Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 December	24 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 merge to List of Decepticons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insecticons[edit]

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

This grouping does not establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Decepticons. Article is poorly sourced and consists almost entirely of fancruft and original research. This isn't a wiki. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It kind of is :) Josh Milburn (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL at Josh Milburn - I didn't want to be the one to say anything. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Decepticons - fails the notability guidelines for a standalone article through a lack of coverage in reliable sources. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous editors, doesn't need a stand-alone article DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:25, 30 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 Dragonlance characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tika Waylan[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The two "reception" sources are fluff that take trivial quotes and puff them up as if they are important. They're nothing more than passing mentions in articles about the series and don't even deserve attention in the article. TTN (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I disagree with the nominator on the validity and usefulness of the sources, and I believe they help the article meet WP:N. Failing that, and without the discovery of more and better sources, the most severe outcome I can envision here is a merge to List of Dragonlance characters. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Dragonlance characters. Not notable enough for individual article, which is poorly sourced. No viable third-party sources on the character were found, so this hardly qualifies for WP:GNG unless I'm missing something. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 03:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be the IO9 and AV Club references, references 3 and 4 as of the current version, clearly labeled in the reception section. Was that what you were missing? Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware of those, yes, but just two sources do not notability make. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but "multiple" includes "two" in English. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Weak merge. Two reliable sources about the character and I'd agree that the GNG is met. But two articles about broader topics in which the character is mentioned is not sufficient. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- WP:GNG Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's about weight and scope. Those sources are trivial passing mentions with no larger context than describing the scenario of the story. It's like making an article on a random movie character based off of two reviews that each mention the character one time. That's not how things work. The easiest way to look at it is that these sources wouldn't even be used if this article had an abundance of third party sources to establish notability. These two are just being puffed up under the pretense of being important because apparently nobody actually wants to work on the few dozen D&D fiction articles that could actually be easily improved. 21:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
    - Jclemens, I agree with that two sources would be sufficient (as you say, two is multiple) if these sources covered the character at any length. The full extent of the sources' coverage, as far as I can see, is this:
      A V Club: "Charismatic characters abound. The barmaid-turned-swordswoman Tika—whose no-nonsense fierceness and agency, not to mention her job as a waitress, reminded me of my mom when I was a kid—gets a compelling story arc. It isn’t exactly as evolved in terms of feminism as it could be, but is still miles ahead of many popular fantasy novels of the era. And Tasslehoff Burrfoot, the group’s...."
      
      io9: "And they're joined the Plainsfolk Riverwind and Goldmoon, so-called "barbarians" in a strange land, the spoiled elven princess Laurana, and Tika, a barmaid who has been swept up in the action. ... And they aren't token female characters, not mere metaphors for the appeal of easy evil versus hard-won good. We meet plenty of interesting women along the way: the prideful Alhana Starbreeze, the tragic Silvara, and Tika, who in times of peace is more hearth mother than warrior, but when pressed in action will pick up a knife (or a frying pan) to defend herself and her friends). The women of Krynn are much like the men—no better and no worse. (Although some of them did tend to be a bit less dressed than their male counterparts in the artwork.)"
    - This is great for discussions of the character in a list (either freestanding or attached to the article on the novel series) but I'm not convinced that they meet the hazy "significance" bar in the case of the GNG. That said, there is some coverage, and what's there is good, so I'll change my vote to a weak merge. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per J Milburn. The sources are great, but I agree with J Milburn in that information can be attached to a discussion of the character in some sort of list rather than an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - J Milburn showed pretty clearly that the sources being found for this character are not substantial enough to support an article, being, in the end, trivial one or two sentence mentions in larger articles. Enough to support a merge, but not a separate article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Rafah[edit]

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

Article's premise is that he is politician but fails WP:POLITICIAN as seat was won by Vice Mayor: Teresa O'Neill. No longer notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not temporary. Sources that are provided provide a reasonble quality of third party coverage, meeting WP:POLITICIAN criteria 3. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was never elected and worked in a exceedingly minor role of caseworker. scope_creep (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to narrowly meet WP:BASIC as an advocate and notable 'local Afghan refugee success story,' if you will, in the area. Weak keep. There's just enough coverage, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's lead is indeed that he is a politician. It then goes to expand on his work and notability as an advocate. So it is not quite correct that the article's "premise" or thesis is only that he is a politician, as the nominator suggests. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole article is artifice. It gives the effect of making you believe he is a politician and that he some senior or past member of government. He is neither. It is a complete subversion. Tenuous notability, like name dropping, spun up into something bigger than it's really is. WP:Politician policy doesn't apply in this context. He never won the elections, and he worked as caseworker, outside the political stream, a problem solver essentially, so no undertaking the art of being a politician. No politiking. scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried about what to call him, just that he got enough press in the San Francisco Bay area, according to Gnews, that I thought he might barely creep past WP:BASIC, regardless of why. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per scope_creep. Fails WP:Politician, fails notability. He lost the election and holds no political office. Seems conflated to make him appear far more than he really is. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for a city council seat — and Santa Clara isn't a large enough city to confer notability on its city councillors even if he had won the seat (which he evidently did not.) But there's really just not much here on which to hang a "preexisting notability for other things" claim — "policy advisor to a US Representative" is not an automatic inclusion freebie either, and there's really very little substantive coverage of him besides purely local and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself. So there's simply no strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG for any other reason. As always, Wikipedia is not a free webhost for political hopefuls' campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spag Heddy[edit]

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

New article. Not enough to satisfy notability. Started recording in 2015 Fails WP:MUSIC and hence WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources. Speedy deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent coverage or sign of notability. South Nashua (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:25, 30 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. While there is one support for a merge, the content itself is a spinoff and therefore can be added back to the main article through basic reverts of the timming. The arguments for delete appear to have stronger foundation in policy. —SpacemanSpiff 00:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Income Tax Department (India) raids 2016-2017[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Junosoon (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A partial spinoff of a section of Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation bolstered into an article.I find little encycloepadic value of a list of all the persons who were raided by IT dept. oficials in a particular year.Wikipedia is not a chronological repository of all income tax raids performed in a particular time duration in a region and the details of the money thus recovered.and the raids are a notable aspect! Will the article-creator create similar articles about the income-tax raids that has taken place every year? Bombarding an article with numerous WP:RS hardly points to any notabilty on such general issues.Also see WP:NOTNEWS.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree : This article is about Income Tax raids,financial year 2016-2017 not just after 8 November 2016. 8 November 2016, notification has nothing to with Income Tax Raids, that notification was limited to legal character of banknote.

