Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 December	3 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Altman[edit]

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

I was unable to find any articles actually about Altman that were not introductory blurbs connected with publications he was writing for. The sources here consist of his website, which is not indepdent, and the notice in the New York Times that he had been appointed to the New York Times staff, which is not indepdent. We lack independent 3rd party sources on Altman. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?. A few high cites on GS, but this poorly written BLP does not make much of a case: WP:Too soon? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in this case as I also actually noticed he has 3,000 library collections, with the highest being 860, but I was unable to find links for that specific book, hence delete in this case, which would've immensely helped. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. Fails WP:TOOSOON too...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. → Call me Razr Nation 00:29, 10 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 List of minor characters in The Godfather series. As of closing time, the target page did not exist, but I'm sure someone will jump right on that. Joyous! | Talk 00:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five Families (The Godfather)[edit]

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

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and probably a lot of other articles on minor roles without sufficient independent RS into a List of minor characters in The Godfather series. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jclemens. I agree that a List of minor characters in The Godfather series should be created in the future for future redirects/merges. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:06, 9 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. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article. Discussion indicates a lot of quite interesting back-and-forth about keeping the article as a standalone, vs. merging to List of Forgotten Realms deities. ("Deities" looks misspelled no matter how you spell it....). That is a discussion beyond the jurisdiction of WP:AfD, so I invite all interested users to the Talk pages of the articles. NOTE: This "No Consensus" close is not mandating or even endorsing an as-is "Keep" of the article. We simply do not have a consensus to delete the material. Joyous! | Talk 01:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmater[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly an IAR !vote I'll admit, but there are dozens of books and tons of references to this fictional god. Not much in the way of 3rd party sources that I can find however. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit, or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Hobit, I agree this is a substantially-covered fictional deity, although since based on an historic mythological deity of essentially the same name, the RS coverage is quite conflated. If there IS to be a merge, however, I think Ilmatar is a more appropriate target, and this then becoming an IPC section. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. I disagree that this fictional deity is well documented, as every single source available was published by TSR/Wizards of the Coast, making them completely first party sources. I've done a rather extensive search, and I can find zero reliable third party sources that talk about the fictional deity in question in any sort of detail, rather than the actual, real life one that has no relation. Ilmatar is not an appropriate target for a merge, because the Forgotten Realms deity is not really based on the real-life Finnish one at all. Their functions, stories, and even genders are completely different from one another, making this a case of the two just happening to have very similar names, not that one was based on the other in any way, shape, or form. 75.82.28.71 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I couldn't find a relationship either. Hobit (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. I am not convinced that Hobit's arguments are grounded in policy; we determine whether fictional characters are notable based on third party coverage, not the number of primary sources we can find. Concerning Jclemens's suggestion that this should be merged to Ilmatar, I would want to see a decent source confirming that there is a relationship between the two, not least because of the worries raised by 75.82.28.71. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only policy I'm claiming is IAR. Which I'm pretty sure this is grounded in. :-) Hobit (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's fair, my apologies. Let me rephrase: "I am not convinced that Hobit's arguments are well-grounded in our notability guidelines, and I am not seeing a compelling case to ignore our guidelines in this case; we determine whether fictional characters are notable based on third party coverage, not the number of primary sources we can find." Josh Milburn (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as we've established numerous times here at AfD as it is, and anyone familiar with these in the past will know that they're not inherited notability from the series itself, hence only known for said series. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities per above comments. Lack of third-party sources to support that this is notable enough for its own article, and I believe a more clear connection would have to be made with Ilmatar to support a merge with that page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 6 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael London (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Bio of a minor businessperson. Lots of references -- but they're mentions of his company, using his quotes, not anything actually biographical. Calton | Talk 23:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources except from PR churnalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I concur, clear advertising with a noticeable overfocus with only what his own advertising would care to mention, certainly not what an encyclopedia accepts. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes we don't see the coverage in (enough) unquestionably reliable sources. There's somewhat better coverage of Examity -- this Quartz article is short but good -- and the better approach might have been to create an article about the company, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to establish notability. → Call me Razr Nation 00:29, 10 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 as SNOW (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just Jeans[edit]

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

Non-notable. No reliable secondary sources available other than the one used as ref. 103.6.159.83 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major Australian and New Zealand retail chain. Even a brief review of Google News search results turns up lots of useful sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a massive Australian retail corporation: not only did they start out with one of the most major clothing retail chains in the country, but they subsequently bought six others, all among the most major retail chains in Australia. (For non-Australians, it's equivalent to AfDing American Apparel.) It actually badly needs to be separated into Just Group (for the corporation) and Just Jeans (for their subsidiary chain of stores) because they're both ridiculously notable and easily fleshed out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with statements above, I'm surprised the article is as underdeveloped as it currently is, but topic meets GNG. It just needs references added to the article (it looks like it has been written using at least one or two sources, but the editor(s) haven't cited) -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG, just requires further expansion and cleanup -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above reasons. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable bi-national company which passes WP:CORPDEPTH Ajf773 (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Just a poor article. Major retail chain, almost into national folklore. Heaps of secondary references available. Aoziwe (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick check of the "News" link above shows the company is in the news for two different issues in the last month (workplace relations and ethical sourcing of product). This shows that the brand and company are well known and significant in Australia, even though neither item is worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia article as current events, they demonstrate notability. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:05, 4 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Conroy (communist)[edit]

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

I'm nominating because my PROD was removed. The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The article can be summarised in that Frank Conroy was a member of the IRA and fought in the Spanish Civil War; there is nothing notable that shows he should be included. I've performed Google searches but I can't find anything at all relevant. Instead, the article is describing someone and even includes when and where he made his confirmation. The notability hasn't been proven. st170e^talk 22:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats like saying Michael Collins should be deleted because it can be summarized as fighting in the Tan war and the 1916 rising. That's because you just searched Frank Conroy, if you search Frank Conroy communist relevant stuff comes up. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did search 'Frank Conroy communist' and significant coverage is lacking which portrays the subject to be notable. You need to prove that he's notable. It's also silly to relate Michael Collins to Conroy - Collins was a massive figure in Ireland. What has Conroy done that would be notable? st170e^talk 22:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What notable things has Conroy done? Everything in the article. There's an article about him in Kildare.ie, which is a news outlet which reports on news in Kildare. There's multiple articles written about him by the Communist Party of Ireland, there's an article about a commemoration, there's a Frank Conroy Commemoration Committee and he's also mentioned in a piece on a website dedicated to Irish involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what specifically has he done that is notable? What in particular has he done that makes him notable? -st170e^talk 22:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the article "He joined the IRA in the 1930's, he later became a Marxist and got involved in the Republican Congress. He was also involved in street battles against the Blueshirts, around this period he decided to get involved in the Spanish Civil War. On 13 September 1936 he set sail to Spain on the Holyhead Ferry. He reached Spain on 14 December and travelled to Albacete. On 26 December 1936 he was sent to the Andalucía front in the south of Spain. His brigade advanced towards the village of Lopera, they came under shell and machine-gun fire and many died. On 28 December Conroy was killed during the second attempt to take the village." He's also been the subject of commemorations which should be taken in to account. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a description of his life and I wouldn't consider this to be notable. The notability isn't proven on the article through independent, reliable, significant sources. You have written the article and it sounds like his notability is based on his membership of the IRA and involvement in the Spanish Civil War. The lack of detail or achievements is why I've nominated it for deletion. st170e^talk 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kildare.ie is an independent and reliable source, the article, I think is written by a historian. In what way is it lacking detail? Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person killed in combat at age 22. There were millions like him. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SOLDIER. No other claim of notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conroy is a special case as he was involved in political activities, fought Blueshirts and was a member of the Irish Republican Army. There is also an annual commemoration. Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the article have been made. Apollo The Logician (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Being involved with politics does not confer notability. Not does being a member of the IRA (or any other political group), or engaging in street fighting with political opponents, or getting killed in combat in Spain or anywhere else, or being commemorated locally. He is not a "special case" in any meaningful way. He is just another one of many millions of very young men who died in combat in the late 1930s and early 1940s, just like one of my uncles. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; still fails GNG and also WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although he died at a young age, the subject continues to live as a sort of revolutionary icon, it would seem, with memorial meetings and songs written in his honor. Very serious coverage in COUNTY KILDARE ONLINE ELECTRONIC HISTORY JOURNAL. GNG pass, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Running a Google search for "FRANK CONROY" + "SPANISH CIVIL WAR" returns an impressive 3,600 hits, including THIS 2012 coverage of a new leaflet "Frank Conroy And The Spanish Civil War" by the Frank Conroy Committee. Clearly this is not your run of the mill Spanish volunteer who died fighting fascism... Search continuing... Carrite (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three annual festivals commemorating Conroy, see THIS flyer, which can easily be mined for an illustrative graphic... Carrite (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I totally understand how he has become a legend - and so people that want to keep the article find Conroy notable. However, when you look at the guidelines, it does not appear that Conway meets the guidelines for WP:GNG. I looked in books to see if I could find anything about him during this period. The best I could find gives a passing mention of his death and a couple of sentence biography here. The Irish involvement in the Spanish Civil War page doesn't mention him.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's also mentioned in Fighting for Republican Spain 1936-38. Frank Ryan and the Volunteers from Limerick in the International Brigades by Barry McLoughlin--previously unsigned01:37, 10 December 2016‎ Apollo The Logician (talk)

That's the book I was mentioning in my "here" link above. There is just a passing mention of him, nothing that would indicate notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's always a red flag when our own article about a topic is the top result in a Google search. Looking through the first two pages in the search results, I see a number of blogs, sites associated with the Communist Party of Ireland (and one for the Communist Party of India), and commemorative YouTube videos. Of course, you need to filter out hits related to the contemporary author with the same name. I don't see anything I would call a WP:RS which could be used to establish WP:N for this person. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually the case for most Google searches. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:21, 10 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coulrophilia[edit]

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

Nominating this because WP:NEO and it's just a dictionary definition (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). st170e^talk 22:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't just about a neologsm.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourced to a blog. No significant scientific coverage. — James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be "significant"? Apollo The Logician (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean only to be referring to WP:GNG.— James Cantor (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Really something that scares you to Google. These images may interfere with sleep tonight. If any place is ever going to piece together the sourcing for an actual public resource on this topic, it will be Wikipedia. I've added two sources. Surely there must be some literature on this topic? The word was invented somehow.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those non-expert cites uses the term at all. Nor does either one say that it constitutes at paraphilia (which is what the page claims). In fact, one of the cites says specifically that it is NOT on any official list.— James Cantor (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James, I really didn't expect this to be notable, and I just jogged around for a chuckle, but I keep finding additional sources, and adding them. Some additional articles that reference a "clown fetish" and don't use the term "coulrophilia" also show notability. I am interested to see how this discussion turns out.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More of same. The page continues to claim that this is a medical entity (a paraphilia), and all of the cites (none citing any medical literature) are merely musings of the (non-expert) authors.— James Cantor (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue for article improvement, not notability. Many notable things are noted by non-experts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS applies and indicates a higher standard than that.— James Cantor (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If loving clowns is wrong, then I don't want to be right. :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Mark Griffths does Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NAD...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:19, 9 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) 09:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Hren[edit]

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

Cannot find any English language secondary sources, article provides no sources. Rogermx (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nom has given no applicable criteria for delation. WP:GNG specifically says sources do not have to be written in English nor are source required to be in the article, just that the sources exist, which they do. [1][2][3][4]. Many more exist, but these popped up after a couple of seconds of searching. --Oakshade (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot read the language on the source page, how can you determine if it is a reliable source? However, if that is a Wikipedia policy, I bow to it. Thanks for the research and for enlightening me on this. Rogermx (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed links are still too trivial and unconvincing, regardless I f anything especially considering the field listed here. SwisterTwister talk 18:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established either in Slovene or English sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:22, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour America Media Group[edit]

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

It seemed like the TV channel, at least, could be notable, but I can't find any substantial coverage meeting WP:GNG, and definitely nothing for the media group that's the subject of this article. Largoplazo (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Largoplazo, I understand your request. I am currently adding lot of information about the channel and the group that represents an unique opportunity for francophones in the US to have french content television channel. We are broadcasted on Atlantic Broadband (channel 80), and we will be on Comcast, ATT, Direct Tv and some OTT platfom soon. You can also check the website www.bonjouramericatv.com. I will add an history section and programming section. Thank you Nicoobonjouramerica (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I appreciate your interest in the quality of the article. However, the issue is not that, but that article topics have to be notable, which largely consists of showing that they have received substantial coverage elsewhere first. For this discussion to less to a Keep conclusion, notability will have to be demonstrated. Largoplazo (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. might be notable someday, but not yet. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I'm confused as to how this was accepted into article space. It has no sign of notability and at this moment, does not deserve its own article space.

