Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 December	12 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. czar 05:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sue L. Henry[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a political candidate, whose only claims of notability are being the first LGBT person to run for mayor (but not win) in her own city and being a non-winning write-in candidate for state governor. Neither of these constitute a WP:NPOL pass in and of themselves; there might be a case for inclusion on "first LGBT candidate" grounds if she were the first in the entire United States, but not if she's merely the first in Charlotte, NC -- and non-winning gubernatorial candidates don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for having their name on a ballot either. For a political candidate to get a Wikipedia article because candidate per se, she normally has to win the election and thereby become an actual officeholder, not just run in it -- with extremely rare exceptions on the order of the media firestorm that fried Christine O'Donnell, the only other path to notability for a non-winning candidate for office is to show that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason separate from being a candidate (e.g. she was already a noted writer or actress or athlete, or a holder of another notable political office). But nothing here demonstrates preexisting notability, so she doesn't qualify for an article because candidate. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She was an indepdent write-in candidate, this is no where near meeting any inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, as above Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:32, 13 December 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. czar 05:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adeaca One[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Self-published information, product listings and common product announcements do not establish notability. The article lacks references with independent in-depth coverage about the topic. Aside from some reseller descriptions a Google search did not reveal any other usable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Low quality references and certainly no independent in-depth coverage Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Advanced Projects. Both produced by single-purpose account User:RobertAnderson1971. W Nowicki (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same rationale as I provided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Projects. There simply is no significant coverage to establish notability. Even combining the two product pages into a company page is not going to work as there simply is no coverage that can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 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. czar 05:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Projects[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Self-published information, product listings and common product announcements do not establish notability. The article lacks references with independent in-depth coverage about the topic. Aside from some reseller descriptions a Google search did not reveal any other usable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. This appears to be a product of the company "Adeaca", as is the Adeaca One article. Even a combined article on the company would probably not meet the threshold either, alas. Appears to be a very small niche. W Nowicki (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am very familiar and would love to see a page on it, but unfortunately there is nothing that can be used to establish notability. No significant coverage in reliable sources so it fails WP:GNG. And you are correct, @W Nowicki:. I tried my best to find sources thinking we could merge this page and the Adeaca One page into a company page for Adeaca, but even combining everything won't get any closer to notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 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. czar 04:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Laurita[edit]

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

Yet another article about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one reality show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Even though the show itself is very popular, the person has not been able to establish her notability outside the show. Mymis (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just did a rundown on what's available on her via Google. Seems pretty squarely covered by WP:REALITYTV. Largoplazo (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being in one reality television show does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an entirely trivial anf unconvincing career as an actor and it shows since this is quite close to an IMDb listing hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:15M and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:39, 15 December 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 Speedied as blatant G11 by my tag (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essence Group[edit]

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

This article fails WP:ORGDEPTH as it looks like a PR stunt. This source only mentions a new service the company renders. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:33, 11 December 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 00:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Schneider[edit]

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

The subject does not meet our WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO criteria —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a trivial and unconvincing article with trivial and unconvincing sources amounting to everything not satisfying any notability or actual convincing, hence this is only a PR listing. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Swister Twister KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable guitarist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- Dane ^talk 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant claim of notability, fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:16, 18 December 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. First, let me deal with the recommendations that are completely out of the question. (a) Move to Wiktionary. Wiktionary does not accept encyclopaedic content and already has an extensive entry including usage quotations and etymology. Of course, that does beg the question: is there any encyclopaedic content left after discounting everything DICDEF (ie, could be in Wiktionary)? In my opinion, this is right on the borderline with very little left, but it is not my opinion that counts here, I need to analyze the recommendations made by participants. (b) Redirect. This recommendation makes no sense. The target article's only mention of protologism is a see also back to here. A redirect would only be useful if there was first a merge of at least some material.

Six participants recommended 'keep' or 'merge' and four recommended 'delete'. However, one of the delete opinions (from 86.17) is invalid as far as policy based arguments goes (some keep opinions were also not policy based, but only in part). The weight of opinion is therefore for keep, but is not far from no consensus.

Finally, on merge, this close is not to be taken as precluding that action. That can be discussed outside of AfD, which is perhaps what should have happened in the first instance. SpinningSpark 11:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protologism[edit]

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

Page fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICT. The only source to treat the term non-trivially is that of the author who coined the term. The others simply mention the term and then give some definition. A google search returns only dictionary entries, and a google scholar search returns only 24 entries, most of which are in Russian but the ones in English don't bode well for the topic either. None of them treat the subject non-trivially, and the most cited publication only mentions protologisms to call them "inadequate" explanation for the discussion of the book.

Independently of the GNG, it also is on the wrong side of WP:NOTDICT. The article consists only of a definition and etymology. There seem to be no sources that give anything beyond the information already in the article: a definition and a nod to Epstein. Regardless of whether protologism is notable, it still is too much of a dictionary entry to have its own article.

I previously redirected the article, but it was reverted, citing an AFD discussion. Because of the previous AFDs, I think this would be the better venue for coming to a consensus rather than a merge or redirect request languishing on an unwatched talk page. Others mentioned that a merge to neologism would also be acceptable. Personally, I would be fine with deletion or redirection, I don't think there's any real content worth merging as I think its inclusion in the neologism article would be undue weight. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a concept that nobody other than the creator has taken up. Nobody else who matters distinguishes this from a neologism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, except actual usage in reliable sources disprove that assertion. This recent and specialist term isn't common yet, but that's not a deletion rationale. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think anything has really changed since the last AfD which was kept about 3 months and a half ago. I think a merge (or redirect) is inappropriate for two reasons. Firstly, a protologism and neologism are distinct because neologisms are regularly used by lexicographers while protologisms on the other hands are never used; hence they are clearly at very separate stages of language formation. Secondly, we have already had an editor threaten to delete the content in case it ends up in a merge. Therefore a vote for a merge would in essence and practicality be a vote for deletion. 88.104.36.119 (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, firstly, the rationale has changed. The previous AFD argued for deletion because the article was "really small" and on whether it was different from a neologism. I'm saying it doesn't pass the GNG nor does it comply with WP:NOTDICT which wasn't brought up in the previous discussion. The GNG was brought up once to say that there were hits in a Google Books search, but as I said here, none of them are non-trivial mentions. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a WP:NEOLOGISM. E Eng 03:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Neologisms are not banned as article topics, but are simply "commonly deleted" if they have little or no usage in reliable sources. A word or phrase can be an encyclopedic subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wiktionary, or delete if there's nothing of value to keep. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Neologism as a section: It's well-referenced and considerably more than a WP:DICDEF, giving history and background. WP itself frequently has articles or article sections on protologisms (e.g. Campaign for "santorum" neologism which began as Santorum (slang), then was merged into the Dan Savage article, before being developed much further into the present article) It would be helpful to have an article on the protologism concept to link to, instead of having the explain it in situ (with sources) every single time it comes up. Additional sources, just from one search: [1]. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Merge has also been supported by some commenters at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Request for comment: mention protologisms?. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even without an article on the topic, it's possible to link to wiktionary:protologism (using "|" to suppress the prefix) or Wikipedia:Glossary#Protologism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the aforementioned editors supporting a merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Neologism – I think Protologism just barely meets the requirement of having sources about the word (including its "social or historical significance" per Wikipedia is not a dictionary) rather than merely using the word. A 2014 article published online by Macmillan discusses the concept of protologisms (not merely the word protologism), using as examples of protologisms the comedian Alex Horne's so-called "linguistic seeds" and Sir James Dyson's efforts to promote the verb dyson (as a verb akin to hoover). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating... language changes, and it may even be that Wikipedia will need to rephrase our policies and guidelines if this term takes off, depending how exactly its common use relates to the older term neologism. But it's already encyclopedic, as the references show and as the more recent AfD decided. A topic isn't non-notable just because it's esoteric, as many articles on rare species show, nor because it's new, as any royal birth or major disaster shows. Andrewa (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also referred to and actively used in the WP-namespace.--*thing goes (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into neologism. Short enough, appropriate subtopic, and the notability and the encyclopedicity of this as a separate topic are, as the nomination highlights, quite questionable. As to *thing goes's comment, whether anything is used in Wikipedia is of no significance for inclusion. Sandstein 16:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article consists of multiple re-statements of the very obvious--"all neologisms have to start somewhere".Glendoremus (talk) 06:06, 23 December 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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cherek[edit]