This article covers details about, raids conducted by Income Tax Department, which is an official work of Income Tax Department,.Junosoon (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon:-Maybe, you can start a page about all the incidents of thefts etc. that happened in India.(They are well reported by WP:RS and there are official investigations into every one of them by the concerned police department!)Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Request to nominator: I think this is borderline disruptive or Wikipedia:Competence is required, on nomination as Wikipedia:Content forking is not an eligible reason to nominated for deletion, the nominator can share views/ issues on talk page of article, which are welcomed if any improvement to article is needed.Junosoon (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon:-Well, I may be incompetent-at least definitely in my failure to bring every little issue to the WP:ANI!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Is this some sort of personal attack, you are creating here little issue to the WP:ANI, I think if that is the reason of your nomination!, it is getting very messy.If you have any personal problem discuss on talk page, or article talk page .Junosoon (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon:-There's a difference between sarcasm and personal attack! Let us not go off-topic but wait for the consensus of the community on the issue.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 11:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as NOTNEWS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:54, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant content fork and per WP:NOTNEWS. The article does not cover an actual notable coordinated law enforcement operation, but rather a list of raids that happened to be in the same time period (no surprise there). We already have an article on the overarching event and it's Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation (specifically, sections #Effects and aftermath and #Evasion attempts). Daß Wölf 00:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article under construction. In light of above discussion, the content forking complain A partial spinoff of a section of Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation has been addressed, by removing it from article. The new sections are under construction, and will reimproved as per discussion. Thanks for your cooperation. Junosoon (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge into Income Tax Department and create a redirect as this will benefit both the articles. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable in raids conducted by Income Tax Department in a particular year. It does not warrant a separate page. At best merge into Income Tax Department ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai: Did You check g hits, of Income Tax raids before commenting on notability. Junosoon (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon: 'Income Tax raids' is a very generic term. It will obviously have many results. No of Google hits is not a fool proof measure of notability. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai: Have you verified, contents in the article with, inline citations and sources in the article.! Yes or Not!?Junosoon (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mere existence of citations does not ensure notability which may warrant a separate page for 2016-2017 . If the modus operandi had been completely different from earlier years, that would atleast differentiate 2016-2017 from earlier years. As i may have pointed out at other places on wikipedia, anything and everything related to demonetisation may not warrant a separate page. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai:, It sounds, very discouraging for other editors, if you have some sort of conflict of interest or ownership of content in demonetisation ( which one!!) kindly be specific, As i may have pointed out at other places on wikipedia, anything and everything related to demonetisation may not warrant a separate pageJunosoon (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChunnuBhai: Your concerns for being specific on 2016-2017, have been answered, as this year operations have been a Joint Operations with other agencies, including data mining tracking .Junosoon (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint operations dont cut the ice for wikipedia notability, they happen all the time. None of the law enforcement agencies in any country work in isolation. I definitely dont have any ownership on any topic, but looking at your contribs, they are definitely bordering on mindless edits and page creations without content. eg The Indian Coinage Act, 1906 , Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 ,Ajmer–Sealdah Express 2016 accident ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The article has been addressed with issues of Content forking, notability issues and Not Newspaper, further improvements are welcomed.Junosoon (talk) 04:50, 28 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. "Keep" arguments have generally been pretty flimsy but there's no consensus for deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Soros[edit]

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

Based fromthe user's patterns and activities, there's enough to suggest this may have in fact been a paid advertisement and, about the article, the apPROD still applies because the fact there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. What's listed here is still trivial and unconvincing and searches mirrored this. There's no compromises if WP:NOT is involved and, in this state, this seems like a business listing exactly. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual the nominator is using the Eric Morecambe style of writing in his deletion nomination (all the right words—but not necessarily in the right order) so it's a bit difficult to pin down exactly what we are supposed reply to, but it seems that the contention is that this was produced for advertising purposes. Apart from any other consideration, does anyone really believe that George Soros's son needs to advertise on Wikipedia? The article cites plenty of reliable sources confirming notability, and is much less promotional than most of our articles about financiers and political donors. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.17.222.157, is that a vote to "keep"?--—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a comment that this shouldn't be dismissed as "a paid advertisement", but I'm unsure about notability independent of his father. It's very difficult to discern whether most of the available sources only discuss him at all because he is his father's son, or whether they are based on his independent notability but mention his father in addition to this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pases WP:GNG. Sources have significant coverage (whole articles) from The New York Times and the Washington Post. Stickee (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very skeptical that the notability may be derived from his famous father. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I am sorry, but I'm not getting the point. Are you saying that if the press he receives is due to his being George Soros' son, then that does not mean he is notable? Or, are you saying that you don't think his press coverage / all of the coverage is because he is his father's son?--—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of his press does seem to put him in context of his father (including article titles used in the article right now), but there is also press on HighBeam (28 articles) and in the news (104 articles) that ~~mention him without naming his father, George (or anyone named George, for that matter).~~that I queried to exclude "George" (but doesn't always exclude him). So, I am going to start there and see what can be built in the article to prove WP:GNG and/or other notability guidelines.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - strike out + added info in underline.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I am finding is that he is most noteworthy in his role trying to shape American politics - particularly eliminating the electoral college and putting organizations in place to offset the Supreme Court ruling that removed limits on the amounts of money that billionaires could contribute to campaigns and drive election results. There is plenty out there about that the effectiveness of his Friends of Democracy PAC aka the anti-PAC PAC (98 news items) and his role with Every Voice, National Popular Vote Inc., and other political advocacy groups IMO to meet WP:GNG, but I'm not enjoying the topic enough to build it up even though it might be deleted. So, I'll wait and see how the vote turns out.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources show he is notable independent of his father.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately the fact remains that the subject passes WP:GNG, even based on the sources cited. The article needs a serious rewrite though - perhaps the remedy here is a WP:PROMO tag. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took a question about the promotional tone to Talk:Jonathan Soros.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: Fiachra10003, Regarding your comment The article needs a serious rewrite though - perhaps the remedy here is a WP:PROMO tag at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Soros, what do you think sounds too promotional?—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Too many vague adjectives: "major" donor ... "sweeping" campaign finance reforms - without any specificity. Citizens United v. FEC was a "sweeping" campaign finance reform - has he supported that? 2. Unsourced statements like: "He supports movements like the National Popular Vote" 3. Weird stuff like ".. it and TCS Capital invested Rs. 30 crore in the online fashion retailer, largely mens wear. Yepme had a goal of obtaining $100 in funding in 2015.[11]" Well, a crore is a unit of measure that it fairly unintelligible to non-Indian readers; $100? - well, my 6-year-old has a goal of obtaining $100 in funding for a new Barbie Castle, too. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made these edits.—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources such as Reuters indicate notability and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing rather than deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The subject is George Soro's son and has an impressive flow of reliable sources. Nothing much needs to be said. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion293 How is this a policy-based comment? We never accept articles because of the father's occupation, and our stated notabilites state this, WP:NOTINHERITED and it's not negotiable with "nothing needs to be said". We haven't accepted articles for the Gates family children, so we can't simply say "It's notable because of their parents".

SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Did you forget to read the other half of the sentence? Because it's the reason why I chose to keep the article. Scorpion293 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Geo Soros article. Notability comes from the father. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think about what his notability looks like if we take is father out of the equation, and the work that he's done forming the PAC and other political advocacy work, I believe make him notable.

If his article content is merged into the George Soros article, what does that look like, an entire section for the son, pare all this info down to a couple of sentences?—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply citing GNG or "But his father is notable!" carries no weigh the concerns here concluding not only the fact this was by a multi-account spammer but the fact there's simply no genuine substance for the man's own convincibg article, apart from his father. It's fair to state the Keep comments have'nt been policy-based or countering the serious concerns here. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that his article should not be based upon his father's notability, per my statement I think about what his notability looks like if we take is father out of the equation, and the work that he's done forming the PAC and other political advocacy work, I believe make him notable.

I didn't just state GNG, I provided queries of that excluded the use of the word "George" HighBeam (28 articles) and in the news (104 articles) and articles just relevant to his Friends of Democracy PAC aka the anti-PAC PAC (98 news items), which have some overlap with the first 2 queuries. And now, queries based upon his name, without filtering, I get 1430 news articles and 260 books. There are 27 hits at the New York Times, some of which were written by Jonathan Soros.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will work on this today and hopefully his notability will become clearer. As an FYI, this article has consistently had about 200 hits per day and peaked at 2,100 in a day in November, not huge, but a number of people are coming to Wikipedia to read about him.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Added vote - saw I never voted.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lache railway station[edit]

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

Unsourced proposed railway station. No immediate pings on Google. Nordic Nightfury 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This station was once proposed long ago but is not in current plans. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saltney railway station#Present where this proposal already gets a sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails sources and notability guidelines. Doesn't exist and appears it's off the books for development in future. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Film Critics Society[edit]

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

A redlink editor has been going around over the last couple of days deliberately recreating multiple deleted pages of non-notable, minor, regional film-critic groups that get no coverage for the organizations themselves and seldom get their awards mentioned in national press. WikiProject Film consensus in 2015 was to relieve the bloat of non-notable awards in film articles. But publicists like to tout awards and fans of particular films love to heap as many awards onto those films' pages as they can, no matter how minor or meaningless. By recreating multiple deleted pages in one day, that redlink editor is disrupting Wikipedia. Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are third-party sources that indicate the notability of these awards. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources other than the one primary source. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 331dot. Anyone can make a group or an awards show, doesn't mean that it means anything. South Nashua (talk) 13:07, 27 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zycus[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, as tagged since January 2014. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NCORP as per the sources in the article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:CORP standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garikapati Subba Narasimha Sastry[edit]

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

Quick Google search provided no clear notability, at least on the person with this name within the article (apparently someone with a comparable name is a notable chemist?) I'll withdraw the nom if something can be found, but the article's been up for a week. That information probably would have been added by now. South Nashua (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:13, 27 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) 09:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Underhill[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability, Subject seems to fail WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR. A Google search produced this article and an Amazon hit for her books. News search had no results. The source listed in article and the external link do not mention subject at all. CBS527^Talk 20:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her work appears to have made negligible impact in books or scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I think that there's enough information to expand the article a little, but I am not seeing a clear sign of notability based upon the news, book, scholar sources.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails academic and author. Not notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - assuming she was chair of a department, that would only be one factor towards WP:PROF. I'm sympathetic.... Bearian (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret Maxime[edit]

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

PROD was removed by author. Non-notable film, Fails GNG and NFILM. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The infobox states that the release date is TBD, which implies that the film hasn't been released. Unreleased films are usually not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Royal Book Company[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Could not find any secondary source mentions. agtx 19:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, fails notability guidelines. Reads like an advert. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails notability KylieTastic (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 DVD-9 games[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Trivial inclusion criteria composed of original research. Entirely unsourced and not a set that is covered by reliable independent sources thus failing WP:LISTN. The1337gamer (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. This is a trivial trait of PS2 games, unsourced, and not commonly covered by reliable sources. (Occasionally they may mention it, but I'm guessing if you compiled a complete list, you'd only be able to source a handful of them.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:LISTN Spiderone 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Mendoza[edit]

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

This page was clearly created by the subject for self promotion and is not a notable individual. In the two films the subject is listed in, multiple of her co-stars who are more successful do not have a wikipedia article. If every actor in any small to no budget film was listed as "notable" for a wikipedia article, there would be thousands of useless articles. GeraldoAbbson (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe a TOOSOON, but definitely not yet given what's there and what's likely out there. South Nashua (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 CD-ROM games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Trivial inclusion criteria composed of original research. Entirely unsourced and not a set that is covered by reliable independent sources thus failing WP:LISTN. The1337gamer (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. This is a trivial trait of PS2 games, unsourced, and not commonly covered by reliable sources. (Occasionally they may mention it, but I'm guessing if you compiled a complete list, you'd only be able to source a handful of them.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial trait of PS2 games, consequently failing the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:N - consequently, not notable. In addition, verifiability is an issue - however, it is possible if one was to go to every listed games cover possibly. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Glendaruel#Music. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Glendaruel Highlanders[edit]