Dear Largoplazo, I added sources and I think it can now be notable. This is a page about the media group and not the channel. The tv channel is Bonjour America. Thank you Nicolopezs (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these are press releases and don't count at all, as notability consists of independent signs of recognition. One of the other sources is practically a press release, as all it consists of is repetitions of what CEO Victor Romero said; in any event, it isn't a secondary source. That and the final source are fairly routine notices that a new company has gotten started. These aren't usually taken as signs of notability, as history is awash in companies whose creation is perfunctorily reported and about which nothing is ever written again. Largoplazo (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there is nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:25, 9 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 List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gond (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities, where his information is already included. A relatively minor fictional deity that has no non-primary sources discussing him. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as per the above. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:55, 4 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twenty20 matches played by Nepal[edit]

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

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

Delete Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ianblair23 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and several similar articles along these lines that have been deleted too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per previous AfDs of this nature Spiderone 10:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused. This article was created about two years ago but why it wasn't nominated before for deletion?→SeniorStar (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there are so many articles like this which have been created within the cricket project area that it's been impossible to keep on top of them. There has been a set of editors who create purely statistical articles, rarely, if ever, engage in talk and who often specialise in adding tables of statistics to articles rather than writing prose. There has been a recent attempt to look through articles such as this which is why, presumably, it's coming to AfD now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no attempt to do anything other than list matches played. I could see a case for a prose based article along the lines of Twenty20 cricket in Nepal or similar and/or a section on the national team page that properly summarises this list - it's got the section but is statistics led again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Yet another NOTSTATS (sigh!) Jack | ^{talk page} 11:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just found this article: List of Twenty20 cricket matches played by Nepal, which is pretty much the original listed here, but in a different format. I've bundled it into this AfD (seeing as it's only 1 day old). @Ianblair23:, @Spiderone:, @SeniorStar:, @Blue Square Thing:, @BlackJack: - hopefully there's no objections? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. Yet another NOTSTATS one so please delete with the rest. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me either. The fact that both pages have overwhelmingly been worked on by the same two users is fairly mind blowing to me. I'll have a trawl through the other pages each has worked on to check for anything similar... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that at all Lugnuts. It is an identical article. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nominator WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS Ajf773 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the nominator and all the recent relevant discussions on similar articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. MFriedman (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:27, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paragon Pro Wrestling personnel[edit]

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

No significant content, and no sign of significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. David Biddulph (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost speedy as there is nothing there, if I had not heard of PPW I would almost think this was a hoax (or two hoaxes). MPJ-DK 21:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might very well be a hoax, as all the content is copied from List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like it fails WP:HOAX. If not then WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:42, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

No sign of significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate notability. David Biddulph (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the GNG and all other guidelines. MPJ-DK 21:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:49, 9 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 consensus to delete the article. Joyous! | Talk 01:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Poach[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough. Retired player and did not play in senior World Cup. Only a junior player. Spike789 ^Talk 22:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for soccer players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with the above that the player fails WP:NFOOTY as has only played college football and made junior international appearances. However, a simple google search suggests enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC:

SISTERS WITH A PASSION FOR SOCCER G. BRIDGE SIBLINGS CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF SPORT THEY LOVE - seemingly dedicated article on the player and her sister. Appears to be of reasonable length, but don't have HighBeam access, but is clearly non-routine coverage.
The New Faces of St. Louis Athletica - Covers a number of players, but a dedicated 270 word summary of the players career to date.
Special Episode 05 - Amanda Poach and Maxine Goynes - dedicated interview the player
Bowie High grad shines out west - lengthy local news article on the player's college career
Poach Leads Excel To Final; Bethesda Team Tops Dallas Sting - again behind a paywall, but the two available paragraphs indicate non-routine coverage going beyond match reporting and discussing the player in general.
Wilkerson, Poach Provide Something Extra for Bowie - no HighBeam access, but although apparently a match report, there seems to be significant content on the player.

In addition, there is a fair bit of routine match reporting and primary sources which whilst they don't impart notability can be used to flesh out the article into something much more lengthy. Would be interested to hear from @Joeykai: @AlessandroTiandelli333: @Spike789: and @Johnpacklambert: as to why they feel the above does not satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: These are all small articles about an athlete who plays for a junior/college team. If she was professional, than maybe I would have second thoughts. Spike789 ^Talk 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have highbeam access? Have you paid for the full articles on the other sites? I'd be interested to hear what they said if they are apparently small. They don't look like it to me, they seem like dedicated coverage of the player. The level she played at is irrelevant for notability, it is the level of coverage that matters. Happy to reconsider my view if you can elaborate on the content of some of the pay walled sources. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Not convinced that the coverage is anything substantial tbh. Giant Snowman 18:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Additional references available via Google search. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG looking through the references in the article, and those listed in this discussion. Articles are over a lengthy period of time. Nfitz (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG (per User:Fenix down) so it doesn't matter if it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. St Anselm (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with St. It passes WP:GNG, despite failing WP:NFOOTBALL. She didn't have a pro career, but has enough notability. --SirEdimon (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She played in a FIFA world tournament. That should be enough to pass the notability guideline according to WP:GNG and WP:COMMONSENSE...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:55, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ridley (politician)[edit]

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

The subject is a local politician and failed in two runs for Parliament. Small amount of local coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The simple solution in the last AfD was to redirect to Coventry North West (UK Parliament constituency) where he ran unsuccessfully in 2010 but he more recently (2015) lost an election in Coventry South (UK Parliament constituency) so we now have two equally good (or equally bad depending on on one's point of view) redirection targets. So in a way, the outcome of the AfD should really be keep or delete. Pichpich (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for public office are rarely notable, and nothing about him makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG as just a candidacy is not notable. His current position won't make him notable either...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:08, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KSDI-LD[edit]

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

The article doesn't cite any sources, and I can't find any news articles about this radio station. Fails WP:ORG Should be redirected to Cocola Broadcasting. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Television station has some history and has had local programming in the past and isn't just a repeater. Will do a rewrite because as-is this needs a serious WP:RESCUE. Nate • (chatter) 01:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references at all, let alone any authoritative references. Nothing indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rescue - It survives the "licensed TV station bar", which generally has been our notability criterion for TV stations. However, it really is in need of a serious rescue. Raymie (t • c) 19:31, 5 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IV for Percussion Ensemble (Beyer, Johanna)[edit]

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

No indication this piece of music is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly some sort of planned personal page, WP:NOT applies entirely since it's barely comprehensible in an encyclopedia, let alone substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:47, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Whitaker[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability guidelines for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Astrology is a fringe subject that requires good sourcing to prove notability, that is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing keeps this from passing WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:58, 9 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 13:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smashfund[edit]

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

Blatant advertising by an advertisement-only account, everything here is no different than what you would find at their own "About and PR Room" sections and that's self-explanatory, regardless of anything because WP:NOT explicitly states we are a not a PR webhost, and it's quite clear this is what the article. When we start compromising with such blatancy, we're damned because it shows we can't even remove the worst advertising existing. There will be no amount of sufficient news because this is literally only 4 months old and it's clear this company is behind any attention about it. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to chime in and mention that my account is not an "advertisement-only account" I am simply new and need to start somewhere. I am learning the ropes here (not with the greatest acceptance so far) and am playing by the rules I am told at my best. If you read the article the company is almost 2 years old (not 4 months, that was a launch date if you need me to change that in the side bar, let me know) and there is an article included that mentions this specifically. Mcmrose (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP a bit too soon. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question How many referal sources are you suggesting there should be for pages? Obviously from trusted and non advertising sources. I only ask because I see other approved pages with only 3 sources. I believe the references used follow the guides and suggestions I have been given. Clearly I am new, so just trying to learn and understand here. Mcmrose (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 07:25, 10 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 already deleted by User:Samtar with CSD G5. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Jazz Galaxy War[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILM. Cannot find anything for sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 18:40, 2 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dooars Animal Savers Organization[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Speedy deletion declined by an editor other than the author, so taking to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable fails WP:ORG Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not understand the basis for the removal of the speedy . DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @DGG: Nor do I. The editor gave no edit summary, and has not responded to a request on his talk page to comment at this AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:34, 4 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Vyhnička[edit]

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

The references are not good enough to make this article pass WP:MUSICBIO. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references found that support notability. Only primary sources available. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no secondary sources available. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP sourced solely from the subject himself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:45, 7 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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hartek Power Private Ltd[edit]

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

Can only find one source among those listed that isn't a press release [5]; doesn't appear to have significant independent reliable sourcing to establish WP:CORP notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above. People (who I can only assume are employed by this company) keep adding press-release style language to this article but there's still no credible claim of notability that would make this company worth including in an encyclopaedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; the article is clearly promotional and unencyclopaedic in addition to the notability issues Spiderone 10:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as typical promotional corporate spam.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This partial rewrite does not address the above concerns either. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as it's clear this is advertising part of an advertising campaign and WP:NOT applies by that alone, it's clear this is not hopeful for any meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 7 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) 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saheem Khan[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG Non-Notable actor. FITINDIA (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable and poorly formatted. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 14:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability and the article looks like it's created for publicity. JackTracker (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable entrepreneur. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 17:21, 2 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan sharma[edit]

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

Just a test page. No notability also the username of the creator and article are same so it seems autobiography. SeniorStar (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source.user created by test page and added own information. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 13:51, 2 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. Sources provided show notability and consensus is that the compilation is acceptable. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Monument & Columbia Album Collection[edit]

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

Most of the albums in the article are on Wiki already, and if they have unreleased tracks or an extra CD containing unreleased songs, they should be added to their respective album page as a second track listing