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

It's quite clear this was only started for PR advertising as that's what the information and sources both are and it's also clear the now added award is simply a state-level one, therefore everything here is literally so trivial and unconvincing, it should never have been accepted especially since WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like PR as the nom stated; fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Appears to be promotional in nature. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:21, 18 December 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selva RK[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Claim of notability is film editing, but only has a few very recent pieces of work under his belt, including two in pre-production. I think this is WP:TOOSOON Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nominator that there is nothing in terms of reliable independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, just mentions and unreliable sources. Article previously deleted on BLPPROD grounds. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a subject working as a film editor. The given references are poor: a page on a listing site which invites submissions plus two passing mentions in lists of names, and my searches are finding nothing better. Having a job, whether in the film industry or any other field, is not inherently of encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 11 December 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. Sourcing is not of a significant enough nature to verify notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Boyle[edit]

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

Non-notable bio. Full of advertisement and POV. No citation. I can find in google news search either. Mar11 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this person is as significant as the article claims, there would be some sources out there. There aren't. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are awards mentioned on the page - all but one accolade currently unsourced, but that hints to me that if good research is done, that might be verifiable. Sources like this good for that: [2]. Also some other nice coverage online, first a full-length feature in the BBC [3], and some more minor coverage uncovered in a few minutes of google searching: [4], [5], [6], etc. Yvarta (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The few minor awards might just make him notable, but the article has the feel of ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not good enough and it very clear is all about promoting the subject. We require sources to be about the subject - tangential mentions in the context of something else are not useful as notability is not inherited.

BBC This is not a "profile" about Simon Boyle. The article is about Unilever's Innovation Centre and the subject happened to be the one giving the journalist a tour.
bighospitality.co.uk Passing mention about an award of doubtful notability.
Telegraphy restaurant review - A passing mention. In any case, restaurant reviews are not useful.
Bigissue.com Passing mention in the context of a charity and the article seems to have been sourced to a press release by the charity itself
Timeout.com blog Sorry, but this is a blog and not useful for notability.
Guardian blog Similar to above. Although Guardian is a reliable source, the blogs are not so much secondary coverage as opinion of the posters. This post seems to be sourced to primary sources.

Overall, I guess this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. I see Boyle as notable for two main accomplishments: the People's Choice Award and being on the editorial board of a notable magazine. Icebob99 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 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. Article and its sources fail to establish real-world notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are those[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it's not a WP:NEOLOGISM but a meme and has surprising coverage (Washington Post, Time, etc). Article is terribly written but it seems to have the coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the sparse coverage qualifies for GNG; the idea smacks of RECENTISM. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend that anyone who supports keeping this article clean up the citations. Currently most of the citations aren't associated with any particular fact or sentence in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not a major meme, but certainly seems to have some substantive references discussing it, in mainstream media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill Internet meme. WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 13:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to make WP:N, and isn't a neologism. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUSTAINED. The article topic has been covered by enough reliable sources for a long enough period of time to be considered notable. Deletion by WP:NEOLOGISM only applies to "neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources." [7] [8] [9] Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, and per WP:RECENTISM. It may have WP:RS, but that just makes it a well-sourced neoligism. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 23 December 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 Gentoo Linux. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funtoo Linux[edit]

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

Article lacks any third-party reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Aoidh (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or maybe merge to Gentoo Linux. I'm actually a little surprised that there's so little coverage of it in reliable sources. I haven't edited Linux-related articles in a while now, so maybe I'm a bit out of practice in finding sources, but the best I could find were trivial mentions like Introducing Linux Distros (published by Apress). If someone else can find better sources, go ahead and ping me. But unless that happens, I think the best course of action is to redirect to Gentoo. We could probably find a bit of sourced commentary somewhere to briefly explain the drama. If not, well, it's already mentioned in Gentoo Linux#Popularity as a spinoff. So, it won't be a completely unexpected redirect that will confuse readers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, deletion would bring no benefits for readers looking for the topic. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a terrible idea from a technical standpoint. If you redirect Funtoo to Gentoo you will effectively delete a lot of information that an average user needs: Funtoo has a different homepage^[1], GitHub page^[2], IRC channel^[3], forums^[4], subreddit^[5], and the Funtoo Compute Initiative^[6] that Gentoo lacks. While Funtoo might lack verifiable third-party sources, the main authority on the technical points is the distribution itself: Both Sabayon and Gentoo heavily rely on their own websites to provide that kind of information. And this is the main sticking point: Gentoo is not an authority on what constitutes Funtoo. Funtoo supports a different set of platforms^[7] than Gentoo^[8], and a different set of kernels^[9] compared to Gentoo^[10].Funtoo does not support systemd^[11]. Redirecting to Gentoo will add the weight of authority onto Gentoo: If you plan to redirect to Gentoo, where do you plan to add all the information Funtoo is an authority on?
From an editorial standpoint, managing such an arrangement is a lot more complicated. While Gentoo is Unix-like, Funtoo is Linux only: there's no FreeBSD kernel included with Funtoo, and there is no guide on how to create a FreeBSD environment on Funtoo, in contrast to Gentoo^[12]. All the issues that need to be resolved to make such an arrangement work are not worth the time and effort. And what happens when Funtoo and Gentoo start to differ even more? We will be forced to unmerge the articles again. Redirecting Funtoo to Gentoo will only create more confusion on what is different between the two.
I am willing to fix the article to the best of my abilities. The article needs almost a complete rewrite, and it lacks a lot of information about Funtoo. I am going to start working on it now, and I encourage reviews of any of the proposed changes, and I will share my reasoning on the talk page for the changes.
Bias warning: I currently use Funtoo Linux, but I am not a fanboy of any distribution. I use a variety of distributions in server and desktop environments. I have a vested interest in having accurate and reliable information on the strong and weak points of every distribution, rather than making any distribution look good.