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

No particular claim to notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glendaruel#Music. The article is too small, it isn’t well sourced, so I do not think it should stay as a separate article. However, as a paragraph in the Glendaruel-article (which is partly already there) it can be a useful addition. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jeff5102 to Glendaruel article. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VY Orionis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO. Waaaay below naked eye brightness. No entries in popular catalogues such as HR. The current sources are a Simbad link, a 1918 articles about a different star, and some surveys that happen to mention this star among many. I couldn't find anything more compelling, scientific or popular. Previous PROD removed by creator. Lithopsian (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: concur with nom. No significant coverage found. Praemonitus (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front Montgomery[edit]

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

Was de-prodded without reason. Other than press releases like marketwire and another marketwire in the Philippines New Digest, a personal bio, and a commercial link, the search engines returned zero hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lots of coverage in Thai, even long after her active years. Most are celebrity gossip pieces though. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:50, 28 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Aviation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In my mind, this article is blatantly promotional and should be deleted. Do others have the same opinion? Rogermx (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I know that invoking TNT is not popular in AfD discussions, but this article is this bad. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads as though its a resume for the company. Per WP:PROMO, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no assertion of non-notability in the nomination. Edit it down to remove anything overtly promotional. The first part at least is not that bad, i haven't read it all. Don't waste other editors time with cycle of AFDs and re-creations, and don't try to force other editors to clean up upon your demand either. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --do ncr am 02:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I have read it all and most of the article is strictly promotional material. Frankly, I don't think it is a waste of time to rid Wikipedia of articles that violate its rules. Rogermx (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Doncram and WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If the information comes back, then deal with the users that are violating the rules directly. - BilCat (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- promotionalism is a perfectly valid rationale for deletion. WP:PROMO is a policy, while WP:GNG is a guideline. The former trumps the latter. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a policy regarding article content, not necessarily a reason for deletion. In this case, there is an older version to revert to which ought to meet the policy, and that has been done. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked and restarted from an old revision. Daß Wölf 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with old version provided by Daß Wölf. Thank you for your intervention. Rogermx (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demon lord. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyxali[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Demon lord, where she is already listed. An extremely minor fictional character that has only appeared in a very small handful of D&D products, and is mentioned in zero non-primary sources. There is so little information about this character, even in the D&D books she appears in, there's really nothing here even worth merging into the redirect target. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Mississippi[edit]

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

Not only worse that this was an apparent paid advertisement by a paid user, but all of the sources are simply local and trivial, coming from local attention, and the 2 newly added sources, WashingtonTimes and AssociatedPress are in fact the same one, the same local news article, so if that's honestly the best we can add, it surely emphasizes this is simply a locally active group. I myself could've added any other local news stories as shown by GoogleNews, but none of them establish actual substance and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else, regardless, especially now that WP:NOT applies in that we're not a PR webhost, damned be any attempts at it. SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. The topic also passes WP:AUD, having received coverage in national news sources, such as Associated Press and USA Today. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Associated Press
USA Today
DeSoto Times-Tribune
The Commercial Appeal
The Clarion-Ledger
Jackson Free Press

Comment and analysis - As my nomination and searches show, all of this is still local news stories including the USAToday which explicitly states "From local Clarion Ledger, through Associated Press", hence not an actual major source apart from it being republished local news. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The byline of the USA Today article states the headline of the article and "Geoff Pender , The Clarion-Ledger". It does not state "From local Clarion Ledger, through Associated Press" anywhere on the page, nor does it have any mention of the Associated Press (AP). USA Today felt that the article deserved national coverage, and published it. Also, this article was originally published by the AP. The coverage received still meets WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - USAToday published it because Gannett owns both USAToday and the ClarionLedger (a known fact), hence why it was bundled together; even then, USAToday in fact accepts tips for publishing so anyone could've suggested it for publishing, hence not a contributing factor for notability. Next, AssociatedPress itself, as the name shows, is a group of news and their journalists that will compile news together, hence not always a separate source. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article from Associated Press above was written by AP staff writer Jeff Amy. This article is not written by a compilation of authors; only one author wrote it. It is a valid article that serves to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, the sources I provided above are examples; more are available and easily found. The topic continues to meet WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources already showing in the footnotes. This group is the subject of multiple pieces of substantial, independently published sources of presumed reliability. These don't have to be the New York Times or Time magazine, these can be local. Carrite (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True & Co.[edit]

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

There's enough here to suggest the authoring user was a paid advertiser and the fact this only focuses with what the company wants to advertise to clients and investors, that's unsurprising; my own searches found nothing but a trivial mention from over 3 years ago. None of this establishes actual substance because it's all published or republished or simply triviality, and it's non-negotiable when considering WP:NOT. There's no compromises with such blatancy damning as "The company uses a questionnaire and associated algorithm to recommend bra sizes to customers" and "True & Co.’s innovation is to put a batch of bras into customers’ hands so they can choose what fits best". SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The New York Times
Fortune
Cnet
Fast Company
Entrepreneur
Glamour
Bloomberg News
New York Post
Fortune

Comment and analysis - Not only are these the same sources in the current article or also found in GoogleNews I showed above, the other ones are clear interviews such as Fortune, NYPost, Bloomberg and Glamour; Glamour itself is a clear gossip column, advertising the services to its viewers, but then the NYPost (which is notoriously known for such gossip entertainment columns, then is a clear "life story" of the business owner herself. When there's a sheer consistency in the same interviewed business information especially about flashy specifics about the business and owner, as these articles show, it shows only one person authored it and it's the company itself. Especially, because we've established as it is, when there's such a noticeable space of time between time, such as a year or two in between, it shows it was obvious attempts at needing PR, not that there was ingenuity. Even if there were doubled the amount of this, it would still not mean anything if it's still naturally PR, exactly why we use WP:NOT as it explicitly states "Wikipedia is a PR collection for company information, specifics and other business information as if in a YellowPages". SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that contain some interview content, but also significant non-interview prose, are not interview-only as some sort of default. It is common for news media to discuss matters with subjects they cover; it would be quite biased for them not to. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability shown by NA1000's analysis above. ST's analysis is illogical and biased. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adam Barnett[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has only appeared in 1 film (as noted by IMDB). Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor. Article is bloated with content unrelated to subject and includes his website as a source. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long list of name-dropping does not bring this up to notability. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 28 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. Uncontested after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ASD STAN[edit]

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

Hard to find any third-party sources online, so notability is an issue. There is a passing mention here and it is ISO-affiliated but that is all I could find.