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

Jennica✿ / ^talk 13:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while WP:INHERITED means albums cannot always have independent notability of the artist, general consensus is that compilations released by a major label covering a notable artist with many hits are usually acceptable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Kristoffersen compilation actually has quite a few independent sources: [6] [7] [8] [9]. There are more but I think these examples get my point across.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That fourth source is not independent; it is a press release by the record label. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 2 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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Rubin (basketball)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:NBASKETBALL, or more generally, WP:Notability (sports) - he played college ball at Boston College and plays professionally in Israel (not among the listed leagues). He did participate in and win a gold medal with the US at the Maccabiah Games, but I don't see that that confers notability either. As for GNG, he was the subject of a Washington Post article during his college career, has been mentioned in articles describing the games he played in and got lots of coverage from the BC outlets, which does not seem like the extensive specific third party coverage that's required. JohnInDC (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. Broad international coverage, including full articles devoted to him in both the Washington Post and (for some reason, ignored by the nominator) Israel. 2604:2000:E016:A700:38A0:C24E:B5FC:133A (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASKETBALL. He plays in the Israeli Basketball Premier League, which is a top league covered by notability standards. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (If so then I withdraw the nomination, but that league is not listed at WP:NBASKETBALL and that page should be edited to reflect this.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHOOPS was recently changed to remove its prior presumption of notability for leagues "similar" to the ones listed. (See [10] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Archive 10#Revised WP:NHOOPS guideline.) In the discussions for that change, Israel's Premier League is mentioned as another league whose players probably have notability, and my recollection is that players in the top Israeli league have generally been considered notable, but it's not presently on the list. Meanwhile there's a different list at WP:BASKETBALL that follows football's presumption of notability for players in "fully professional leagues", which Israel's Premier League certainly is. Leaving all this aside, however, I agree with IP editor 2604: above: there's sufficient evidence of substantial coverage for Rubin to pass GNG, obviating the need to resolve the broader open question about WP:NHOOPS and Israel. So my !vote is keep per GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list at WP:BASKETBALL was created by one user and represents no consensus. In fact, there definitely is NOT consensus that All fully professional basketball players are notable. That doesn't mean this case isn't, but since it came up it is important to be clear about this. Rikster2 (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have trouble swallowing that any person who ever played in any one of those leagues is "notable" and warrants a Wikipedia article. That does seem like a real stretch to me. (And - while I'm here, I'll also add that I'm surprised to see that there are Keep votes based on the third party coverage here, inasmuch as about half the sources are BC sources, the bulk of the rest are just snippets, with only one or two (as best I can discern from the Hebrew) actually the kind of independent, in-depth coverage that's necessary for GNG.) JohnInDC (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the Israeli Basketball Premier League was removed from NBASLETBALL then it should be restored, and in any case this player has a major article in the Washington Post and at least several short articles in Hebrew to be at least a borderline GNG. And given he plays in the top Israeli league I suspect there is more coverage but I am not skilled at searching for Hebrew articles on Google. Rlendog (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not removed, it was never a named league in the guideline. Arguments really need to be rooted in GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was indirectly removed if the "similar" language that had previously included it was eliminated. 15:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep per Jrcla2, Arxiloxos and Rlendog. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale above. Additionally I have made a suggestion here to add Israel to the WP:NHOOPS list - Galatz ^Talk 14:52, 6 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. Sandstein 06:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NYX Cosmetics[edit]

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

Delete and Salt as not only was I involved in the last blatant advertising deletion and here it is again, showing not only the sheer blatancy but the fact messages such as WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (which are policy) are not apparently being comprehended, hence delete and let's not overwork ourselves with such things as simple of blatant advertising. As it is, the sources and information are as equally trivial and unconvincing as is the number of space-filling sentences. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has had many instances of significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources such as th LA Times, Forbes and Bloomberg, easily satisfying WP:ORG. Little if anything in the article cannot be sourced to such sources. The company was sold in 2014 to L'Oreal for five hundred million dollars. The nomination smacks of IDONTLIKEIT. Edison (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination in fact follows WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, especially considering it's policy (while WP:BASIC, WP:CORP and WP:GNG are not) and the Forbes link above explicitly says "by a non-staff contributor" hence it was a genuine publication article but instead a hired one. Sinppy because a publication is major is not making it immune to everything either company-supplied for advertising or PR-based. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article which says positive things about a company, when those statements are sourceable to reliable and independent sources, does not violate WP:NOT or WP:SPAM. It is inappropriate to ignore WP:GNG just because it is a notability guideline rather than a policy. It represents best practice and should generally be followed, especially when WP:NOT and WP:SPAM do not apply to the article, since the positive things said about the subject are generally supported by reliable mainstream publications. See the links which appear when one bothers to click the "news" link at the top of this discussion: " Banking On Beauty: How Toni Ko Built NYX Cosmetics Into A $500 million brand,"Forbes-Jun 1, 2016 It is written by "Clare O'Connor , FORBES STAFF," not a "non-staff contributor."(an earlier Forbes article had a non-staff editor). It says that after L'Oreal bought the company for $500 million, the same store sales grew 78% in 2015. There is an article in Allure magazine, a mainstream publication:on the history of Nyx Cosmetics: "5 Things You Didn't Know About NYX Cosmetics," by Renee Jacque, Feb 24, 2016 When the article states "Both beauty bloggers and professional makeup artists rave about the brand's innovative products and love that the company has kept its prices low, even as its range has expanded." That is not "spam." It is coming from the article, not the personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor, and not just a promotional effort by the Nyx company. We should observe the difference. Bustle (magazine) had an article "Where To Buy NYX Cosmetics' Special Edition Wanderlust City Sets ..." by Kali Borovic, Nov 26, 2016 which says positive things about some makeup sets. Refinery29 has an article "Nyx Is Launching The Coolest Shadow Vault You've Ever Seen" by Kelsey Castanon. Oct 3, 2016 which says "Nyx Cosmetics has consistently pumped out quality beauty products at affordable prices since launching in 1999. " It goes on to say positive things about the cosmetics. Not spam, not an advertisement. Marie Claire had an article "Everything you need to know about NYX cosmetics (because it’s awesome)"by Anita Bhagwandas, April 21, 2016 in a UK online edition. The article calls it a " trend-led affordable brand" and says that it started out being sold at trade shows to professionals before going mass market, along with positive statements about several products from Nyx. The Los Angeles Times had an article "How I Made It Toni Ko's next fortune could be made in shades," by Ronald D. White, April 17, 2016 which has extensive coverage of the founding of Nyx by Toni Ko, and its growth and success. This sourcing easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORG. If anything in the article is spammy advertising, it can be tagged for lack of refs and removed. This article, like all articles, is a work in progress. Edison (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are clear advertising and in fact violate WP:NOT, SPAM and WP:ORGIND because (1) the Forbes is clear advertising in that it was literally a hired freelancer for the company itself as are the others, clear interviews or other similar company-supplied information. WP:NOT explicitly states that we are not a PR webhost, regardless of anything, even including we are not compromisable for republished advertising. The Refinery is a clear PR trade website as is Bustle as it's a clear "Here's What You Need to Know about this company today"; Allure is then simply an entertainment magazine. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the assessment by Edison. There is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to both establish notability and provide context and background for any article cleanup needed. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is actually a straight advertisement without any claim to being a WP article. Had I seen it at NPP, I'd have used Speedy. Articles with promotional content canbe cleaned up; pure advertisements should never be. The possible notability is in this case irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Notability is not inherited from a notable acquiring company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am concerned that some good editors are not reading the sources I linked to, and are jumping to conclusions while ignoring WP:N. The AFD nominator asserts that news articles in Forbes, the LA Times and other news sources are mere advertisements, when they are clearly editorial content rather than adverts. The nominator also asserts that the Forbes writer, who Forbes says is a "staff writer" is " literally a hired freelancer for the company itself" as are all other writers who have published about the company. Reliable sources should not be so casually dismissed. If the company is notable, then any promotional text in the article can be removed. I will have a go at that, and I urge others to take a look at the article in a few hours.Edison (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to analyze this again, and I will note that the sources now listed are still only about what the company would advertise about itself, take the "opening shops this fall" for example, which is a clear PR regardless of anything or anyone because we've seen it numerous times for other companies. The concerns of repeated advertising also apply and therefore there's simply not enough motivating convincing to accept this. Yes, this article could be far far worse, but it's not actually better either, so it's not negotiable when it's advertising hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to revisit my vote as well, and I still see only a tribute page based on PR-like sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertorial sourced to press releases. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Theadded refs are not convincing . The WSJ one, for example is not about this firm, and just gives it a mention. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was asked to take a second look at this AFD. I've re-reviewed the sources and reviewed the current opposing claims. The promotionalism claims are unconvincing and at times simply illogical. My Keep vote remains because of the fact that this company passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP due to significant coverage in reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

are you really saying that we should keep everything that has RSs even if its an advertisement? DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My good fellow User:DGG, do you really think that provoking an extended discussion thread here is really wise? I'm still trying to wrap my head around one of your previous AFD claims that the Los Angeles Times is not a reliable source, except for entertainment news.[11] I'd welcome philosophical discussion on my talk page, but your provocations here at AFD are tiring. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that having an discussion on whether we should keep advertising about slightly notable subjects is very much to the point here, and at every AfD where the suggestion is made that NOT ADVERTISING is not policy. My understanding is that the basic policy of WP:NOT can't be over-riden on the basis of the notability guideline, which in essence is just the expansion and explanation of one part of WP:NOT, NOT INDISCRIMINATE. (The LATimes is not the issue here; I regret I didn't have time to follow up on the question, but I'll return to it when I do). DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the sources listed above quite convincing that the company is significant in its field. Joyous! | Talk 02:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but not salt) per DGG - the CSD criteria text says an article that would have to be 'fundamentally rewritten' to not look like an advertisement should be speedied. This article fits that criteria in my view. Mike1901 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, 2 deletions in the last years, one of them being only last month is serious enough for salt. At this time, basically WP:AFC would be the only conceivable path. SwisterTwister talk 16:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, we'd wait for three. I don't think it needs salting. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, this is sad. The article subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, easily satisfying the guidelines for notability, but every one of those sources is dismissed as merely a "clear advertisement" when it is obviously editorial content rather than paid advertisement, and staff writers for the publications are claimed to be "employees of the company covered". Something odd is going on here. Why are some people so determined not to have an article about this major company? Why is a higher bar set for this company than for other companies of comparable size and media coverage? It is utter bullshit to claim that the article is "an advertisement. " Nowhere does it say anything like "This company makes great products, and you should buy them!" Rather, it is an objective and encyclopedic account of the company's founding and growth, and its sale to another company, and subsequent developments, fully sourced to reliable sources. Also, the AFD nominator claims to have deleted not one but TWO previous versions of the article, but did not provide a link to such previous version as is expected in an AFD nomination. A link would helpful if this goes to deletion review. Edison (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This started as a very simplistic, promotional-toned article, and as it stood on Nov 23 I would also have had the reaction to delete. However, the above discussion has helped identify numerous sources, and kudos to Edison for bringing the sources into the article as well as improving it. The company's history has been noted and discussed in the press, and seems the cosmetics line as well, prior and after it's acq by L'Oreal. It should be quite possible to write a tolerable article about this, though also potentially the content could variously be a) trimmed, b) selectively merged into L'Oreal, c) the remainder turned into an article about the founder instead, since one could argue the coverage is about her success story as an entrepreneur. Any of these is an acceptable outcome, subject to editorial discretion -- there is no need to delete. Martinp (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this company is notable per Forbes, The Korea Herald, Marie Claire, and Allure. Some users are making the claim that the possible notability is irrelevant, since the article is advertising and thus violates WP:NOT. As DGG puts it, "the basic policy of WP:NOT can't be over-riden on the basis of the notability guideline." However, I don't think the article violates WP:NOT. The policy says that "information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery," but also that "an article can report objectively about such things [topics susceptible to advocacy], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."