References

^ Funtoo Homepage http://www.funtoo.org/Welcome

^ GitHub page https://github.com/funtoo

^ Freenode IRC channel https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=funtoo

^ Funtoo Forums http://forums.funtoo.org/

^ Funtoo subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/funtoo/

^ Funtoo Compute Initiative http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Compute_Initiative

^ Funtoo platforms http://www.funtoo.org/Subarches

^ Gentoo platforms https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Prefix#Platform_matrix

^ Funtoo kernels http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_Kernels

^ Gentoo kernels https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel

^ Funtoo does not support systemd http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_FAQ

^ Gentoo FreeBSD https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

Brhenc (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references are reliable sources, none of them push the article towards meeting WP:GNG in any way. The issue isn't how the article is written, it's that the subject of the article itself is not notable. That's not something even rewriting from scratch would solve. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed. I'd do it myself, but wanted there to be a response to the text above. In the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) related to the subject, there is no basis for us to write a detailed article on the subject without delving into primary source original research. If there is something sourced to say about Funtoo, say it in its parent article and split it out summary style only when the sources warrant it. czar 05:19, 19 December 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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Chinese Economics[edit]

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

Article created by COI editor. PRODded with reason "Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator without reason stated. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete if randykitty says is not a not notable journal, it is not notable. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable journal. -- Dane ^talk 01:20, 14 December 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 Skylight Group. czar 05:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Blumin[edit]

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

BLP article fails WP:GNG. Reads like an advert for an entrepreneur, uses bare URL's to link to trade mags and blogs, after 2 years of editing, no quality non trade references. Tenuous notability. Completely fails WP:BIO. Well written advertising article. Of the five references, two don't work, one is a blog, showing no clear ownership. Primary context is her and the Skylight Group, so no standalone existence outside of it. Previous Afd voted no consensus via two SPA accounts that came in, and have not edited since. scope_creep (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising with WP:NOT policy applying by that alone, and thus nothing to suggest tolerating it when it's such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 11 December 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. Article completely fails to establish any notability, and no significant, independent coverage is evident in the sources. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Doumit[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the actress fails GNG, but I'm not sure she fails NACTOR. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the guidelines for actors, there are too few roles and not enough are significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a cast member on a current NBC television series, Timeless. See [10] and [11] for recent interviews with her. Her current IMDb StarMeter ranking is within the top 5,000 of all of the 7 million+ people listed in the database. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as an acceptable compromise considering her career is not yet substantiated, only having the 1 major work, so this will suffice, considering IMDb is enough to gauge her works, but there's currently nothing for actual substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90, or at least redirect to Timeless (TV series) to keep a link. SST flyer 14:47, 19 December 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiplatform video games not available on PC[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Not a notable grouping that is discussed by reliable sources. Futhermore, the criteria for inclusion on this list is just plain stupid. I don't see a logical reason to create a list of games that do not release on a particular platform. The1337gamer (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is actually a list of multiplatform console games that were not released on Windows PCs. When you consider how absurdly specific it is, it seems kind of pointless. I suppose it could be broadened to include Amiga and Atari games, but it'd still struggle to satisfy WP:LISTN. I imagine "list of multiplatform video games" has potential, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There has been list of games exclusive for generations, PlayStation only, Xbox only lists. Why can't this one exist as well? Your reason wanting to delete is null and void, because according to it, these pages are nominated for deletion as well.

Tuanpingas (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC+7)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep So the topic is "multiplat games not available on PC". WP:LISTN says that topic must be talked about by sources for it to be considered notable enough for a list. So, do people talk about, as a group, "multiplat games not available on PC"? The answer is yes. It is widely discussed when comparing PC gaming to console gaming. Nearly every article on the subject will discuss "multiplat games not available on PC" when comparing the two, and as you can imagine there are probably thousands of articles out there comparing PC and console gaming. It is in fact one of the primary points of discussion when comparing PC and console gaming. Here are a few, and I would gladly search for more if you need it: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. While searching, I thought it interesting, funny, and sad that this CNET article references Wikipedia's great List of video game exclusives (eighth generation), a list so well liked by the world they even included it in reliable sources. At least that was until we deleted it last month leaving not so much as a redirect. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do agree this is listcruft. There are console exclusives, there are PC exclusives, there are XBox-"dis"clusives (like NMS), there are PS4-"dis"clusives (Gears of War). The potential combination is incredibly large. Also, there's the dubious nature of some of the earlier games on this list. Today, with Unity and other cross-plat engines, the lack of a PC version may be odd, but in the 6th and early 7th gen, such cross-plat engines were not common and so the lack of a PC version is not surprising. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fine, if you all really want to get rid of that page, do as you please... tuanpingas (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC+7)
Delete - This is fancruft/"console war" type stuff. It doesn't make sense to make lists based off of things that that the subjects aren't. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be moved to List of multiplatform video games only available on consoles, or List of multiplatform video games exclusive to consoles, or List of console exclusive multiplatform video games, though the latter is confusing because the term "console exclusive" has two meanings. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:LISTCRUFT pure trivia, not useful, the criterion is that they are not specific to a certain platform, could actually make it harder for the reader to find what they are actually looking for. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary, and reverse logic to have a list about where something isn't available. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. -- Dane ^talk 01:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most definitely Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. This article is unnecessary, redundant and pathetic. It is blatantly obvious console fanboy trash, meant to undermine, unnerve and provoke PC Gamers and PC Gaming as a whole. Most of the games on this list are useless console shovelware and games such as "Call of Duty 3", "Ghost Recon 2" or "Battlefield: Bad Company 1", "The Darkness 1", "Condemned 2: Bloodshot" and "Battlefield 1943" are inferior and irrelevant since there are far superior PC sequels available. Furthermore it's only a matter of time before games like "Red Dead Redemption" and "The Destiny" are released on PC. I recommend this page to be deleted ASAP. - Marston88 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ViralGains[edit]

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

Advertising software company advertising on WP. Asserts WP:PROMOTION. No encyclopedic knowledge only product and finance. scope_creep (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional content that belongs on the company web site. Nothing stands out about this minor tech startup. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising with WP:NOT applying alone. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 14 December 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 12:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Mapagu[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There is slightly more for his main game, Flippy Bottle Extreme, but even that would be unreliably sourced. czar 16:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sources are creditable (READ THEM) the only fact here is that the Video Game Source list is poorly unreliable as a source to dictate everything from. Kotaku and other places do not waste their time on smaller topics, especially coming from unknown parts of Asia. Move on dude... Xelzeta (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I remember looking at this article when it had just been created and thinking that it did not look like a notable subject, but thought I'd give it a couple of days to improve. Since it hasn't, and I can find no sources that show notability for the person, it might just be too soon for an article. If the game he created is notable - which is slightly more likely but still not quite shown - that would not automatically make the person notable because notability is not inherited. In other words, there must be multiple reliable independent sources about the person and not the game. --bonadea contributions talk 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources mostly discuss the game and quote this person in the context of the game's success. Significant coverage of Mapagu as a discrete biographical topic is lacking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - You People are NOT Updating the Video Game Sources properly: Website - http://insidegamesasia.biz/ is one of the few creditable sources for Asia-English industry related topics. Stop using it as an EXCUSE - I even CHECKED there is a search that pops up related to them, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE UPDATED WITH MORE SOURCES, STOP BEING CLOSE MINDED - https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq&q=%22insidegamesasia.biz%22 - In relations Derrick Mapagu, there is an article written for him: http://insidegamesasia.biz/game-developer-from-philippines-made-a-big-global-hit-top-1-in-usa-uk-and-16-other-countries/ Xelzeta (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate bolded opinion struck out - each participant should only give one "keep" or "delete" opinion (note that it's usually "keep" and not "oppose", though it is clear what you mean.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the actual content and not on contributors. I understand that you personally feel strongly about this article but please keep your cool in the discussion. If you have other sources that are about the person rather than just the game, and which meet Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources, please add them to the article - the insidegamesasia.biz article is about the game with only a cursory mention of the creator, though. --bonadea contributions talk 09:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability and there certainly aren't enough (or any) independent sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly updated his article and added another source, this one says more about Derrick explaining some of his story like he was active member of the La Salle Computer Society, how long it takes him to make some games, etc etc. You people can review it, I do feel strongly about this since the sources prove this guy exist, what he has done, his games are doing well. Why is this a crime for a wiki-article to acknowledge. This should be here, so whatever else he creates in the future it'll be easier to update as he goes.Xelzeta (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of bashing this topic - and making false claims that there isn't ENOUGH sources, why don't you do your research. Anytime I type his name, I can find another article, your just not looking hard enough to care enough to contribute. Bunch of hypocrites who just want to score points in this ranking system...Xelzeta (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Xelzeta: please stop attacking others for sharing their opinion and please also see: WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS. Just because someone wrote or spoke about a subject does not inherently make it a reliable source. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity, WP distinguishes between "sources" and "reliable sources". Reliable sources have a reputation for editorial credibility, and don't include upstart blogs such as insidegamesasia.biz, which has a broken link for its "about" page. czar 05:39, 13 December 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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ruiz[edit]