Searching under the old acronym AECMA gives this which is a start but still falls well short of notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While no doubt important within its technical/engineering user environment, has not generated significant, reliable, independent coverage. Importance is not a guarantee of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Rajputs[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that it is notable Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources provided and I couldn't find any myself; the article appears to be original research Spiderone 14:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't prove it, but based on the formatting, and from my six years' experience as an admin, this appears to be a cut and paste job, and possibly is a copyright violation. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 28 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 the first LGBT holders of political offices. Ultimately this is a matter of strength of argument: That this is a WP:CFORK of List of the first LGBT holders of political offices is a strong policy-based argument, and the "keep" opinions do not address it. What they should have done is argue, based on citing reliable sources, why the topic of all transgender officeholders (not just the first per office) is a separately notable list topic per WP:LISTN. Such arguments, however, were not made. Sandstein 13:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elected Transgender Officials Around The World[edit]

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

Delete. While I understand what the creator was trying to do here, it's a definite misfire in actual execution. For starters, this list doesn't just include people once: if they got reelected to a second or third term or to a different office, they get relisted a second or third or fourth time for each reelection rather than just once. And secondly, in order to pad the topic out as much as possible this is also including non-notable positions like non-profit-organizational boards of directors and internal political party committees and civil servants and constituency assistants and unsuccessful candidates, rather than restricting itself to actual political officeholders. (Tangential aside: how does somebody try this hard to shoehorn Jamie Lee Hamilton and Micheline Montreuil into the Canada list, yet somehow miss Estefania Cortes-Vargas?) Noteworthy firsts should certainly be included in List of the first LGBT holders of political offices, but there's not much encyclopedic basis for a mess like this to stand alone as a separate list topic. And even if it were to be kept, this would not be its correct title, either. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with all of your points above that this article has some pretty serious flaws, but I think it would be better to improve the article rather than deleting it outright. Changing the format to a table (something like that in List of elected and appointed female heads of state), and having strict, clear standards for inclusion would do a lot to bring this article up to Wikipedia's standards. mineffle ^(talk) 07:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we need to maintain it as a standalone list, separate from List of the first LGBT holders of political offices? Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearcat. I am sympathetic to the issues involved as a gay man and a Trans* ally. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Valid encyclopedic list. The specifics of the execution are an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - That said, this is a clear fork. Carrite (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's a subject that would be too limited and diluted if pushed into an article of firsts even though many of these people are indeed firsts. Transgender elected officials are noteworthy for being openly trans in extremely anti-trans times, although some parts of the world are getting a bit better. I found this list fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:F47A:CA39:9FBE:B5A0 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Red_kite#Observation. Previous closure was way out of process, but the end result seems unlikely to upset anyone. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red kite feeding in Wales[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Following deletion discussion on November 18, resulting in merge, merge has now been completed into Red kite#Observation. Mountain^cirque 15:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The previous Afd was a non-admin closure to merge, by Davey2010, after just 1 day, with two merge !votes. Which I wouldn't have done. But anyway. The nominator (of both Afds) then added a single sentence to Red kite#Observation. None of this was contested. Does the nominator simply want to redirect to the target article now? If so, we don't need an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that about covers it; there wasn't much more than one sentence's worth of additional material. Suggest just replacing the former article with a redirect now.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it myself, right now, if the previous Afd had been allowed to run its normal course. But the quick non-admin closure gives me pause, so I'll let someone else do it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Pagel[edit]

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

The bauble from the Cannes Corporate Media & TV Awards seems to be a claim of notability, but imo it's too niche. WP:GNG. Google hits all self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant abuse of Wikipedia as a resume host, based on how it is written. No credible allegation of notability has been raised; only one source. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are We There Yet? (London Elektricity album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM criteria and no claims of notability as per WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article, added sources and linked to other pages. Robcuiper (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Monson[edit]

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

No apparent notability outside of YouTube. Appeared in only two independent films, both of whom were YouTube-related. Sources solely include YouTube and IMDb. Fails WP:ENT for the most part. Throast (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YouTube performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable YouTube "celebrity". Gee, I can sleep at night now knowing that Wendy's won't respond to his tweets. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Klein[edit]

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

I'm not sure I can speak for the book, but I find no evidence of notability for the author this article is about. No sources meeting WP:GNG, and nothing meeting WP:BIO. The USABookNews History/Media/Entertainment award appears to be mentioned online almost exclusively in the context of this book or one called Forgotten Hollywood, and appears to be from an award mill for self-published books: "We Picks Winners! Our panel of industry judges continues to deliver fantastic results on an annual basis! Hundreds of titles have received national media coverage and increased sales as a direct result of placing in the The Best Book Awards!" There are only eight Google hits for "Independent Publishers Regional Book Award" (three of them in the context of this author), so that isn't likely to be a notable award. Largoplazo (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IPBA award actually does appear to be noteworthy; we have an article about it, and I've added a citation for it. That said, getting a tie for silver medal in the U.S. North-East region isn't exactly an amazing accolade. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was originally written as IPRBA instead of IPBA. As far as the IPBA goes, in 2007 they gave awards in 65 national categories alone[1], before even getting to the regional ones. So I'm not sure how much we'd consider second place for one of the regional awards to contribute to a finding of notability. Ah: I now just found a source for the award in question. If I counted correctly, there are eight U.S. regions (and two Canadian ones), and both fiction and nonfiction awards for each region. Largoplazo (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed, they give out far too many awards for a second-place tie winner in one of eight regions to really be considered noteworthy. Just figured it was worth pointing out that the award wasn't entirely illegitimate. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only indication of notability is the regional IPBA award, which just isn't enough on its own. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability guidelines. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ficha Manzi Yako[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. - Mr X 12:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrX. Fails WP:NSONG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Plaza Shopping Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit. A 1 storey with 22,000 square metres is very small by WP standards LibStar (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Distinct lack of coverage from secondary sources. Even though this article has only just been created, its size is unlikely to ever make it into a noteworthy article. Ajf773 (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guidelines. Agree with Ajf773 that, while this is a new article, it's unlikely to develop further. Wikipedia is not a platform for publicity. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undateable John[edit]

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

This is one of two articles that were written in order to promote Kash Hovey. A look for this film shows little coverage beyond some announcements that Joan Jett was going to produce the movie. There hasn't been any true coverage for the movie since 2013, so it wouldn't pass WP:NFF any time soon and likely won't pass until if/when it releases. (On a side note I'm unsure as to how big Hovey's role actually is, given that his name doesn't even show up on the main IMDb page until you go to "all cast", which implys that it's likely a minor role.)