So to me there is no conflict between WP:NOT and WP:N. If the article is promotional, we can rewrite it. If it is non-notable, we can delete it. But we shouldn't delete notable articles for being promotional, except in those particularly egregious cases that fall under G11. Use of the passive voice aside, WP:SPAM puts it well: a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's currently in the article is exactly what you would find at the company's "About" including such blatancy as "This product brought in revenue of $2 million the first year, after starting business with a two hundred fifty thousand dollar loan from her parents....The products were initially sold only to beauty professionals, before Ko expanded sale to mass-market outlets" - That's LinkedIn-esque information, not Wikipedia's goals. As it is, the current article noticeably hangs on the best claims of significance it has, and that's the fact it was involved with L'Oreal; if any of us partnered with L'Oreal, that's not automatically making us notable. As it is, the Forbes itself, I will note, has such clear primary as "Ko set out", "Ko says", Ko's plans", "Her first products were eye and lip pencils, sold for $1.99 apiece -- a bargain when hot brands such as Urban Decay and MAC Cosmetics were selling theirs for $10 or more, she calls it....", "her suppliers to create each product to her exacting specifications. She also cut out extraneous costs", "Ko knew that to build NYX into a mass market brand, beyond the cult world of connoisseurs and teen fanatics, she'd have to get her products into mainstream stores. She set her sights", complete with beachside margaritas, Ko decided", Ko had more than 100 pairs herself and had paid upwards of $300 for most of them", "Her company....With its bold colors and kooky frames", etc. This is what the article was when I nominated and this is the current article; how is that at all substantially different than their own published company words? The fact this has been deleted twice before, once this last month alone, is enough showing its advertising intentions. How is that in tune with Wikipedia goals? SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup. If there are problems with what's currently in the article, we should fix them through normal editing, not deletion. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I comment because I have a relevant question: How can we clean an article when the listed and offered sources themselves show what PR was quoted above? SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, some of which has already occurred after this was nominated for deletion (performed by another user, diff). Per a source review, the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources that report positively about companies are not automatically all associated with the company as some sort of peculiar default. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 21 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daweda Exchange[edit]

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

Company launched a year ago, with no indication yet of notability per WP:CORP, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just lots of press releases and some mentions on finance blogs. The PR tends to claim that it's the "world's first" at what it does, but HedgeStreet was first, in 2004. Wikishovel (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corpspam, created by Cyprus binary options SPA, noting that the existing refs are extraordinary weak and no further refs are found using standard WP:BEFORE. The best existing ref is from Arab News and it appears that about half of the words are an interview with the CEO, and the rest are uncritical recitation of possible corp propaganda like "100% uptime". Also noting that one of the other sources is financemagnates.com, which has been impeached at RSN. - Brianhe (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding evidence of notability. Coretheapple (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Binary options churn continues Wikishovel (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything about this company that looks even vaguely like a reliable third-party source. Just junk on binary option promotion sites. John Nagle (talk) 05:14, 4 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zaskulnikov's identity[edit]

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

It seems that the term was introduced by the author of the article in arXiv paper. The paper was not published in peer-reviewed journal, was not cited, and no evidence of the use this indentity or calls it by this name Alexei Kopylov (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - needs input from the Mathematics/Physic crowd, but I'm not seeing any suggestion from the scholar google search that this term is a thing. JMWt (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no secondary sources independent of the creator for this identity. With no reliable sources, this topic fails WP:GNG notability thresholds. --Mark viking (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources mentioning this or even a peer-reviewed primary source (even just that alone would fail GNG). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism not yet shown to be notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:46, 5 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) 11:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open statistical ensemble[edit]

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

It seems that the term was introduced by the author of the article in arXiv paper. The paper was not published in peer-reviewed journal, was not cited, and no evidence of the use of the OSE by anyone other than the author. See also article's talk page. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research that does not appear to have any coverage in reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur on all the points above, and see also my comments on the article's talk page from 2 years ago. Nanite (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources mentioning this or even a peer-reviewed primary source (even just that alone would fail GNG). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious policy reasons beaten to death, but I will add that even for someone reasonably knowledgeable about the subject, the WP article (I am not going to dig the ArXiv source) is unclear or incorrect. The claimed difference with the Grand canonical ensemble is impossible to understand (the GCE does not "have a fictitious surface on its boundary"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan: You are strongly confident that GCE has no fictitious surface on its boundary? Well, let's find out. You willing to publicly admit mistakes? Luksaz (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe:, @Nanite:, @Kingofaces43:, @Tigraan: As I understand it, you take care in this case on compliance with the principles of Wikipedia. Good. Then I invite you to be consistent and remove also an article Henry adsorption constant. It suffers from exactly the same "drawbacks" as this one. Be principles, please! Mr. Alexei Kopylov refused to do so. Luksaz (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Otherwise, if you want the article to be kept, please make an argument. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inviting me to the reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you acknowledge that the above arguments are not sufficient to remove article. Besides, "It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline". Luksaz (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask you gentlemen, put on underpants or pull off the cross! Luksaz (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - My underpants are firmly in place! --Nanite (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you're in a secure situation. Luksaz (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, no one wants to delete the article Henry adsorption constant. Then I will explain that this constant calculation, as well as the whole isotherm (based on statistical-mechanical derivation) was possible due to Open statistical ensemble. I have explained this to Mr Nanite 2 years ago. Thus, the removal of these articles only advisable in pair. Luksaz (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I remind you that I and, I think, many others are waiting for justification of your statement that GCE has no fictitious surface on its boundary. Or it is already is not so obvious? ;) Luksaz (talk) 10:24, 10 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 Regulation of UAVs in the United States. Cerebellum (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Haughwout[edit]

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

I see no reason to assume this person is notable--there are some charges, and he was himself assaulted once, but this kind of media coverage of a few single events does not confer notability. The legal business, about drone legislation, does not seem to have a direct relationship with him. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source 3rd party coverage to show he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For reference, here are the sources in the article:

"Drone Teen Arrested In Clinton". CBS News. 23 Jul 2015.
Detelj, Tina (11 Jun 2014). "Andrea Mears, Austin Haughwout: Woman charged with assault over drone with camera filming at beach". WPTV-TV. Archived from the original on 2016-03-12.
"Woman gets probation after assaulting 'pervy' teen drone pilot". New York Post. Associated Press. 10 Jul 2015.
Charlton, John (19 Jul 2014). "Woman From Viral Drone Video Appears In Court". Fox Broadcasting Company.
"Teen's video of handgun-toting drone prompts federal investigation". The Guardian. Associated Press. 21 Jul 2015.
Associated Press (21 Jul 2015). "Teenager's video of gun-firing drone spurs investigation". Cybercast News Service.
Ernst, Douglas (21 Jul 2015). "'Flying Gun' drone investigated by FAA after student's YouTube video goes viral". The Washington Times.
Alba, Alejandro (9 Dec 2015). "WATCH: Connecticut teen tests fire-breathing, turkey-roasting drone". New York Daily News.
Wilkinson, James (28 Feb 2016). "Connecticut lawmakers fight to ban ARMED drones after teenager built terrifying flying flamethrower and pistol". Mail Online.
Blair, Russell (29 Feb 2016). "Teen Who Built Gun-Firing Drone Testifies Against Drone Legislation". Hartford Courant. Retrieved 29 Mar 2016.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-austin-haughwout-ccsu-lawsuit-0308-20160307-story.html
"Ex-student expelled over weaponized drone sues school". The Charlotte Observer. Associated Press. 9 Mar 2016. Archived from the original on 2016-03-12.

Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I started this article because his activities appear to have created enough controversy about weaponized drones for the media to notice. Despite the above claim (by the person proposing deletion) that the legal issues are not directly related to him, there are claims elsewhere that they are indeed so, for example CT Post states (here): "There is renewed urgency in Connecticut to regulate drones after a Central Connecticut State University student posted a video on YouTube last July of a homemade drone firing a handgun. Austin Haughwout was arrested and expelled from school, which he is contesting in a lawsuit filed this week in state Superior Court in New Britain." Regarding the other incidents, I believe that although they do not make him notable in themselves, they are relevant to the extent that they are connected to his activity with drones. (In particular, his expulsion from school and the assault he suffered.) There have been a few attempts to add to the article some discussion of unrelated charges, and (whilst recognizing that I have no special privilege as originator of the article) I have removed these for reasons explained on the talk page. For this reason, I believe that the article is warranted and is also reasonably tightly focused on the issues of relevance. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps rename this should be an event article per policy (WP:1E) as there is sustained coverage over an international area. But heck if I know what to name it. So perhaps keep it as is? Hobit (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with a reasonable selective merge, but not sure to where. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps to a new section within Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles? Haughwout and his father are forcing the issue on civilian armed UAV regulation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: An appropriate merge (suggested above) sounds reasonable, and personally I'd have no problem with that, provided that the article is not deleted until the relevant information has been fully copied over. (If the article is merged, what is the procedure for obtaining permission to recreate it if in future he becomes sufficiently notable in his own right?) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MAD, as merge and delete have a copyright problem.