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

Promotional article, possible conflict of interest (individual is CEO of "Xelzeta", creating user is "Xelzeta", also created an article on "Xelzeta"—at AfD). Dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) All of its sourcing is unreliable or primary. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - #1 - I Removed the CEO part, there is no more "Promoting". Just because I used the username Xelzeta here doesn't mean it is promoting, I IDOLIZE THEM~! I could say you are promoting or trying to act like Czar the Great with your attitude, but I am not. I wanted the name 1st, Look at my history I created other pages not related to Xelzeta. I Idolize the local developers & actors in the Philippines for trying. They maybe little to be known in the industry but they exist and are making a difference to people out here. Change is GOOD, learn to give people a chance here. #2. sources are creditable the only fact here is that the Video Game Source list is poorly unreliable as a source to dictate everything from. Kotaku and other places do not waste their time on smaller topics, especially coming from unknown parts of Asia. Move on dude... Xelzeta (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable video game developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear business listing whether intended or not because that's what everything here shows, and none of it is acceptable especially when WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 16:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it fails WP:GNG, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:05, 18 December 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. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpens[edit]

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

I believe this fails WP:ORG. It was previously removed per CSD WP:A7 and recreated post deletion. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:23, 18 December 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. czar 05:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Express (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability, just to timetables/results of fights. Detailed text is unsupported by citations. Nothing notable - purely a promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts and has created numerous similar articles. Parkywiki (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Dane ^talk 01:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 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 Blood Duster. General consensus to merge, including approval from the original nominator. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fisting the Dead[edit]

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

non-notable album, no references supplied since requested in August 2016 XyzSpaniel Talk Page 15:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge, notability not established, merge into band article Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC) rev 15:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Blood Duster. There are a few sources around, but not enough to justify a separate article, e.g. [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. If some reviews or substantial coverage could be found then potentially we would have enough for a keep, but I don't see it right now. --Michig (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as proposer I would accept the merge as suitable here XyzSpaniel Talk Page 23:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The few sources above and additional ones now in the article show that the subject is notable. The release is a contender for the first grindcore album by any Australian artist.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:51, 14 December 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. czar 05:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Faridi[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. Promotional article about a non-notable sportsman, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 11 December 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) 21:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMO with multiple WP:EL. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully pro league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is WP:PROMO for sure. -- Dane ^talk 01:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keepif research is done i think its more verifiable, he is a notable person in his country and proper sources are introduced by the editor- this is not WP:PROMO for sure. --User:khabargozari mehr —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. He is a notable football player in his country, and i searched the press published about him and the pictures and articles related to. i think biography of athletes especially in football category must not be removed. user: shamspasargad 2000 18 December 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shams pasargad 2000 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 December 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 that this coin does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Division We're Back challenge coin[edit]

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Only reference is the website of the coin's designer. Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Such a thing can almost never be independently notable. Anmccaff (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coin's designer seems to have a prod tag on it at the moment, both seem to be advertisements and not notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Promo for coin designer. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not seem to meet the notability requirements. I'd note that such coins are relatively common within the military: I have several from each of the battalions or regiments I've served in. While they are often given out as a thank you for distinguished service of a minor kind, they are also often purchased by members through regimental trust funds and the like, so each one is relatively common. That said, there will be some very rare ones, which might be notable, but it would need strong sourcing to demonstrate the need for a stand alone article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 16 December 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristin E. Kearns[edit]

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

Article about a postdoctoral fellow. I don't think she notability quite yet. Single mention in the New York Times. Fails to assert notability as per WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON for WP:PROF. The brief mention in the NYT article is also not enough for WP:GNG, because it's not in-depth enough and is only one source and one event. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 6 published works is way to few in this field to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pass of WP:Prof not to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PROF. -- Dane ^talk 01:42, 14 December 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) 08:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep duhan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: The actor has played supporting role in an Indian television show and I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 11:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 16 December 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 01:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Tafreshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No reliable sources found via Google search that demonstrate he is at the top of his field or well known for his publications. APK whisper in my ear 09:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 09:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 09:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer and software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing and what emphasizes it is the fact only his own websites are listed hence WP:NOT applies since it's clear advertising. SwisterTwister talk 16:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding sources to meet general notability guidelines.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 14 December 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 non notable. Should have been deleted CSD-A7 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Allen[edit]

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

My prod was contested by an IP with the explanation "Fixed error that could have led to this informative page being deleted". The current article has no RS and fails GNG/BIO/SNG. I've searched for sources. Haven't been able to find any to support notability. I suggest a deletion (speedy if possible). Looking forward to comments from my fellow editors. Thanks. Lourdes 06:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG - No indication why the person should be notable. Writing books does not make him notable. Could be a joke article, highly promotional. -- Taketa (talk) 07:56, 11 December 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 13:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hughes (attorney)[edit]

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

Fails our notability guideline for politicians; did not hold office or even make it through the primary; coverage seems to be rudimentary for candidates. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, have to say I agree with NatGertler here, no other noteworthy positions of note prior to campaign. Sagecandor (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG due to the notable and historic nature of campaign - first time in 30 years the incumbent (a very senior and notable U.S. congressman) had faced a serious contender as local media noted he had never before even run a TV ad; challenger was noted in RS as spending six-times more per vote than incumbent. GF notifying other recent editors on the article including User:LindsayH, User:DocumentError, User:7&6=thirteen BlueSalix (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first person in any length of time to challenge an incumbent in a primary, but not win the primary, is neither encyclopedic nor noteworthy in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful Congressional primary candidate who received only 6% of the vote. In addition, the article in its current form pushes a negative POV about this person and is pretty much a hit piece. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely fails POLITICIAN, however, it passes on the basis of WP:BASIC. The nature of the campaign makes it historic. BlueSalix (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you claiming as in-depth coverage? Of the live links on the page, only this West Seattle Herald piece seems to have length on him, and that's largely quotes pulled from a press release, making it churnalism in a local weekly. The other pieces seem to max at five short paragraphs related to him. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These -

"Andrew Hughes Stunt Sinks to a Whole New Level" The Stranger [28]
"Whippersnapper [Hughes] Accuses Jim McDermott of Telling Lies About Him" The Stranger [29]
"Hughes Spends Over 6 Times More Per Vote Than McDermott" The Stranger [30]
"Andrew Hughes Can Bicycle and Kayak. But, Can He Beat Jim McDermott?" The Stranger [31]
"The New Kid: Andrew Hughes for the 7th Congressional District" Capitol Hill Times [32]
"Andrew Hughes Bid to Unseat Jim McDermott Fizzles Fast" Seattle Times [33]
"Andrew Hughes challenges Congressman Jim McDermott; "Put your assets into blind trust"" West Seattle Herald [34]
"Hughes expects to be McDermott’s November opponent" Everett Herald [35]

- and the rest I'm too lazy to copy/paste into the AfD. (Note that not all of these still appear in the article as a lot of content was culled within the last couple hours, apparently, in preparation for the AfD.) BlueSalix (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, zero sources were culled in preparation for the AFD. You can check my edits.