I recommend salting this to prevent recreation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, full disclosure: I've blocked both of the accounts that have been editing/creating the Hovey articles for reasons that are listed on their talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, barring any evidence of actual attention by reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't IMDB Lite. --Calton | Talk 07:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Calton. Well said. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little St. Nick Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Little St. Nick Foundation

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

All sources are created by the organization itself. No sign it is in any way notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Found one local, independent source, FoxNews-St. Louis news report, but otherwise, not generally known. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RLMDL[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a musical project with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and very little evidence of reliable source coverage to support it -- six of the ten references here are to primary sources like his own website, his own Bandcamp and the record label, while two of the remaining four are to blogs -- and of the two that still survive that disqualifier, one (NOW) is a purely WP:ROUTINE concert listing, and the other (Impose Magazine) just gives them a blurb's worth of coverage in a "potpourri of several topics" sort of article. This is simply not substantive coverage for the purposes of passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 8 December 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) 08:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good.Co[edit]

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

unreliable PR sources only, and a promotional article. Written by now-banned paid editor DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nom said, PR article. WP:PROMO -- Dane ^talk 01:29, 10 December 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) 08:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to StepStone, which acquired the company. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MCARaTS[edit]

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

One-sentence stub; all information is already contained in the Atmospheric radiative transfer codes table. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 16 December 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) 08:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Don's Toys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources except a broken link that was gone at least since 2012. Even if the store had a celebrity clientele, that wouldn't automatically translate into notability, which is not inherited from related topics. This was nominated for deletion nine years ago and kept because apparently back then the one source was still available, but it hasn't gotten any better, and there's no indication that it can get any better. Huon (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. No news results found. -- Dane ^talk 01:30, 10 December 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) 08:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources found to provide the significant coverage needed to pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. GAB^gab 23:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hawgood[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a creative professional with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The strongest notability claim here is that she was one member of a band which competed on but did not win a reality show — so even the band don't even clear WP:NMUSIC yet, let alone individual members of it. This is based almost entirely on primary sources and YouTube videos rather than reliable source coverage in media; the only source here that even begins to count for anything toward notability being a "local girl gets on TV" piece in her own hometown newspaper, but that's just not enough to give her a WP:GNG pass. Further, there's a likely conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Thedancer2016". As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which reality show competitors get to give themselves articles just because they exist — reliable source coverage in media, supporting a claim of notability that passes an actual inclusion standard, must be present for a Wikipedia article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have a number of different third party Citations other than Britains Got Talent194.70.64.250 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed the reasons why the citations aren't demonstrating what's needed: almost all of them are primary sources, not reliable sources, and the two that are reliable sources aren't demonstrating notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you're right as you have much more experience on Wikapedia than me but I think there are a lot of Wikapedia pages where the person is maybe not notable enough to meet with Wikapedia guidelines. Are you going to delete them all?194.70.64.250 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Lizard (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lakota Thunder[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. Not notable, has no sources. Evking22 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:28, 27 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 Longmeadow, Massachusetts. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Middle School (Longmeadow, Massachusetts)[edit]

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

Unreferenced and so making no claim of notability. However, middle schools are not usually considered notable anyway under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference Kangarooman17 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the municipality since the school district article doesn't exist. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longmeadow, Massachusetts unless or until an article is created for the school district, per SCHOOLOUTCOMES and guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longmeadow, Massachusetts per longstanding precedent on middle schools and the lack of any independent notability of this particular school. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. If something specifically notable about the school occurs, an article can always be created then. South Nashua (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longmeadow, Massachusetts per longstanding precedent on middle schools or create the page for Longmeadow School District and redirect it there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 30 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 redirect to Child grooming. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional grooming[edit]

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

One source is not enough to make this article work. The article is an essay, and involved in lots of statements that push a particular point-of-view. Considering that there are regularly cases of female school teachers charged with sexual relations with students at least in the United States, although probably much less common than male school teachers so charged, the whole framing of the subject just does not work. We have a much better and actually based in sources and clear definitions article at Child grooming. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Child grooming p b p 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Child grooming. This is an essay. It could be used to source Child grooming, but I don't think it should be merged as is. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Krok[edit]

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

A businessman whose main claim to fame is dodging the taxman. There are sources, but I think he's a WP:BLP1E so we should probably avoid having an article about him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at this about 4 times. I think it's a delete. scope_creep (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 27 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. Uncontested. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GradeAUnderA[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Youtube personality article previously deleted, no improvement since. Can't see it passes WP:GNG Only one passing reference to a disagreement with another youtuber. Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 26 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 someone once told me "what you consider listcruft" could be of encyclopedic value to someone else", Aynwho there's not really been a sufficient rationale put forward as to why this fails LISTCRUFT & INFO, Anywho consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by motor vehicle production in the 2000s[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is unsourced and is WP:LISTCRUFT. It also fails WP:IINFO by being a extensive listing of statistics. -KAP03 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not unsourced (sourcing is identified in the article), not "cruft" but rather a legitimate industrial statistic recorded in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is this article List of countries by motor vehicle production in the 2000s and List of countries by motor vehicle production in the 2010s separate articles? They could both be merged into a new article with a title such as List of countries by motor vehicle production by year because both articles are on the same subject. KAP03 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List is sourced, no reason is given why nominator considers it as WP:LISTCRUFT. --Jklamo (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lot of coverage for this sort of thing. Encyclopedic information. Dream Focus 03:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosque monuments[edit]