WP:Editing policy and WP:BOLD give editors permission to edit. If someone objects, things get more complicated. Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article stands there are four events covered: the subject being assaulted, the drone gun video, the drone flamethrower video and his expulsion. The first three are related to drones, the topic for which he is best known and two were very widely covered in media. This covers two events, with his expulsion seeming to receive more attention than it otherwise would and the possibility of an appeal against the judges' decision as well as his testifying on adding weapons to drones, it seems the subject is notable for more than one event. Autarch (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: also the expulsion relates to drones, to the extent that he alleges (rightly or wrongly) that it was motivated by the drone controversy. Hence my comment above, that essentially all four of the events covered relate to drones. (This is no coincidence: it is because I have removed from the article material that does not. I gave the reasons for doing so on the talk page, so I won't rehash them here.) However, of these four events, only really the gun and flamethrower videos raise issues of wider relevance; the other two are worth including while there happens to be an article about him as an individual, but really, it will not harm to lose those sections if it is merged. This is why, despite having originated the article, I am not objecting to the suggestion of merging. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and reluctant keep. My first reaction was along the lines of Drmies, basically that BLP1E x 4 does not notability make. But looking through the sequence of press coverage provided, it has clearly shifted in tone from "X has done Y" (focus on the event) to "X is publicly involved in discourse on Z" and "X is in a public conflict with W relating to his activities X1, X2, ... all related to Z". I think this tips the balance -- though it's important to say this is a conclusion I reach in this instance, and I don't mean to set a precedent that some random juvenile delinquent "deserves" an article just because various of his exploits have made it into the press. Martinp (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to add - I am not objecting to merge, as some commenters are suggesting. This would be an acceptable result of editorial discretion. I'm just saying "don't nuke it!". Martinp (talk) 13:47, 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 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Center for Advanced Internet Research[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with the following rationale " numerous incoming wikilinks and contribution from multiple editors over years indicate potentially controversial deletion". Nothing here, however, nor in any sources I could find, suggests this organization passes WP:NORG. As such, the only suggestion other than the usual outright deletion I'd have is to redirect this to Northwestern University, if it is located at that place (I am not sure, the Northwestern University article doesn't even mention this organization). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any non-WP:SPS that discuss this as the main topic. I can only find tangential mentions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 4 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Burgener[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Kvng with the following rationale "Significant coverage in one cited relable source: [12]. Articles with marginal notability are not good prod candidates.". Well, I think this one story - plus all the other few mentions in passing - still make him not-encyclopedic due to failure of notability. Please also note that the conclusion at WP:NSPORT is that coaches are never notable by default, not unless they meet other criteria related to other activities. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable weightlifting coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this is clear advertising, and I concur with Piotrus that there's nothing genuinely significant, let alone a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find coverage adequate to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 12:41, 8 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. And salt. A fully protected redirect to Anisha Singh - which is also up for deletion - can be requested at WP:AN at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mydala[edit]

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

Delete and Salt as literally deleted 3 times in 2010 each time was as equally blatant as the other, and also equally blatant as this currently existing article, especially since literally all of the listed sources here are advertising or clear paid republishing of it; as it is, we've known we cannot take these publications seriously because of the sheer blatancy of republishing company advertising, not what a genuine news agency publishes about genuine information.

Therefore, considering WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, we are able to delete such blatant advertising especially when it's clearly been started and existing for exactly. Since it was nominated by The Banner in 2014, there has still been no improvements and that's in fact because there are none, especially since I myself saw unsurprising mountains of clear PR and republications of it. As if it wasn't enough, no one ever actually acknowledged the blatancy of paid advertising at the 1st AfD, and the history now has only emphasized it. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is more often the case. People claim that the article should be improved by normal editing but nobody, especially the ones saying that it should be cleaned up, does anything. Effectively undermining the stance that Wikipedia is not for advertising. The Banner talk 01:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anisha Singh, considering most of the coverage is about the founder (who clearly has some recognition) rather than the company. To be honest, I hold my hands up and admit I don't know why I accepted this article at AfC back in 2014, I think I was fairly new to the process. There really is no general news coverage, of any substance, about the company (the Business Standard coverage appears to consist of barely concealed press releases). Therefore with only passing mentions and specialist e-commerce/tech website coverage it fails WP:NCORP. I'm quite shocked that no-one (other than the nominator) challenged the article at the original AfD. Simple saying it has hits on Google isn't enough. Sionk (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Business-as-usual coverage in minor spammy sources. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as persistent spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 5 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 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AggreGate Platform[edit]

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

Evidence of notability seems thin. Tone is a bit spammy. But the article has survived for five years. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions in passing, low quality sources, I don't see how it meets WP:NSOFTWARE. If someone can argue it does, don't hesitate to ping me so I can reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written, poorly sourced. No indication of software notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:24, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quazi Nawshaba Ahmed[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Appeared in commercials, did some voice-over work. A few newspaper links about upcoming films but nothing meeting the notability criteria (yet). Yintan 07:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose against The Deletion
"She regularly appears in TV series of Bangladesh, she acted in more than 30 to 40 tv series,telefilms, acted in two films and working on few, notable actress for the country's current TV and film industry. So i oppose for the deletion."Foysol3195 (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Several news articles in national newspaper, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and more. Passes WP:GNG. Appeared in films, many tv series. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient depth of coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources to satisfy WP:BASIC.[13][14][15] --Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 10 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. Also per G5, but this has also determined the subject is not notable at this time. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Loganathan (photographer)[edit]

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

One reliable source Time of India. Non-notable photographer. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ ~~He is a notable photographer.~~ Nexabee (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This article must not be deleted as the person is notable enough.43.239.68.87 (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do Not Delete~~ ~~Balaji loganathan is a notable photographer~~.Zikolic (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. I couldn't find any proper references beside one in Time of India and this is quite far from significant coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is very likely that Nexabee and Zikolic are socks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mindcap. SmartSE (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazingly they are not, but they are obviously undisclosed paid editors and have both been blocked. This qualified for deletion via G5 IMO per WP:PROXYING, but since this discussion is ongoing, it may as well be left to run the full 7 days. SmartSE (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Non-notable photographer.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- do not Delete- notable photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.90.2 (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete- A Notable photographer. The Hindu is a good resource as India's national newspaper.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC) * Do not delete this article. Balaji is a famous photographer. TOI and The Hindu news links justify this statement.1.22.129.201 (talk)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus was to keep; however there is discussion of whether it belongs or it should be moved or merged - this discussion can continue at the relevant talk page. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 07:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ecliptic alignment of CMB anisotropy[edit]

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

This article is a fairly poorly written summary of a proposed feature of the cosmic microwave background, in which fluctuations in the background seemed to align with local features. The science is somewhat confused, but the anisotropy in question is the 'Axis of Evil' identified by Land and Magueijo, who are referenced in the article. However, this feature was proven by subsequent data to be spurious - in a later paper the same authors conclude that there is no significant feature. The article could be rewritten to reflect this history, but I do not think that a proposed detection that lasted only a year or two a decade ago would be notable. Chrislintott (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Axis of evil Notability is established by whether sources talk about a topic, not whether the article's subject is successful, or even sensible. Otherwise we'd delete Time Cube and flat Earth. Also, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Paradoctor (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The current title is WP:NDESC, but "axis of evil" seems to be used far more often than any of the variations of the descriptive name.

I'd strongly support this option if someone could work out how to do so. That's the title used in the papers describing the work that backs up this article. Chrislintott (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. If it is decided so, moving the article over the redirect at Axis of evil (cosmology) will not be a problem. Paradoctor (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant I didn't understand how such a decision could be taken in Wikipedia! I wasn't sure 'Keep and Move' was a valid outcome of this discussion, but if so, that would be great. Chrislintott (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could have waited, but why a separate move discussion when a 2-for-1 deal is available? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article is a poorly written summary. Partly at fault is the want for citations of recent and scientific literature. Thank you for mentioning that Land and Magueijo found the data to be spurious in 2006, which definitely merits mention in the article. I would agree that, if the detection was indeed spurious and lasted only a few years, the conjecture is not really notable. In a plot twist, data from Planck in 2013 found stronger evidence for the ecliptic alignment anisotropy ^[1]. Therefore, this is a detected, or re-detected, feature of the CMB. The article proposed for deletion is suggested further reading in the article Cosmic_microwave_background#CMBR dipole anisotropy. Therefore, I propose we keep the article and improve it. Friedlicherkoenig (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Planck article is just about the Earth's movement relative to the background, not about features in the background itself. It's not relevant to the topic. Chrislintott (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic brought enough attention in the past to be notable, whether debunked or reconfirmed. It is not even mentioned at Axis of evil (disambiguation), but perhaps it should be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Actually, it has been there from the page creation in 2007 on. Currently fourth line from the top.

Paradoctor (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, I should have spotted it. it is using a piped link rather than redirect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. Dead end science is just as encyclopedic as anything else. Yes the article does need to be written better Aoziwe (talk) 13:01, 2 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.

^ Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Bartlett, J. G.; Benabed, K.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M.; Bielewicz, P.; Bobin, J.; Bock, J. J.; Bond, J. R.; Borrill, J.; Bouchet, F. R.; Bridges, M.; Burigana, C.; Butler, R. C.; Cardoso, J.-F.; Catalano, A.; Challinor, A.; Chamballu, A.; Chiang, H. C.; Chiang, L.-Y; Christensen, P. R. (2013). "Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 571 (27): A27. arXiv:1303.5087. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..27P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321556. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! | Talk 02:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zimbabwe Twenty20 International matches[edit]

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

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

Delete Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Parent article was deleted last month (refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twenty20 International cricket matches) Ianblair23 (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per above. WP:NOTSTATS is an ongoing issue within WP:CRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and previous AfDs for the same thing. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both again, simply lists of matches rather than an attempt to summarise and write in prose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per nominator WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS Ajf773 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the nominator and all the recent relevant discussions on similar articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 5 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Harmer[edit]

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

Harmer was a candidate for US house who lost in a 2009 special election and a 2010 general election, as well as in a different place in a 1996 primary. Being a candidate for US house is not alone enough to make someone notable, and the coverage is all routine for a candidate for congress, nothing exceptional. There is the point he was chief of staff to a member of congress for one term, but this is not a position that default makes someone notable, and we have no indication that Harmer is an exception in this matter. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no strong claim of notability for anything more than being a non-winning candidate for political office, and no strong sourcing to pass WP:GNG: of the nine sources here, five are primary sources such as his own website, raw tables of election results and a Google Books copy of a book he wrote, while the four that are reliable sources are WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the election campaign itself. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a non-winning candidate for political office into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 2 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4th Goodmayes Scout Group[edit]

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

Non-notable Scout group, per Scouting WikiProject, we don't support unit articles unless they are extremely notable, like the first unit in a country or some other superlative. Side note, it is a beautifully written, thoughtful article, it's just not the kind of thing we can host on Wikipedia, but it could be moved to the Scout Wiki. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kintetsubuffalo. This Scout Group is a long way from meeting our notability guidelines. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- We regularly delete articles on local churches. To my mind a local scout troop is even less notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 6 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 against a list dedicated to this topic at this point. This does not rule out including such material in appropriate articles about Donald Trump, subject to editorial consensus, and continued discussion about whether to create a spinoff article about his conflict of interest issues, should there be grounds to do so in the future. Sandstein 18:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest of President-elect Donald Trump[edit]

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

This appears to be a very WP:POV, WP:UNDUE piece, which also has elements of WP:COATRACK. I highly suggest a merge to a more appropriate Trump article if there is one. Parsley Man (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom; this is heavily WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. Some of the topics in this article deserve coverage somewhere on Wikipedia, but building a list of every possible conflict of interest Trump might arguably have just comes across as an attack. -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smear piece.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - if we're going on the usual standards of notability, then this topic seems to be fairly well covered in the media. [16] [17] etc. JMWt (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is well covered by many reliable news sources - not POV or UNDUE because it's an unprecedented situation, which is what the news outlets are covering.. Victor Grigas (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Victorgrigas (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Parsley Man (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsley Man What I'm saying is that George W. Bush and other presidents never had articles like this, neither should Trump