None of the Stranger/Slog pieces look in-depth, they're all too brief. The Seattle Times piece has just two sentences on Hughes. The Herald piece, as I noted above, is largely made up of press-release quotes, and is thus churnalism in a very local source. The Capitol Hill Times piece has some good length, but is a neighborhood weekly (that's Capitol Hill (Seattle), not a DC politics paper), so that doesn't say much about general notability. The Everett Herald piece is just ten sentences, and again a local outlet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious we disagree about the minimum word count a source needs to hit for a BLP. I don't think any of these are "brief." They provide substantive (i.e. not passing mention) coverage, are RS, and contextualize the event for what it is - an historic election campaign. BlueSalix (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on an election campaign. There might be an argument for there being an article on the election campaign... but if "incumbent who is not used to having a challenger has an inexperienced challenger who doesn't do very well" is to be historic, I'd expect to see sources discussing it well after the case. That the sources peter out before the general election suggest a lack of historicity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) amended Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Merge/Redirect - Candidate ran in an election, lost, and hasn't done anything of note since. I don't see that there's a biography here. It would seem that this is a great candidate for a merge/redirect - anything about the election could be merged into the appropriate Congressional district election article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-winning candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate; if you cannot show and credibly source that he was already eligible for an article for some reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to claim notability because election. But there's no strong claim of notability here for anything besides the campaign itself. And since he didn't even make it onto the general election ballot, but merely ran and lost in a primary, there's not much substantive need to maintain a redirect here either. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. His coverage is essentially limited to failed campaigns. I don't see him passing GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes even close to making him notable. People who loose primary elections are never notable for that fact, and he has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he came third place in an election, we don't have an article for the person who came SECOND in the election, no other notability established. Shritwod (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as the creator of this article I genuinely believe the subject passes BLP, however, I also see the validity of the "delete" arguments advanced. DocumentError (talk) 05:18, 13 December 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 Autobots. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blades (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor element from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If notability cannot be establish, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Protectobots. BOZ (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots - character belongs to too many subgroups to redirect to Protectobots. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots, per Argento Surfer. Like they said, as the character has appeared in multiple incarnations, that list would be a more appropriate place to redirect to. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 11 December 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. No consensus for deletion has been formed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burke (economist)[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:BASIC nor WP:ANYBIO. This person is not notable and information on search engines is not readily available. The information presented in the biography does not show how this person is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Nominated due to removal of PROD. st170e^talk 13:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How isn't it readily available? Yes it does, he's a prominent Irish economist. Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant mention on Google is that he writes a blog for The Guardian sometimes, something that isn't notable in itself. You need to look at and understand Wikipedia's policy on notability, where it must be proven with significant, reliable, independent sources for future articles. st170e^talk 14:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of articles that's he's mentioned in and as mentioned in the article he was a senior international economist for Citibank Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that we have to include all senior economists from Citibank on Wikipedia? What exactly has he done that's so notable? These are questions that you need to keep in mind when deciding on an article to write. st170e^talk 14:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument for his inclusion. A senior economist from Citibank isn't notable, it's just a title and notability is not inherited nor inherent. There are plenty in the world with this title but they aren't on Wikipedia. If he won an Olympic medal, sure, include him. If he won the Nobel Peace Prize or worked as a finance minister who published award winning-books, sure, that's notable. Your argument is that he's a senior economist and writes a blog for the Guardian. That's hardly notable in my eyes. The burden of proof to show notability lies with the author. st170e^talk 15:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except I never made that argument. I never said he was a senior international economist for Citibank therefore he is notable. That was just one of the many factors. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for other contributors to this debate. st170e^talk 15:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting (fault with Twinkle upon original creation of AfD) st170e^talk 15:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is the deletion rationale is patently incorrect: "information on search engines is not readily available" is not an accurate statement. I certainly had no trouble finding it, within minutes. This Ulster Herald article about him is a good one, stating: "Speaking to the Ulster Herald this week, Mr Burke has become one of the leading proponents of the counter-argument that a united Ireland would collapse under the burden of the ‘subvention’ the North receives from the British Treasury." And it goes on from there to cite him in some detail. The article ref for IrishCentral, "Expert says United Ireland would see economic boom," is a reliable source. And a Gnews search reveals enough prominent mentions, especially in (god help us) RT, that I think he just gets by my own rule-of-thumb that "multiple" sources means three or thereabouts. And course until 2014 his work appeared regularly on the Guardian website. ~~Last but not least, being invited by the European Parliament to speak and present his case for an Irish Union would seem to me to meet criterion 1 of WP:ECONOMIST~~. I think it is clear that he is a prominent enough Irish economist for our purposes. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UlsterHerald is a local newspaper and I don't think it adds much credence to the significant sources requirement. He wasn't actually invited by the European Parliament, he was invited to a seminar by an MEP and his presentation was in that seminar. Whilst being invited by the European Parliament would definitely show notability, I don't see how this is particularly notable. Blogging with the Guardian isn't notable on its own, although it is something. With all of this, I don't think he meets the requirements set out at WP:GNG for significant coverage. A few passing mentions in some articles are trivial, although I do want to clarify that by readily available, I meant that you need to dig a lot deeper to find information about him to use. With regards to WP:ECONOMIST, 'widely cited' I don't think he meets. Sure, in the future he could very well meet that, but I don't think the time is just right for this article. st170e^talk 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-written multiple articles for guardian

-former senior international economist at Citibank

-mentioned in numerous articles by numerous media outlets

-notable enough that an MEP invited him to a seminar in the European Parliament.

Seems pretty notable to me.

Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ulster Herald, Guardian, and Irish Central are all WP:RS and have significant coverage. Calling the Ulster Herald piece local coverage is a bit like calling a Washington Post interview with Janet Yellen local coverage. Just because the outlet is located in the same place that the article subject frequents does not automatically make it local coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Ulster Herald being a local newspaper which doesn't have much weight when deciding reliable sources. Its readership is mainly local. This isn't significant coverage. st170e^talk 00:53, 23 December 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. Even considering the relative weakness of the two "oppose" opinions (which is another way to say "keep"), both Mable and Czar don't make any argument for deletion, and even the nomination isn't really presenting a strong policy-backed reason to delete. It's clear that this "keep" closure does not constitute endorsement of the entire article "as is" and heavy work will be necessary to improve the neutrality and accuracy (w/r/t sources) of the article. Czar's proposal to summarize it in the Glossary and redirect there might also merit further discussion on the talk page if work on the article itself doesn't look like it's gonna take place. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serious game[edit]

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

This appears on the face of it to be an attempt to promote a neologism. The article has been subject to spam editing for a long time, and most of the sources require WP:SYN to arrive at this title. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 08:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really surprised this has had no participation so far. My impression is the same, that this is a forced neologism, and that some developers use it to distinguish their work from "regular" and "casual" games. Now, there are sources that use the term, so I doubt outright deletion is even under consideration, but if there is no in-depth, secondary source discussion of the concepts behind serious games, then the term might as well be succinctly summarized in the Glossary of video game terms and redirected there. czar 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if there's a problem with the naming the page should be moved and not deleted. However from what I can see there are enough sources that warrant the page's title (as well as its existence in terms of notability). --Fixuture (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We counted the sources—we're asking what's substantial within them... czar 23:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Anything CZAR keeps requesting to be deleted proves he knows NOTHING about the game industry, it's a growing industry, and it's impossible to site all the sources. Serious Games is a coined term used globally & it's has Organizations built around it for Education, etc. For crying out loud CZAR can u back off the Game Dev topics. Using the Video Game Source list isn't reliable either...Kotaku doesn't doesn't feed the world on every little detail or has the time to report everything out there. Shhhesssh~! Can WE VOTE TO HAVE CZAR BLOCKED FROM TOUCHING GAME DEV CONTENT HERE!Xelzeta (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion. You're meant to provide your view and a rationale for why the article should be kept or deleted based on its topic. You are not meant to attack other editors for nominating an article for deletion. Insulting another editor is also not seen as a credible argument for keeping an article. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning to a "keep". The term "serious game" gets a lot of coverage and is the subject of a lot of study. Looking at the 'further reading' section of this article, I personally think there is plenty of literature on this concept. I personally hate the term, but its notability feels hard to dismiss. That being said: because the majority of the sources in this article are papers, I have very little knowledge of how reliable they are. I personally feel unqualified for giving a judgement. An article like this does make me lean to "keep". ~Mable (chat) 18:29, 11 December 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Flynn[edit]

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

I very much wanted to create this article myself but decided against it because there wasn't enough there. This article fails GNG and WP:ONEEVENT. Flynn Jr. is primarily known for a weird conspiracy theory he tweeted about in December 2016 which some media commented on due to the fact his dad was a U.S. cabinet nominee (in fact 88% of the sources are from his month, and the three sources that aren't only include one-sentence mentions of the fact he exists - no further details given - within articles about his dad).
Though the article is long and exhaustively sourced, a close examination of the sources reveals they're all about Flynn's better known dad and essentially mention Flynn Jr. in passing. This is why the article, despite being voluminous, has so little actual info about him (no DOB other than an estimate, no information on education, no information on personal life, no information on prior work other than one business trip he took for his job, etc.) From reading this one would guess Flynn sat at home for the first 30 years of his life staring at the wall until his dad hired him to work for his 2-man "intel firm" in 2015. (Maybe he did. If that's the case, though, he definitely doesn't merit a BLP.)
BlueSalix (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and BLP BobLaRouche (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article details: Early life and family, Flynn Intel Group (where he is Chief of staff), campaigning in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and work for Presidential transition of Donald Trump where he was officially requested to get U.S. security clearance. Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Flynn Intel Group" has two employees. The fact he was Chief of Staff of a two-man company doesn't make him notable. The fact he was asked to get a security clearance doesn't make him notable or we would have tens of thousands of USG employees with bios. His dad doesn't make him notable because WP:NOTINHERITED. He's notable for a bizarre tweet he sent out that prompted three days of media coverage, which means he fails WP:ONEEVENT. Where did he go to school? Where was be born? What jobs did he have before working for his dad two years ago? Is he married? This bio of a 33 year old begins when he was age 1 and then skips to when he was age 31. This isn't a bio, it's a documentation of Flynn's weird tweet puffed-up into a Wikipedia article so that it appears under a Google search for "Michael Flynn." BlueSalix (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Sagecandor (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I let admin Ian.thomson know I had created the page when I first made it. He said: "good work" and "the content that's there as of this posting seems to be just fine." Sagecandor (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are far more subtle ways to canvass. BlueSalix (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were already aware and had already watchlisted the article page. Just noting their comments here about quality of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about we all note our own comments? That's typically how AfDs work. BlueSalix (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[36] and [37]. Therefore the only two people I notified were those who had already watchlisted the article. No more, no less. Sagecandor (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also AgnosticPreachersKid said: "Looks good and it's well sourced.". Sagecandor (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

See above. BlueSalix (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above. [38]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Going through my edit history of articles to slap retaliatory AfDs like you're doing here and elsewhere is really not a bright idea, bucko.~~ BlueSalix (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaken. That was put up for WP:PROD by NatGertler at [39]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. BlueSalix (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A minor personage, yes, but I think this gets over the hurdle on account of the significant coverage in the reliable sources, cited in article. Neutrality^talk 17:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E, because there is no way under the sun that we would have a biography of him if it wasn't for the 72 hour spurt of media attention about his conspiracy theory tweeting. The matter can be covered in his father's biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons Neutrality has given. HelgaStick (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deletion seems to be in order; merge with pizzagate or article for his father cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328, and upon a closer reading, which reveals nothing notable outside of Pizzagate. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E DocumentError (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this BLP1E policy has a controversial history from what I find in back discussions and is not universally accepted, but this looks like a biography where it would be best applied. It would be an incredulous stretch to say that the bad tweets were event One and his firing was event Two, I find both of those wrapped around the "event" of Pizzagate, so redirect this to that. However, the next incident or pretty much anything he does that receives coverage in the news, that will qualify this person for a article. ValarianB (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) - notable for losing job over a stupid tweet? BLP1E is the approach to take. The content is poor (what you'd expect from a google trawl of an otherwise unknown person). This is not encyclopaedic content for a stand alone article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per BLP and WP:NOTNEWS, I can't (and don't want to) imagine a circumstance where someone is notable for a tweet.LM2000 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge his bio and controversy information onto his father's page, because that page as of now lacks all information regarding the conspiracy tweeting in which they both participated. Admin: Absolutely do not delete unless that information from this article gets migrated first. Weak Keep otherwise. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More or less per Cullen328. GNG requires significance over a period of time, BLP1E discourages bios of people based on one event (and additional caution is required when a bio is based largely on something negative). I would say redirect to the pizzagate article, but I think that's also a BLP concern, so delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I was looking for disambiguation of the two Michael Flynns just now, I found it. To merge the two articles, and remove the disambiguation, would make Wikipedia less useful to the users. Lt. General Michael Thomas Flynn and Michael G. Flynn (AKA Michael Flynn, Jr.) should both be listed, so the connection, and the distinction, can both be made clear. 98.14.15.215 (talk) 10:57, 19 December 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 13:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Beurle[edit]