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

Without clear list criteria, this list looks like WP:OR to me. The article's sources do not seem to support the general subject of "mosque monuments", if such a thing exists in the first place. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the definition of "mosque monument" nor selection criteria have been established using RSs. Eperoton (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the phrase places of worship that usually feature highly skilled calligraphy is not encyclopaedic. Do the mosques not included feature average skilled or poorly skilled calligraphy? Clear WP:NPOV issues and is probably a case of WP:LISTCRUFT also. Spiderone 13:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that inclusion or exclusion from this list is based on reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS. WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT. Looks like a directory,which WP is not. WP:Notadirectory. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melaka United F.C. President and Youth[edit]

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

As a youth side they obviously don't play in any of the national cup competitions meaning the article fails WP:FOOTYN, and there is insufficient coverage independently of the senior side to establish notability per WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The statement of the youth side don't play in any national cup competitions is totally false. The youth side play in the U21 and U19 national reserve or development and youth league system in Malaysia. The reason lack of specific article in mainstream media regarding the team was because they did not perform well in the competition compare to others team. It also must be noted, the club has recently change its name as part of privatisation effort to Melaka United from its old name of Malacca (Malay: Melaka) which can be considered generic and make any reference about the team in the internet harder to track as some news outlet still use the old name and most of the news was published in the local regional hardcopy newspaper rather than online. However, all information regarding the competition can be obtained directly through the Football Association of Malaysia website as they are the body which manage the national youth competition. If the article even considered for deletion, then I believe all other reserves and youth team page in European league such as Chelsea F.C. Reserves and Academy also should face the same fate then. JebatMalaya (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just because the information exists out there, doesn't mean that the article should be created; the keep argument above is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 13:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Otach[edit]

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

Autobiography of dj who does not appear to meet notability criteria. Of the 2 current citations, one is an interview (which can't be used for notability), and the other is a brief mention (not sure it's even a RS). Was de-prodded by the subject of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:04, 26 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. The way these things work, it'll get re-created sometime tomorrow anyway. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in archaeology[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is WP:TOOSOON for the article to exist because the article has no actual content. -KAP03 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:Hoax. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax? How does that apply? – Joe (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that the article has no actual content. I don't think the article is a hoax, because it doesn't say anything false. It is already 27 December 2016, so wouldn't it be simpler to keep the article instead of deleting it and then recreating it in 2017? Gulumeemee (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe the creator jumped the gun a bit, but this is obviously going to fill up soon enough. Like Gulumeemee I don't see any reason to waste time deleting and recreating it. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic is not notable; it's an empty list. Not only should we not evaluate the quality of Wikipedia in number of articles, we should not be making articles simply to be a blue-link in a navigation template. Articles like these are born of recentism and smack of citizen-journalism in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2017 starts in a matter of hours. We're going to need a top level category for 2017 in this field anyway. The above comment that events in archeology amount to 'recentism and smack of citizen-journalism in violation of WP:NOTNEWS' is nonsensical. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I consider anything that happened less than 5000 years ago recentism, and Wikipedia is rife with it. – Joe (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Chen[edit]

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

Delete per Not notable. Small business owner who went to Harvard on ROTC scholarship. Failed bid for Congress. Community college trustee. Not a professor or educator. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Notable. Jay Chen appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight/Fox News on December 22 to debate the subject of affirmative action. The segment enraged Tucker Carlson viewers who have attacked him on social media including Wikipedia. On December 23 SW3 5DL proceeded to delete most of the existing information on the page, then submitted it for deletion as "Not Notable" after deleting nearly all of the content. Jay Chen is an elected official who has been invited to appear on Fox News and The Daily Show to comment on topical matters. [2] Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to delete his page are an attempt by those who disagree with him to silence him and limit public knowledge. Please check the revision history beginning December 22. Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an outrageous claim, perhaps an attempt to intimidate editors, that has no sources, let alone veracity. Much like the entire article. He's not notable. I cleaned up the article which also violated WP:SYNTH and failed WP:Politician. Chen did appear on Fox News, as a small business owner, and I found nothing online that suggests he's been attacked by anybody for anything, other than an early attempt to recall him from being a school board member that was later withdrawn. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editors note: Wikiwatcher appears to be a SPA and may have a relationship with the subject. [3]. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is on the board of tustees of a college and was on a school board. Neither of these are notable level political positions. He ran for congress, but was defeated. In almost all cases defeated candidates for the US house are not notable, and there is no clear indication that he is an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hatting disruption; User blocked at ANI