@Parsley Man- thank you for noting.Victor Grigas (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsley Man Trump is not the first politician/American president to be accused of having numerous conflicts of interest MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly an important topic, and notable. However WP:NPOV and WP:BLP seem to be against this presentation of the issues. Especially when we get into things like the Bank of China renting office space in a Trump building. Is there an article on the Trump transition process where this could be a section? Note that there are no conflicts of interest yet, only that some people have raised concerns there might be when he becomes president.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be titled "Potential conflicts of interest..." Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would change the title but that might be seen as a conflict of interest on my part. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kitfoxxe I started a discussion on the talk page for the transition - Talk:Presidential_transition_of_Donald_Trump#Business_interests_section. This should be well discussed on the talk page I think, so that it's not an attack or in violation in any way. I didn't expect this page would be flagged as an attack page, my apologies to everyone for the extra headache.Victor Grigas (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the "headache" whatsoever, wikipedia is supposed to take things slowly and carefully, with an eye to writing neutral history-of-everything-that-matters. The page-title is the root cause of the trouble: within the topic-universe of Donald Trump, the president-elect thing is a modifier which is primarily chronological, aka only talk about stuff that pertains to him being the president-elect (and not stuff that pertains to his time in real estate or to his time in hollywood or to his time in pre-presidential political activism), but the kicker is the "conflicts of interest of" modifier which inherently says to talk about negative stuff (similar to a page-title like Trump Scandals or maybe Lies of Trump or similar such all-negative-all-the-time modifiers... compare with Awesome Things Trump Has Done and also Best Ideas of Donald Trump). Better to intermix these factoids with the broader coverage of other things in his topic-universe, so that we give the reader a properly-weighted and properly-neutral perspective on the WHOLE of the material under discussion. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the press coverage, I wouldn't call it undue or POV by itself. Ziko (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ziko Just because a topic receives massive press coverage does not make it Wikipedia-worthy; if that were the case, every major event in Kim Kardashian's life would have its own Wikipedia article MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be nothing more than a selective list of Trump's business interests, whose selectivity was done on a basis of a speculation or causal mention in a small number of sources that in some day in the future / in some unspecified way / under some unspecified circumstances / etc., having those particular business interests might be a COI. For a COI to be real, actual COI circumstances have to have arisen, such as some person or organization connected to the issue involving the alleged COI stating that such and such is a COI. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a major WP:BLP violation. A political POV-pushing WP:COATRACK article is not something that this project needs. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is more of an attack ad than a good Wikipedia article.--MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trump (as a businessman) had businesses around the world before he ran for president. Violates WP:BLP, especially when Trump isn't even the president. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While I'm not comfortable with inherently negative articles, there is enough well sourced material here to warrant a place in the main Donald Trump article, perhaps with some mitigating material included - there's a section there on sexual misconduct allegations - there should probably also be one for conflict of interest allegations, again given the extensive sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - It is impossible for an article like this to be neutral, especially when it deals with recent, controversial events. However, some of the content might be appropriate for inclusion in other Trump-related articles. -- LWG ^talk 16:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is about the biggest POV piece of garbage I've ever seen, and in fact the only article I have ever seen on a politician's conflicts of interest; this just screams bias. While his alleged conflicts of interests have been reported a lot, they are not nearly enough to justify an article on it. Plus, the president is exempt from conflict of interest laws. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sourced Stuff Upstream. The portions of the content which are well-sourced ought to be (per WP:ATD-M and WP:DEL5) merged into places where it will not suffer from perceived non-neutrality. Whilst it seems clear to me that good-faith user Victor Grigas did not intend to cause a headache (and clearly the topic *could* satisfy WP:GNG) the problem here is that the *segregation* of entirely negative content aimed at a specific individual into a *dedicated* article is inherently non-neutral. (See the WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline which says that article-titles / article-topics should not be constructed so as to "avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts... [a]ll POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building....") Some of the particulars in the article might also be non-encyclopedic, if they depend on weak sourcing, but there are at least three encyclopedic topics here that reliable sources are covering: #1, topic nepotism e.g. children playing a role in the administration (suggest merging into an appropriate paragraph of Presidential transition of Donald Trump, with a sentence or two at List of Donald Trump political appointments, and iff needed eventually perhaps also into Presidency of Donald Trump; after upmerging, the perceived-as-negative factoids will thus be contextualized by the vast majority of the non-nepotism-appointees. #2, topic of patronage e.g. major donors or supporters being given administration roles, again merge into those same articles. #3, topic of the Foreign Emoluments Clause e.g. potential financial gain to the officeholder via foreign governments which the Constitution explicitly prohibits (this definitely belongs in Presidency of Donald Trump and likely deserves a dedicated subsection with a neutral title along the lines of Presidency of Donald Trump#Personal Connections with Foreign Countries within the broader topic of foreign affairs, and concentrating on giving the historical context (Trump's campaign focus on the Clinton Foundation of course but I'm also talking about Martin Van Buren's gift of stallions from the sultan and other potus-conflicts) to show via context that this is a newfound twist on an old, old problem. So as a specific criticism, currently the Conflicts of interest of President-elect Donald Trump article says that Trump owns stock in Goldman Sachs, but in our other Trump-articles we report that Trump owned stock in lots of businesses prior to selling it all off in June 2016, a month after securing the presumptive nominee title and a month prior to formally becoming the nominee. Similarly, Trump is reportedly in the process of divesting his less-liquid business interests, an ongoing process that will likely not be finished in 2016, and we need to cover the chronology in one place, rather than bunching all the negative bits together into the COI-of-Trump fork. #4, topic of personal lawsuits and such unrelated to broader encyclopedic concepts of presidential politics, but which are still historically relevant as the person in question is both a billionaire and a president, should be merged into Donald Trump#Legal affairs and/or Legal affairs of Donald Trump (although that latter one sounds pretty non-neutral to my ears -- the title is 'better' but the content is still inherently all-negative). I may be missing some other merge-targets (Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 for pre-transition conflicts of interest and The Trump Organization for post-inauguration business-related conflicts come to mind), but this should give a general idea of what I think makes sense. Save the well-sourced content, but put it into existing broader-titled articles where it won't be a collection of negative-only-factoids, but rather a set of facts in correct context(s). Finally, although wikipedia does not pay attention to precedent since common sense is preferred, delete *is* the usual result of this sort of thing, and some of the arguments held at one of the Hillary Clinton deletion-discussions touched on Trump content, if anyone cares to have a look. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Looks like a smear propaganda to me. Fails WP:NOTPROPAGANDA big time. Also fails WP:COATRACK...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:21, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Tikon[edit]

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

Does meet any notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no reliable sources and I couldn't find any news worthy articles either. Fails WP:BIO. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any mention of him on Internet. Rogermx (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a load of drivel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bonakid[edit]

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

No evidence for notability . A line in the article on the company would be enough, but I don't think we even need a redirect. WP is not a directory, of brands or anything else. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteLacks evidence of notability, such as multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable independent publications. Edison (talk) 03:47, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Bota[edit]

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

A journalist, winner of a youth journalism award, but that's it. As a book writer - published one book, and it was co-authored with two other individuals. The sources present don't seem to provide in-depth coverage of her - what's there seems no better than the book publisher author's bio blurb. I don't think one minor journalist award (and yes, Axel-Springer-Preis is minor - it is not a household name, the article itself has notability issues as wrritten, and vast majority of recipients are red links here and on de wiki) and one-third book published merit passing WP:GNG or related criteria. At best, WP:TOOSOON - because with all due respect, this person is not doing anything worthy of an encyclopedic article, not yet at least. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing significant here at WorldCat or anything else for that matter, and quite honestly nothing actually significant as it is. Although GermanWiki has it, it's to my understanding GermanWiki has simply not maintained itself as it should recently, thus we'll delete this ourselves in English. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to keep: I created the article because I try to fill red links. I prefer to see a blue link to a stub like Alize Bota [de]. The one book was not just one book but a book that coined a term in political talk and news. If you have to delete it please userfy, because I will have no time to expand it until next year, working on a FA. She will then be back for women's history month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I fully support usefying. If a book is important, I encourage you to create an article about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of news sources, though most are in German. The verifiable claim of winning of the Axel-Springer-Preis is particularly significant. AfD is not cleanup. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GOOGLEHITS, please indicate which sources indicate notability. Your Google search returns lots of articles written by her, which don't give her any notability. In fact, of the first page of results, 8 are direct links to articles by her, one is not about Alice Bota but about "Alice, bota...", and the one remaining is apparently a forum(?). The second page looks like more of the same. Basically, for a journalist you shouldn't just point to Google News and say "but there are many hits for her name", as that only verifies that she is a journalist but otherwise is meaningless. Fram (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try reading Ritchie333's comment again: "The verifiable claim of winning of the Axel-Springer-Preis is particularly significant.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, by all means, try reading it again. The Springer award is a separate argument, which I didn't argue against. His other argument ("lots of news sources" with a simple Google News search) though is invalid. if someone makes one good argument and one bad, there's is nothing wrong with pointing out that one argument they used is bad. Fram (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks like SusunW has already covered this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, SusunW has done what you should have done. Fram (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ritchie333 and Pigsonthewing: (edit conflict with User:Fram... great minds, lol) You realize that those are primarily articles by her, not about her, and as such are no better than a WP:GOOGLEHITS, which is one of classics invalid arguments at AfD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of GOOGLEHITS, particularly the part that says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may be aware of it, but you clearly didn't understand it (or cared about it). The News search you gave as argument proves nothing about her notability. The individual sources given by SusunW, yes (and the subject is notable), but what you presented was a useless, lazy "just look at Google" argument. Fram (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ritchie333. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is now the lead editor heading the Moscow branch of Die Zeit [18]. Multiple in-depth sources in other languages. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. She was nominated for a significant journalism award in 2015 [29] and [30]. There are many more sources. I searched Alice Bota, her original name Alicja Bota, and Элис Бота because she is now in Russia. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most sources are in German, but the article over there appears stable and I see nothing here to argue that this individual does not pass WP:N. Her notability is established based upon multiple independent sources describing accomplishments in multiple areas of endeavour. Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. JAGUAR 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ritchie333. Agathoclea (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SusunW's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:07, 3 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koala Kumal (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced movie makes no claim of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proper English sources to verify. Fails WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:10, 9 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 Yenching Academy. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yenching Scholars[edit]

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

Article has read like an advertisement for over a year, and no plans are in place to fix it. Personally, I don't believe this subject matter warrants an article, that any article about it would inevitably be mostly advertising for the program. It doesn't yet have the notability of Rhodes scholarships etc, so it doesn't have the notability of its claimed peers. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Yenching Academy. if not outright delete. By themselves, they don't seem to have notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 2 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DriveU[edit]

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

Literally overblown and perhaps in fact one of the worst advertisements I've seen recently, simply because it has 48 PR advertising and republishing of the company's own advertising therefore none of that is anything but sheer attempts at making this article seem bigger and informative than it actually is, especially since the history itself shows nothing but clear advertising by advertisers, therefore considering WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, there's literally nothing to suggest we should continually tolerate this. The one user's contributions show they have actively advertised at other pages, including Abof which is currently at AfD. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical tech startup spam and no indications of notability or significance just yet; WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Way too soon to show any significance/notability.A perfect example of being WP:CITEKILLED without any real effect!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:06, 5 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 Polly Pocket . MBisanz ^talk 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Polly Fashion Doll. Jr. Miss Fashion.[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Much truncated version might be suitable for inclusion in an overarching article. This has a single reference that is not independent. Author removed an earlier PROD. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my article has very informative information, i don't understand what your talking about?? and my article is about a vintage fashion doll from the 1960s and information is very hard to find. most information I know ids from my doll collecting history and knowledge and I try including a link of a doll book were most collectors and people write blogs about fashion dolls.and vintage dolls ads. I believe this is very unfair and hateful to delete someones page for no reason. there are other doll pages of fashion dolls I don't understand the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The doll seems to have some sort of cult following, but I just can't find any sourcing that would substantiate a claim to notability, let alone an article, unfortunately. Perhaps the above editor can provide some kind of referencing, otherwise I don't see this being kept. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wrong content with the wrong sources at the wrong title, there's nothing to save, sorry. Guy (Help!) 01:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete. listen don't be rude it can be saved look at this website on the dolls http://kenbarbieclones1960s-1990s.weebly.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no wrong sources these are all real facts about the doll and you don't collect dolls to know the history or have collector friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the age of the topic and the fact that this product ceased to exist a couple of decades before anything started being published on the internet, it is likely that significant coverage in reliable sources isn't online, but in print, in old magazines and newspapers. If someone has access to Lexis/Nexis, that may help settle the question. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there are other wiki pages that talk about dolls like my page and they seem not to have a problem. and what kind of website is Lexis/Nexis what can they help me with? can they find access to old news papers and doll ads company's to give me the info I need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLovesManny29 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLovesManny29: first of all WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good argument for keeping. Each article stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what other Wikipedia articles may exist on similar topics. As for LexisNexis, we have an article on it: LexisNexis. It's an archive of print publications, but it isn't free to access. Some universities and libraries may offer access to it.