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

Article existing again now that the PROD was contested with the basis of improvements but this itself is not improvable because it's a blatant advertisement and it therefore violates policy WP:NOT, and there's absolutely nothing here to suggest it's anything else but a PR business listing, also itself violating WP:NOT. The history itself shows this had never actually changed so it's not surprising someone contests it only after it's finally been deleted (also note how there's clear persistent advertising in the history). SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the initial nominator. My rationale for the PROD was "Fails the WP:GNG. None of the third-party sources listed actually cover Beurle, he is only mentioned tangentially. Article is largely promotional and its creator quite has a quite obvious conflict of interest." IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete it looks blatantly self promotional. Being a CEO of a non notable company is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Send to draft Yes the article reeks of promotion, and the list of external links is a bit of give away and one of the references being a resume. And the article is almost entirely generated by a SPA. And if this was about the person rather than promoting the person, then it would also mention their partner Celine? However, a few quick searches shows the person is at least mentioned multiple times internationally, and they do seem to have sufficient secondary references if you go looking to possibly support notability, so I suggest the the article be moved over to draft, where the SPA can be mentored into generating a more balanced and less promotional article. (They have put a bit of work into it.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns about that is the sheer blatancy of misusing and misunderstanding us as a PR webhost, I'm not confident someone can make a Draft with such a mindset and then not advertise (worse if it's paid advertising). SwisterTwister talk 16:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all suggestions on how to edit / improve the article to be within acceptable policies would be much appreciated. User:mrassel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article with no clear signs of true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 12 December 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Bomb (Lynsey de Paul album)[edit]

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

I don't know much about music, but I don't see that the sources make any of the claims required per WP:NALBUM to establish the notability of an album. KSFT ^C 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: in hopes of generating more (any?) discussion. Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a couple of (partially-visible) reviews on GBooks (Stereo Review and High Fidelity). Given how big de Paul was in the 70s and the fact that this album spawned a top 10 single, it seems almost certain that enough coverage exists from the time of its release. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 11 December 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Sleeper[edit]

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

In a rare instance of bringing an article here instead of first going through PROD or CSD-G11 etc., I am concerned that this article, posted in only 3 edits, has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. It's quite obviously (to me at least) artspam - advertorial for a fashion firm masquerading as a Wikipedia BLP. All the sources appear to be about her company and her products. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced by tabloid newspapers, specialized fashion magazines/websites, and by "general" sources such as CNN. To me, they seem to be independent and quite substantial. Yes, they are about "her company and her products", maybe that's because Samantha Sleeper creates interesting and noteworthy products, is that possible? In my opinion, we shouldn't discuss motives of the creator, the way an article was created or habits of the nominator, but instead of it we should discuss real notability of the subject and the sources available. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit This entire article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view; there needs to be some editing done on this article to ensure it reads without any promotional slant. This should've been corrected before the article was put to AfD, however. The subject passes notability easily with WP:GNG so I don't see this as a contender for deletion. st170e^talk 00:27, 19 December 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. Almost all of the provided sources contain very superficial and incidental coverage of the subject, not enough to establish notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Jones[edit]

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

The reliable sources - New York Times - which appears to partially covering the subject. News search and book search doesn't have proper mention of the surgeon. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any significant coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some sources about him in notable news. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] - Mar11 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a quick check finds a couple sources BobLaRouche (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete who ever wrote this said that Jones "pioneered "ethnic rhinoplasty". I searched pubmed:

PMID 26616712 (a 2016 review called "Rhinoplasty in the African American Patient: Anatomic Considerations and Technical Pearls" gives him no such credit.

PMID 26616700 (a 2016 review called "Reshaping of the Broad and Bulbous Nasal Tip") gives him no such credit.

PMID 25049123 (a 2014 review called "African American rhinoplasty.") gives him no such credit.

seems this article is here for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Variation 25.2 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided by Mar11 are notable. A quick search finds a couple of sources on google. Variation 25.2 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep he is a celebrity doctor and there are some hyping refs but that doesn't necessarily lead to N. Jones is marginally notable at best and with the promotional pressure of celebrity-doctornhood this will be a drain on community resources to keep neutral. Not Notable enough to be given those resources. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 12 December 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bomsori Kim[edit]

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

Violinist, but I have doubts he meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:NMUSIC. The only thing he has going for him is winning one competition, China International Violin Competition in Qingdao. He is also a "laureate" (but I don't think it means winner) of Finnish International Jean Sibelius Violin Competition (which has an unreferenced claim that "is considered[by whom?] to be one of the most prestigious violin competitions in the world", but I don't see much coverage of it, and none of the artist in question). He also has several 2nd and lower prizes. Comments appreciated on whether winning one - I think, minor - competition - coupled with some lower prizes, suffices to make one notable? I think it is not enough, but... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and BLP BobLaRouche (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notabilty guidelines for a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply participation in some music events, but everything else also shows it's only trivial and unconvincing; none of this amounts to genuine substance hence delete.SwisterTwister talk 16:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 16 December 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Simmons (art historian)[edit]

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

Non notable Ph.D. candidate Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. No indication of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another case of WP:TOOSOON. Joe Roe (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. He's still working on his PhD and has written some articles plus one book. In other words, an academic. His only real claim to notability is a so-called "landmark" exhibition that he curated. However, there are no references to back up that claim and as the exhibition was in 2015 it is likely too soon to judge it as a landmark. freshacconci talk to me 18:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no indication of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional dreck. The subject fails NARTIST, PROF, and GNG. This article should be written 30 years hence at the end of his career, not at the beginning. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator of past SIGCOV, not a leading indicator of "aspiring personalities." Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sounds like a personal ideological agenda quite separate from this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artnerd238 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC) — Artnerd238 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete Notable interviewer and curator. No indication of self-promotion. Please remove tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erw778 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC) — Erw778 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Whatever the merits of his accomplishments so far, independent, reliable sources exist. I have added a few. Mduvekot (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You added links to things he has written, not things written about him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added lamag, artnews and interviewmagazine Not one of those was written by Simmons.Mduvekot (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are articles about an exhibition he was involved in that only contain trivial mentions of Simmons himself, the third is an interview which are primary sources and not usually counted towards notability. I'm still not seeing any evidence of see WP:SIGCOV. Joe Roe (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mduvekot added an interview with Interview Magazine that is about his work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erw778 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interview with him about his work. Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a PhD candidate, way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete After making an effort to locate sources that would support his notability as a writer, curator or art historian, I find that the subject fails WP:GNG and any other subject-specific guideline, such as WP:AUTHOR Mduvekot (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Before I could vote to keep, I would want to see his age. It is known for people to do a PhD at the end of a long and distinguished career. However, he4 appears to have curated one exhibition and written articles for a long list of NN publications, at least I assume they are NN as only one has a WP article. TOOSOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 18 December 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) 08:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel White (Actress)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON: The actor has played supporting role in Bengali film Har Har Byomkesh and Hindi film Ungli. There are only 3 independent sources about the actor in Times of India but all three sources are published by the same author (Ruman Ganguly) which looks like paid publicity. GSS (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TOOSOON, two supporting roles (one with a character that is not even named) fail WP:NACTOR. No objection to userfying, since if she keeps it up she may become notable in few years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just too soon for her! Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 18 December 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 16:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhu Bhutum[edit]

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

This not-yet-released film is not notable that I can find. I see evidence that principle photography has begun per WP:NFF but do not believe it is notable. Please see the dialog on the author's talk page as well as the article talk page. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the third article created by this user for this film. I do not wish to appear as WP:TE so submitted as AfD to get consensus either way. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. So far it just looks like hype and celebrity following. As the guideline says "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guideline." After it comes out if it has popular or criticl acclaim it might achieve notability, but not now. See WP:NOT YET (films). --Bejnar (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added IMDB Page in external sources Starlight 00:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadma (talk • contribs)

Note WP:CITINGIMDB I don't think this has any net effect on the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCrazedBeast (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the beginning of principle photography is a threshold which a film usually has to pass in order to be considered eligible for an article (there are rare films which are so anticipated, that they would pass WP:GNG). But it is just a threshold, as Benjar points out. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 15 December 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 13:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shy Kalra[edit]

