioned that more references were coming. However, I have now stripped the article down to the basics without much explanation. As before, all of the information does come from independent sources, I just need more time to enter it all. Finally, there is a misunderstanding from you guys on how notable county judges are. I have already explained. Referencing the Wikipedia page on County Commissioners is inadequate because the page is inadequate when it comes to Texas. Other county judge pages already exist for similar or smaller counties. Those judges are no more or less notable. Again, I do not understand editors who immediately jump to deletion without first working with the creator. If the creator fails to make the required changes or fails to show the importance of the page, then a discussion on deletion is warranted.Brint03 (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Brint03. Please be aware that WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is a core Wikipedia content guideline, and it begins by saying: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged." Why do you think that experienced editors would want to "work with" you when you are engaging in self-promotional behavior that has been repeatedly disruptive for this encyclopedia for many years? If you were really interested in improving the encyclopedia, you would be improving our coverage of topics where you do not have a conflict of interest. As a county official in a county of 82,000 people, you simply do not meet WP:POLITICIAN. I am not surprised that there are other articles about non-notable county judges. Instead of adding yet another article about a non-notable politician, we should be deleting those others as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cullen328: The only issue I have is the aggressive nature in which the editors have responded. Instead of taking a little time to help the creator understand, it is instantly "delete" or "you don't meet that". I am not opposed to meeting Wikipedia standards but you guys obviously know more about those standards than most people. I have had a chance to review those standards since the first delete proposal came and I now agree with deletion. All it would have taken was for the editors to approach the issue with a little more restraint and desire to help the creator understand instead of being confrontational. I have no issue with deletion.Brint03 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment: Not sure how long it takes to fully delete the article, but I have removed all information other than name, office, and duties of the office until final deletion. I would remove the rest, but the instructions are to not blank the article.Brint03 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some say Wikipedia editors approach such issues "aggresively". However the fact of the matter is the project gets cluttered with minor, tandendential articles. In this case, a county judge is the top administrator of a county. As best I understand it, a county judge in Texas is somewhat like a mayor who heads a city commission. They are the first among equals of the 5 legislative/executive leaders of the county. The question is then are county judges default notable, and I still think the answer is no (I answer the same for the mayor of my own city which has more inhabitants than Carlton's county). The sources here do not meet general notability guidelines criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if County judges were anywhere near notable I would still delete this article with fire because it is an autobiography. We need to send the message loud and clear that no matter how important one things they are, they should never create an article on themselves in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to editors: You guys do realize Wikipedia is not, nor will it ever be, a legitimate encyclopedia, right? No reputable person, researcher, nor institution of higher learning would ever accept anything in here as reliable. They would at best go and read the references. Wikipedia is nothing more than a place to start looking or entertainment. The reason for this is precisely because it can be edited by anybody at anytime. The fact you guys volunteer to help is nice, but the vitriol some of you express towards people who are not as familiar with the standards as you is laughable. As best I can tell, Wikipedia is for everybody to contribute. If the standard for Wikipedia is to not allow autobiographies, then make them forbidden. However, that is not the standard. The standard is highly discouraged. There is a world of difference between the two (one is allowed, the other not allowed). All you guys will do is encourage people to pretend to be somebody else if they want a page. If it is highly discouraged, but not forbidden, then relay that to the creator and give guidance on how to make it better if they believe they can meet the standards. If they then do not meet standards, go ahead and initiate deletion. Going immediately to delete or expressimg contempt is not the answer. New creators are not aware of all of the frustration you guys have or years of this or that you have put up with. I have already said I no longer object to deleting the article. I spent more time looking over the standards and I see the downfall is the autobiography. I still think you are mistaken on the notability part but we can agree to disagree. I looked up other county judge pages first to see if they existed and they do. How is a creator to then know that you do not feel a county judge is notable? The big problem is the subjectivity of "notable" or "significant" media coverage. You can elimiate the problem by making Wikipedia for state and higher level officials only. There is a lot of subjectivity in Wikipedia standards and I guess as editors, you guys get to decide. However, referencing Wikipedia articles as your source of determining reliable information in making any kind of determination is concerning. Anyways, I appreciate what you guys do because I enjoy being entertained by Wikipedia just as much as the next person.Brint03 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I find this paragraph disturbing, as much for its errors in deciphering why the article was nominated as for its attacks on the editors. The fact that this article is an autobiography is not the main reason for the nomination, and in fact, even if a completely different person had written it, it would still be a candidate for deletion. Also, I see no signs of "vitriol" except from the article writer himself. You can say there is a lot of subjectivity in Wikipedia standards, and that's true, but you miss the greater truth: every encyclopedia includes or omits articles based on subjective standards - they're just standards set by a smaller group of people. Also, you don't have a way to argue with those encyclopedia editors when they don't include your article. Here, you do, but maybe you should carefully consider in the future what kind of argument you're making. This one didn't make much sense. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason autobiographical articles are "strongly discouraged", rather than outright banned altogether, on Wikipedia is that occasionally an autobiographical article gets created by a person who actually does meet all the necessary standards to have a Wikipedia article — so in those instances, we just clean the article up for compliance with our content policies instead of deleting it entirely. (Recent example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Hardcastle.) It does not mean every individual person who exists at all is entitled to ignore the rule just because it says "strongly discouraged" instead of "always expressly forbidden"; the article is still subject to all of our normal content rules, and can still be deleted if the necessary levels of notability and sourceability just aren't there to repair it with. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local official (county judge) but without full sourcing. Need full sourcing to qualify as a local official.64.134.51.41 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that the notability guidelines set forth in WP:POLITICIAN are met. I find no substantive coverage in third-party sources to suggest that WP:GNG is met here. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local official that fails WP:POLITICIAN, not close to meeting WP:GNG, and the problems raised by WP:RESUME and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY were already noted above. Agree with the other delete voters on all points. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County-level judges do not get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because they exist, and no reliable source coverage has been shown to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — of the two "sources" here, one is his own primary source profile on the county's own website, and the other is Ballotpedia, a user-generated content site which includes content about every single candidate for any elected office in the entire United States, and thus doesn't constitute proof of notability per se. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL; a weakly sourced vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-downtown/water-camps-opened/article3402185.ece

[2] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/towards-making-their-future-brighter/article1801577.ece

[3] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/in-vijayawada-today/article3127078.ece

[4] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/tirupati-book-festival-a-big-draw/article692449.ece

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]