That said, @WikiLovesManny29:, is this topic related to Polly Pocket? It seems so. Perhaps this article about the vintage doll could be merged there. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Polly Pocket or merge both articles to a new article called Polly (fashion doll series). The general topic of Polly fashion dolls appears to be notable enough, with Polly dolls from multiple manufacturers at different times in the past, but probably each line of dolls wouldn't be notable enough for a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC
Merge toPolly (fashion doll series). this sounds like a great idea [User talk:Anachronist|we should Merge the page together and it will include both articles together it makes perfect sense.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 10 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 18:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BitBay[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Mark Biter (WP:SPA, creator) with the following rationale "The article has been updated with secondary, objective refferals to rewiews written by external parties.". I disagree. All sources are from the niche, wall-garden bitcoin online trade journals with dubious reporting standards. I see no reason to assume they are reliable and not republish press releases. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while there is no specific guideline for Cryptocurrency related articles, one view is that coverage in "trade rags" (Coindesk, CoinTelegraph, etc) is good, but not enough alone to pass notability tests. There should be at least one other instance of significant coverage of the topic in a non-trade reliable source. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Polish-language reliable sources could help in the standard AFD search... -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR: I am fluent in Polish and I didn't see anything except articles in Polish bitcoin zine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam; and presumably the OP is well versed in the Polish RS so if they could not find anything, then this is a rather hopeless case. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 3 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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian tribunals[edit]

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

No indication of context or notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This was punted to AFD after I removed an inappropriate Speedy A1 request. The context is obvious: it's a list of Canadian tribunals. As for notability, it clearly passes WP:LISTN. See the Canadian Encyclopedia entry on tribunals http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-tribunals/ or the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants webpage http://settlement.org/ontario/legal-services/courts/courts-in-ontario/what-are-legal-tribunals-and-boards/ or the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1.5/page-1.html for examples. I've suggested that the article creator add a lede to explain Canadian tribunals. Meters (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, failing to demonstrate notability is not a valid reason for deletion. This seems to be a failure of WP:BEFORE. Meters (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. But let's rename per List of tribunals in the United Kingdom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though the list may need a lot of work. There's orgs here that aren't identified as "tribunals" and may well not be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the article content may not be ideal, but there's no doubt that there are multiple notable entities that can be described as Canadian tribunals, so a list of this title should exist. The issue of what should be included is a content issue, not an existential issue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we see that in addition to the list, above, the UK has a main article, too: Tribunals in the United Kingdom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Canadian tribunals and Category:Ontario government tribunals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 3 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Tour (2006 documentary)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources about the programme or DVD itself, just where to buy it, and some primary sources confirming that the director has worked on other things. McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is a new programme of the same name on wikipedia and that has not been deleted - we made our film 10 years before the new one - please do not delete - we do not want the other programme to take precendce over our copyright

there is a new programme of the same name on wikipedia and that has not been deleted - we made our film 10 years before the new one - please do not delete

there is another film that uses the same title as ours - when our film was made [11 years ago] web connections were less common than they are now - most of the information about this work was in the printed press

the links are to credible sources such as the BBC, film distributors and online newspapers - the links are things such as award bodies who nominated the director for an award and broadcasters that prove that the director producer did in fact work on these other things and give credibility— Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGGER PICTURE (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to create a wikipedia article to protect copyright is a very odd thing to do, I can't imagine for one minute a judge taking that into consideration. There is absolutely nothing in the article that makes a credible claim to significance. Sounds like it was done on a shoestring and claiming that is was as an innovation to have the presenters mixing the sound and shooting the images themselves is a little far-fetched. there is nothing about the channels that it was aired on which suggests that it was never picked up...Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 5 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 03:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley (Keshia Chante song)[edit]

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

This article was proposed for deletion which was contested without a reason given. The proposed deletion rational was: "Does meet the notability requirements for songs" Sjrct (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am new to Wiki. I am trying to figure out how to properly create the format for this artists new song. it is officially released tomorrow but news sources are beginning to premiere it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantesource (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chantesource, welcome to Wikipedia! Before addressing the question of formatting the article, the question of whether or not the article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. An article has to meet the notability guidelines for it to be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if something is notable, it might be the case that it is too soon for inclusion as reliable sources are not yet available. Sjrct (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As Chantesource says, this song is starting to generate coverage, at least some of which is in WP:RS. See "The+Valley"+Keshia+Chante+#q=%22The+Valley%22+Keshia+Chante&tbm=nws. The reliability of the most common source, Singersroom, is unknown and has the appearance of a niche R&B fan news site, but BET certainly counts as a major third-party site. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:22, 2 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 speedily deleted by Sphilbrick per CSD A7 (article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Martinez[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Only notable award is for an ensemble/scene category, which is specifically excluded from consideration. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: Why is that excluded? --Gstree (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- A7 material, as scene related awards are specifically excluded from notability considerations per community consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7, as per above, article does not make a credible assertion of significance for the subject within WP:PORNBIO. Safiel (talk) 04:14, 2 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irexit[edit]

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

This article is entirely speculative and focuses on Apple's tax bill from the EU, by somehow relating it to people wanting to leave the EU because of it. This doesn't meet WP:GNG and is more or less (minus the Apple tax bill information) a dictionary definition, going against WP:NOT and WP:NEO. This entire article should be deleted, the odds are extremely low for this hypothetical situation to happen. At the very least, it should be redirected to Withdrawal from the European Union with a section on secession movements for each country. st170e^talk 18:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say or imply that the Apple tax ruling is the reason people want to leave, it just zays there was calls for it after the ruling. How is it a dictionary definition? It's far from it in my opinion.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Apollo The Logician: If a newspaper called for Estonia or Lithuania to leave the European Union, do you think it would be suffice to create a Wikipedia article based on that? st170e^talk 20:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that's not why the article was created. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the subject isn't notable considering 'Irexit' is just a play on words and it isn't a 'common name' as you have suggested. There isn't wealth of information on Irish secession from the EU. If you want to portray the facts and figures you have given in this article, then look at putting them elsewhere in a general Euroscepticism by country article. st170e^talk 20:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about a term, that's just the title of the article as that's what it's usually refered to as. There's enough information to form an article. Other articles about other states leaving the EU (France for example) have less information.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (or merge/redirect). Per nom, if we take away the unlikely/speculative "some people have speculated about this and given it a notional name" type content, and remove the WP:SYNTH (which links that speculation to the Apple judgement), we are largely left with a DICDEF. The suggestion that "there's a Frexit article with less substance" is in itself a near DICDEF of "other stuff exists". If the Irexit title is to remain, then as proposed, the limited remaining few sentences (after the Apple stuff and uncited quotes are removed) might be merged to Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#Parties_in_the_EU_advocating_or_considering_withdrawal. And this title redirected to that article/section. Guliolopez (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be redirected, maybe a redirect to Euroscepticism#Euroscepticism in the EU member states would be more plausible. st170e^talk 16:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't link anything to the Apple ruling, as already stated it just states there was calls for an Irexit after the ruling. Fixed the uncited quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 08:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles need to be notable for inclusion. There is barely any information on this article that is notable. st170e^talk 16:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping - Hi. It seems that there is consensus to simply merge/redirect the content to an existing article. Hence this AfD can likely be non-admin-closed. And the "merge/redirect" discussion addressed on the article talk page. Guliolopez (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider redirect to Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union Nom is certainly mistaken in giving "the odds are extremely low for this hypothetical situation to happen," as an argument for deleting. Certainly, there is serious and ongoing discussion / analysis of an Irish Brexit [31], [32]. Brexit was started in Jan. 2014 (back then, the odds were extremely low for this hypothetical situation to happen,) as United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union, instantly moved to Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union, and thence to Brexit. The question here is not really notability of the concept, but of the neologism. I see significant usage of Irexit in a gNews search [33] , but I can also see arguments for moving to Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union. However, given the serious albeit minority nature of withdrawal advocacy in Ireland, by whatever name, this topic is a keeper. Present article is paltry. Strongly urge @Apollo The Logician: to bring it up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, I didn't notice that the title had already been changed. Just keep and improve.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it there after I read your message Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Eh. Are we making changes in advance of the conclusion of the discussion? If so, then what's the purpose of this AfD? On the change itself, I personally have issues (that are perhaps discussed on the talkpage of the [now] renamed article) with the new name. We now say "proposed". Proposed by whom exactly? Proposed (as per the article) by two Conservative British politicos and a journalist? Really? Bluntly, based on this new title, I will respectfully be changing my recommendation to delete. ("Irexit is a word that some people used to mean X" has some value to the project. As a redirect. "Three people notionally suggested something that they have sod all influence over or stake-in" has zero value IMO. Guliolopez (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I echo your concerns Guliolopez, this hasn't been proposed by anyone so the title is completely incorrect. It has been discussed but there are no propositions; it's often been discussed as a hypothetical situation. I'm also taking issue with Apollo The Logician's recently article entry for Proposed referendum on Irish unity - this didn't just come about after the EU referendum result, it always has been an issue. I'll start an AfD on that article soon. With regards to E.M.Gregory - I didn't intend on 'the odds are extremely low' to become my argument, the issue was with the neologism of course. But your suggested redirect (which is now a reality) has other consequences as Guliolopez has laid out. st170e^talk 01:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many political parties have proposed it and there is a movement called Ireland Exit who have proposed it. Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we draw the line between this and WP:CRYSTAL? If I propose a ban on printed books and started a movement, would it deserve an article? There is clearly not enough material for an article. st170e^talk 20:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple notable groups joined that movement, it was reported on by many media outlets and discussed by major publishers, sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs) 20:44, 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 01:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a proposal with a lower case "p", a movement with e a lower case "m" advocating pulling Ireland out of the EU. As a topic, it has more than sufficient reliable sourcing to support an article. What such an article should be called is a separate quesiton from notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Delete and redirect to Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union, it's a fork of the same (very speculative) topic. One article is enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union is not a different article or fork. It is the same article. The original Irexit article was "moved" to Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union before this discussion was closed. There are not two articles to merge. There is nothing to merge. Guliolopez (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then delete and redirect is the only available option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN, I did a very modest rewrite, expand, source of article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On the basis of this rewrite (and subsequent edits), if we can address the issue with the title (the use of "proposed" being especially problematic to my mind), then I'll happily change my own response to this AfD. In honesty, as noted before, I think we can likely close this AfD (with a non-admin close), and deal with the content and titling issues on the relevant talk page. Or a move discussion. Guliolopez (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads as wp:CRYSTAL and WP:SYN to me. There is no cited material in the article to suggest that anyone notable is actually doing the proposing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article mentions two minor parties. There are more, Workers Party of Ireland, Éirígí, Republican Sinn Fein and IRSP for example. They can be incorporated in to the article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Irish politics but I can see enough online to indicate that all these three-men-in-a-pub outfits are rather less significant than the Monster Raving Loony Party (Provisional). It stinks of "let's do a press release to get some free publicity". Add WP:FRINGE to the challenge. This article is just a puff-piece by UKIPers with time on their hands, who have told each other so often that the EU is dead in the water that it must be true.