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

Article about a fashion choreographer fails WP:ANYBIO. Speedy was declined by user:Simbalillyoreo without giving any reason. I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note — The article creator Oreolillyaga10 is a confirmed sock puppet of Simbalillyoreo (user who declined the speedy). GSS (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Only the first reference (Verve Magazine) is specifically about the subject. All the other references only mention the subject, or the subject gives an opinion about another subject, or are non-neutral. A google search shows only 4 news items, non of which are specifically about the subject. -- Taketa (talk) 09:16, 11 December 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 16:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tozawa-juku[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Detail in text is unsupported by citations. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 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 12:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bitstamp[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. There is no coverage except bitcoin related zines/trade journals, neither of which has even shown beyond doubt (to me at least) that is has editorial control and isn't just republishing press releases. Don't be fooled by Google News top "Forbes" hit - it is from Forbes Sites, de facto a blog without editorial control ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.". I will also point out to a related comment on a related AfD which is quite relevant here. In the end, I think this is just WP:CORPSPAM that does not belong in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; this material belongs on the company web site, not here. A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable tech business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 15 December 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 (G5). Huon (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pos.Hearts[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Detail in text is unsupported by citations. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD — Team61ROLL (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Martimc123 (talk • contribs). GSS (talk) 06:51, 15 December 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 (G5). Huon (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Some don't even mention the topic. Detail in text is unsupported by citations. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 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) 08:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Detail in text is unsupported by citations. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Fred Ottman who wrestled under the name Typhoon.--67.68.160.222 (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typhoon were a prominent group in Dragon Gate but it's always tricky for non-Japanese speakers to find quality sourcing for puroresu-related articles. Without proper referencing, it's difficult to claim there's any information that wouldn't be better kept on the individual articles of Typhoon's members. 88.145.196.147 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out there's no evidence this is a promotional article and the fact its creator was banned is not an automatic reason for deletion. 88.145.196.147 (talk) 22:30, 17 December 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 (G5). Huon (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real Hazard[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Detail in text is unsupported by citations. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been blocked indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I agree completely. scope_creep (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep it should be keeped beacause its a stable who won many championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.236.58.152 (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — 193.236.58.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:09, 15 December 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) 08:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran-gun[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Detail in text is unsupported by citations. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BobLaRouche (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:08, 14 December 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. Obviously Youtube videos as primary sources can't be a basis for keeping an article. We'd need reliable secondary sources. See WP:GNG. Sandstein 16:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Utah (SSBN-745)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG Quote: "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." This is very minor element of a notable film, but not in any way meritorious of a Wikipedia article in its own right. The three references given are all dead links, retrieved 5 years prior to the article being created. Parkywiki (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep: I disagree with your opinion completely. The element in the film aspect is irrelevant. I believe the Utah's role in the film is rather significant, in that particular scene. Their is no limit to articles on the Wikipedia. Additionally, technically their are four links regarding references. The first reference is the important one (youtube.com video of the Utah's role in the film) and validates the almost the entire article. The other three references I can not remove and they came with the template I used, as they do not show up in the edit screen, if someone can delete those particular three internet links that would be fine. Other Wikipedia pages exist on fictional ships, of varying (debatable) roles or prominence in their film, written or other medium, This article is no different. Additionally, articles exist on other fictional characters, including those of Stargate, or Star Wars, or Star Trek. I created this article and believe it needs to stay.

Combatpac (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Combatpac (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I just reviewed it. First reference is invalid, the other two are are duds. Clearly fails to assert WP:GNG. No encyclopedic content. scope_creep (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fictional warship that only appeared in one movie. No reason to have a separate article for this, and no reason for the infobox, either. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Torpedo it. It gets one whole mention in the movie synopsis, and that's tacked on as a minor detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I have respect for creator's intentions when making the article, it simply does not have enough third-party, reliable sources to support the subject's notability outside of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Parsecboy (talk) 11:14, 14 December 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian international footballers born outside Algeria[edit]

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

Please refer to the following policies:

WP:LISTCRUFT - #1, #2, #3, #7, #12 (and probably a couple of the others too)

WP:GNG - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone list

WP:LISTN - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.

I am fully aware that similar lists exist for Australia, England, Wales etc. but these do appear to have just enough to pass GNG, at least according to previous AfDs. Spiderone 12:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a notable subject. There are many articles written about Algeria players born outside Algeria, particularly those born in France. A clear majority of the Algeria squad for the 2014 World Cup were born in France. [46], [47], [48], [49]. [50]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only possible reason for treating this differently from the other articles listed by the nominator is that this one is not about an Anglophone national team. This is an encyclopedia written in English about the whole world, not just the Anglophone world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 December 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) 08:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Team Veteran[edit]

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

Article does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. References are not to independent secondary sources evidencing notability. Promotional article. Article creator has recently been banned indefinitely for using sock puppet accounts. Parkywiki (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BobLaRouche (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage available, only match results. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:09, 14 December 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 13:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis J Lo[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. I could not track down the one provided source in the article, nor could I find additional sources to back up the claims being made on the page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a total fraud of some moron who fabricated his own story and added it to wikipedia. When did this website start allowing spammers to create phony pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:352F:D920:394E:8F20:FE17:7CE4 (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Updated article with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonh dear (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find even one good secondary sources providing significant coverage. There seems to be some involvement with Tzu Chi (which is notable), but I am unable to understand how it would make the subject notable as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know about him, he is big developer and philanthropist in Quito. Businessmen in Ecuador usually try to be in shadow because of crime and pressure from the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.61.17.194 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person with lack of coverage in reliable sources. - TheMagnificentist 18:11, 18 December 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 13:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Century Health[edit]

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

Article is entirely promotional in tone and content. Should be deleted. Rogermx (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - yep needs TNT, it "sourced" almost entirely to sources that talk about other things. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 12 December 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. MER-C 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Papa's Burgeria[edit]

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

Procedural AFD - was PRODed, but had been PRODed and deleted previously. PROD reason this time around is "Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources", and I concur - Flash game with no evidence of third-party notability whatsoever. David Gerard (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article for video game with no signs of notability. No reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As G11 and G12. Direct copies from Wikia. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete not-notable KylieTastic (talk) 22:12, 12 December 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 deleted by Anthony Bradbury as A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content: G3: Blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ß̌[edit]

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

There is no proof or source found that this letter is a letter in the Kikuyu language. On the original page for ß, it says this letter is only used in German. And this letter is never accented. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 December 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.

[funtoo-home-1] Funtoo Homepage http://www.funtoo.org/Welcome

[funtoo-github-2] GitHub page https://github.com/funtoo

[funtoo-freenode-3] Freenode IRC channel https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=funtoo

[funtoo-forums-4] Funtoo Forums http://forums.funtoo.org/

[funtoo-reddit-5] Funtoo subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/funtoo/

[funtoo-compute-6] Funtoo Compute Initiative http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Compute_Initiative

[funtoo-platforms-7] Funtoo platforms http://www.funtoo.org/Subarches

[gentoo-platforms-8] Gentoo platforms https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Prefix#Platform_matrix

[funtoo-kernels-9] Funtoo kernels http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_Kernels

[gentoo-kernels-10] Gentoo kernels https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Kernel

[funtoo-faq-11] Funtoo does not support systemd http://www.funtoo.org/Funtoo_Linux_FAQ

[gentoo-freebsd-12] Gentoo FreeBSD https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]