Fundamentally, there is no serious Proposal so Wikipedia should not contribute to the pretence that there is. Delete --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your 2nd iVote shouldn't be bolded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, the question here is whether the topic is notable. The quesiton of the best title needs to be discussed separately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every way I search, I find serious guys like Dan O'Brien, economic affairs columnist with Ireland's largest newspaper, Irish Independent taking this topic seriously "Europe's gilded cage: Is leaving the EU a realistic option for us?" [34]. And guys like Gerry Adams have had to take positions.[35].E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still in the news [36].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to something like Discussions of possibility of Irish withdrawal from the EU.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we create an article detailing Irish-EU relations rather than focussing on withdrawal? st170e^talk 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decently sourced. Not an entirely new concept in the EU. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply as this is quite feasible. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we have parallel articles Dutch withdrawal from the European Union, Greek withdrawal from the eurozone and Frexit dealing with a mooted French withdrawal. WP:OTHERSTUFF does not prohibit mention of parallel articles. Such articles exist even though ideas like Partition and secession in California may never go anywhere, because the secession discussions are inherently notable, and in the specific case of Ireland, good sources exist. On the quesiton of the best name for the article, we can punt to the article's talk page. It is the topic itself that is notable. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current title (Proposed Irish withdrawal from the European Union) is sensible and in line with other articles. Thisis a major political issue with international ramifications. There are plenty of good sources. This is more than current news, and will be of permanent interest. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination for deletion based on the fact that the page was moved from its original name and it was improved (not significantly, but that's not the point). The page still requires a lot of work since it was originally focussed on the sentiments felt after the Apple tax issue. But, I'm withdrawing the nom. st170e^talk 22:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's a current political issue. Alligators1974 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first glance I was leaning more to delete (or not voting either way), from the WP:CRYSTAL angle. However, this is well sourced, and a tangible discussion currently going on... where it ends up is speculation, but the discussion itself is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most important to notability is recognition by independent sources. A google search for "irexit" shows articles from media including Washington Post, Business Insider, CNBC, Irish Times, and Daily Express. It is certainly notable. I might suggest broadening the topic to Ireland-EU relations, which would maintain interest beyond current events. RichardMathews (talk) 20:36, 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 20:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richa Anirudh[edit]

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

Still literally nothing for actual independent notability and substance and the now-removed PROD stated this, I have not found anything but trivial mentions, naturally, for local news stories, and there's nothing to therefore suggest automatic notability from anything or anyone else; there's simply nothing else than this being a local news anchor. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable news anchor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep talk show host on a national Indian channel not a local one News18 India for at least 6 years with rs coverage such as here, here, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Claims no notability at all. Staying employed for 6 years is not notable. bollywoodhelpline.com is no way WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Just working for a national channel won't make her notable. Not enough secondary coverage...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:46, 9 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 PaRappa the Rapper. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Scream![edit]

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

No indication that it meets WP:NALBUM that I could find. I would merge it to PaRappa the Rapper but it is entirely unsourced. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PaRappa the Rapper: Merging the unsourced content is not helpful but maybe redirect? It's a plasible search term I think. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:05, 2 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lopez[edit]

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

The article does not demonstrate that Lopez meets notability requirements. The coverage is very heavily from an advocacy organization he was a part of and from articles he wrote. There is a lack of indepth, reliable 3rd party sources that we would need to demonstrate notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Newsmax, C-SPAN, Daily Caller are among the sources cited, not closely affiliated with the subject and among a larger balance of sources that present an independent voice on the subject. The marriage equality campaign was substantive beyond mere advocacy and included a SOCTUS Amicus Brief (signed by the subject). My Google search immediately yielded hits, including news items on the Our America Initiative tour with Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as well as Republicans for Johnson/Weld, both recent events. Subject is on a list of inluential Republicans that include Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. I'd add: search "Ed Lopez Republican" or a listed name variation. It's a common name (and could be confused with another libertarian who has his own Wikipedia article).--1975tampabayray (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I cleaned up his article quite a bit, to try to sort out what content came from secondary sources. There were a number of unnecessary uses of articles that he wrote that were used as sources, which just confused things. So, now there are fewer sources, but for the most part are secondary sources. The exceptions are a bio that is used in a number of places - and articles he's written, that mostly seem to be op-eds. I'm not even sure if that info should be in the article, though. I agree with much of what 1975tampabayray has to say, but this may be a WP:TOSOON scenario.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:29, 5 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Tsai[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable television personality. No sources except own website & IMDb. Quis separabit? 01:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable TV host.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 3 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Bai[edit]

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

I don't see evidence that this person meets any of the WP:ARTIST guidelines with the information in the article. She was named in LA Weekly as top 10 emerging artists ten years ago, but that doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Gnews is a bit hard to use because of conflicts, but even '"yun bai" artist' picks up nothing. Some of the references don't concur with the article (artslant seems to list fewer galleries.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added more to recognition for more recent additions since 2010. She joined numerous permanent collections of prestigious art museums in recent years as well as a few university and private collections between 2010 and 2013, and her recent contributions to #YesAllWomen in 2015 have been recognized in various articles about the social movement. Her name is romanized Chinese, so it's a little more common when Googling; for example, there is another Ph.D candidate with many google results and a panda with the name "Bai Yun" (her name backwards). GNews is not a good source because of many missing news results, especially if you compare the search results to her updated CV on her official website and follow her bibliography URLs. I only began writing this entry because her name was on the Wikipedia Asian Month/Women in Red (WiR) redlink list, and Yun Bai is indeed a relevant artist, considering the long history of exhibitions she participated in and articles about her work. Using GNews to verify her notability is a flawed approach and surely part of the reason why English Wikipedia perpetuates the gender information gap and has only nearly 17% of their articles about women. Artslant is not a comprehensive source for seeing all the galleries she's participated in because her CV is more complete (and well cited). Artists that are less mainstream keep better records of their notable mentions and exhibitions to prove their notability, so I added the citation to her website's CV to the Exhibitions title. --Lenawoo (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Solo exhibition in Atlanta Contemporary Art Center and group exhibitions in some additional museum as well as review by Brooklyn Museum grant passing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:17, 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 01:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found many search results with "Yun Bai Artist" including that (1) her work has exhibited in over six different venues, (2) her work has been reviewed in nine different journals (e.g. LA Weekly's Top 10 emerging artists; New American Paintings, Pacific Edition, No. 67), (3) the Brooklyn Museum found her work notable as well as multiple online publications Amethystdust —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:12, 5 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Nelson (executive)[edit]

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

Nelson was not a business leader at a high enough level to make him default notable. The coverage is not indepth enough with multiple indepth reliable sources to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject was appointed to a succession of roles within Novell but I am not seeing evidence of biographical notability in his own right. The closest to any depth of independent sourcing that I am finding is a 2005 piece from Network World – via HighBeam (subscription required) but that remains in-role, more about the firm than the subject. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete -- wikipedia is not a resume hosting service; and this one is closer to A7 than an actual resume. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur with A7 and it's clear it's only existing as a mere business listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 5 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Didier[edit]

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

Ms. Didier is a former mayor of a small Wisconsin town of around 40,000. All the current sources are from local sources so I believe she does not meet the politician criteria under WP:GNP. Dolotta (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

40,000 people is a small city, not a "small ... town". Having said that, I'm not sure she's notable anyway, based on WP:GNG and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Weak delete. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 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 01:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. G-search shows nothing beyond the role as mayor and county economic development position. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, nothing else for GNG. MB 01:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The city Didier was mayor of was a suburb of Milwaukie, so it was overshadowed by its much larger neighbor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 3 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 13:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park Kyungri[edit]

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

Not notable enough, no sources, very short article. Spike789 🇺🇸 00:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable person and promotional article. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Appears to meet WP:GNG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Adam9007 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Adam9007: some of those non-RS: WP:KO/RS#UR – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Finnusertop: I'm not familiar with WikiProject Korea. I've struck 6 and 8. Still might be notable though. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now according to WP:TOOSOON. Wait for some credible media coverage and then recreate it later. Also the promotional tone in which it is written makes the decision easy...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:22, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Figtree Grove[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. this is a very small shopping centre by WP standards. 21000 square metres. the coverage is either primary or very local and routine. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. No sources available to verify the notability...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:35, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Willis[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH as he has not won a major award, has not been inducted into a hall of fame, and has not gained any national sports coverage. He is also a backup quarterback for a team that is 9-51 in the last 5 seasons so its doubtful he will ever be Wikipedia's definition of notable. Rockchalk717 00:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCOLLATH as being a player for a notable team won't make him notable. Not enough coverage in media outlets...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:17, 9 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diran Noubar[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable documentary filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding enough to establish notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 4 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Destination: Dewsbury[edit]

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

This was originally prodded however someones removed the prod ~~for some bizarre reason~~, Anyway non notable film, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails FILM & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prod tag you added was removed because it is against policy to restore a removed prod tag, unless the page was blanked (which may then be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G7 in some cases) or replaced with vandalism content. Anyway, the film fails WP:NFILM as the Yorkshire Times reference is not reliable enough. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed creators couldn't remove them but I suppose they an, I'll strike that, Thanks,. –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 6 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 Procedural closure. Speedily deleted as A7 by C.Fred. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 01:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Lam Restaurant[edit]

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

Per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. Non-noteable restaurant. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable restaurant. Brianga (talk) 00:51, 2 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.

[1] Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Atrio-Barandela, F.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Bartlett, J. G.; Benabed, K.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M.; Bielewicz, P.; Bobin, J.; Bock, J. J.; Bond, J. R.; Borrill, J.; Bouchet, F. R.; Bridges, M.; Burigana, C.; Butler, R. C.; Cardoso, J.-F.; Catalano, A.; Challinor, A.; Chamballu, A.; Chiang, H. C.; Chiang, L.-Y; Christensen, P. R. (2013). "Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 571 (27): A27. arXiv:1303.5087. Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..27P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321556. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

[1]