Comment Criteria for notability include: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Jay Chen has appeared on the BBC, The Daily Show and Tucker Carlson Tonight, besides numerous print media. This is documented in the history that was deleted by SW3 5DL shortly after Jay's appearance on Tucker Carlson. Attempts to delete Jay Chen are an unfortunate extension of partisan attacks that have no place in Wikipedia.Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major local political figures who have been the subject of significant press coverage. In other words, the coverage has to be about him; appearing as a talking head in coverage about other things is not the kind of "coverage of him" that it takes. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all in the history. SW3 5DL began deleting this entry after Jay Chen's appearance on Tucker Carlson. Jay Chen's appearance has resulted in racist attacks online and erasing this page appears to be an extension of this attack. He did not appear as a small business owner, he appeared as an advocate for Harvard university and is being attacked for his position on affirmative action. Previous partisan attacks against Jay Chen were all referenced in this entry before SW3 5DL deleted them. Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bias of SW3 5DL Exposed - : One of the edits made by SW3 5DL, since deleted by him state this: "That's an outrageous claim that has no sources, let alone veracity. Much like the entire article. He's not notable. I cleaned up the article which also violated WP:SYNTH and failed WP:Politician. Chen did appear on Fox News as a small business owner who supports discrimination against Asians and that has nothing to do with the afd." In arguing that Chen "supports discrimination against Asians" he is parroting the partisan talking points made by Tucker Carlson and his supporters, and has revealed that this attempt to delete is purely political. Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further Bias of SW3 5DL Exposed - A previous edit made by SW3 5DL can also be found in the history, in which SW3 5DL proves himself to be a watcher of Tucker Carlson who agrees with Tucker's viewpoints and disagrees with Jay. Therefore the attempt to delete is personal and political. Full text of his comments show that SW3 5DL is choosing to delete Jay Chen because he disagrees with his political views. SW3 5DL is attempting to practice censorship: "That's an outrageous claim that has no sources, let alone veracity. Much like the entire article. He's not notable. I cleaned up the article. It conflated his school board run as if it were some political contest, which it is not. It also made claims that were not sourced at all. It gave the first glance impression that he was a member of the U.S. Congress. It gave him a politicians info box when he's not been elected to any office except school board or as a trustee. It's not policy to create pages for every person who is a former school board member. It conflated him at every turn and relied heavily on articles from a college newspaper or not reliable sources. It also violated WP:SYNTH. As for his appearance on Tucker Carlson, which I've watched on Youtube when I googled this fellow to check for viable notability, it appears he's credited on the show with being a small business owner who supports Harvard's discrimination against Asian students, which holds them to a much higher standard than it uses for students of all other races. It's not WP policy to give a wiki page to every former school board member/small business owner who has appeared on Fox News. Does he have a movement going regarding affirmative action? If so, that might warrant a page. No, he's simply a failed candidate for congress who has done essentially nothing but get himself noticed on occasion. I don't see anywhere in policy that says that qualifies for an article on WP. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)"Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SW3 5DL revising wikipedia pages on behalf of Republican Party Analysis of SW3 5DL revision history reveals a pattern of behavior aimed at furthering the goals of conservative ideology while eliminating or criticizing progressive Wikipedia entries. Much of his activity is focused on promoting Donald Trump and protecting Republican interests, while critiques and deletions are limited to "Liberal" entries like Jay Chen and Council of La Raza. SW3 5DL is abusing the Wikipedia platform for political gain. Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiwatcher99, the purpose of the AfD is to determine if the subject of this article is notable. If you believe Jay Chen is notable, it is up to you to show his notability with reliable sources. It does not help to disrupt the AfD by bullying and making claims against the nominator of the AfD. This is not an argument. It's a review of the article and the rules for retaining articles on Wikipedia. Please strike your comments and present evidence of notability per the Wikipedia guidelines. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't think he's notable. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly non-notable: failed candidate, trustee of a local college, no way he passes WP:POLITICIAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing claimed in this article gives him an automatic pass of any subject-specific inclusion criterion, but the article is not sourced nearly well enough to claim WP:GNG in lieu; this is based almost entirely on primary and/or unreliable sources, with the reliable source coverage being limited to glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him. And appearing as a talking head on the news doesn't aid encyclopedic notability, either: if he's giving soundbite about something else, then he fails to be the subject of that piece of coverage, and if he's talking about himself then it's subject to the same problems as any other self-published source: people can and do lie about and/or misrepresent themselves. And getting attacked on social media is not a notability freebie, either. So no, nothing here is enough and Wikiwatcher isn't strengthening the case with his arguments. And I ain't no Tucker Carlson fan, neither, so my comment isn't coming from a place of ideological bias. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Exemplo347 (talk) 14:47, 29 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 X-Faktor (Hungarian TV series). All articles on upcoming series/seasons of shows that haven't aired are usually redirected back to the show until it airs, This didn't really require an AFD so have been BOLD and closed/redirected (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X faktor series 7[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it does not meet WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and it is WP:TOOSOON for the article to exist as there are no sources. KAP03 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Ripton[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a magazine editor and writer, which is based entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single news article which isn't about her, but merely includes her giving soundbite about a subject (and even if we accepted that, it still takes more than just one reliable independent source.) There's also a conflict of interest here, if you compare the creator's username to the name of the website the subject founded. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which magazine editors, writers or website founders are automatically entitled to create an article about themselves just because they exist -- they must be the subject of enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG per Bearcat. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Wertenberger[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable beauty pageant winner. Fails WP:BIO; no viable third-party sources to assert any kind of notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable winner of state beauty pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability guidelines based upon winning state contests.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TextbookRush[edit]

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

declined speedy. Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. Looks like an advert LibStar (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and when the biggest section in your promotional article is about controversy, something's wrong. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it sounds like PR material and is a spam page. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Krishna Veerapaneni[edit]

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

Biography of a businessman. The creator has been blocked for using multiple accounts to promote the person's companies - the master account, Barney83Stinson, was not blocked when this article was created however, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion on that account. I do not believe that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The references are mainly about his company and almost all of them are press releases or rewrites of press releases - there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of the person or his business ventures. As an actor he is clearly not notable as he has only had a few minor roles. bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet BIO and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG Spiderone 11:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of snow-intentioned Finnish words[edit]

delete trivia. Article cites a source but not verifiable. LibStar (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Ho ho ho. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere ready for mainspace. If there are sources that can prove the topic is notable them put it into a draft, but I suspect not, so lets just delete. Before we have this we need a list of snow related words in English, but still probably better in Wiktionary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and certainly not a Finnish one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a dictionary. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia Spiderone 17:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatpipe Networks[edit]

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

Created by COI user, speedy deleted 7 times before, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP non notable awards no in depth coverage in independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the case could be made for notability, the current article is clearly not in Wikipedia style. The over-use of capital letters and acronyms smells of marketing-speak. W Nowicki (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per above, and a history of recreation, e.g. FatPipe Networks & Talk:FatPipe Networks. ^Avic _ennasis @ 07:52, 24 Kislev 5777 / 07:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that these should be judged individually (which is impossible with a bundled-AFD), If nomnating I would recommend nominating 2/3 a day as you're gong to get alot of shit for mass-nominating these on 1 day, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlestar Galactica characters[edit]

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

As these are lead characters, I suggest a keep to these above regardless if they are lacking reliable third party sources. Deletion nomination (mainly to merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters) will apply to those below regardless if their contribution has been one or a few episodes

Originally, I merged some of those above to list of Battlestar Galactica characters because either they did not have a WP:VERIFY or articles’ had serious notability issues that was left unresolved for years as presumably like the franchise, nobody cares anymore but it got reverted

Reason to nominate is that these articles seeks to benefit nobody else other than the tiniest number of die-hard fans of the series (if there’s any left) as these unencyclopaedic WP:OR WP:Fancruft mess of articles have varying degrees of notability from maybe to absolutely zero.

Anybody who wants to argue their point in saving, may I offer them to compare those above to iconic sci-fi characters such as Luke Skywalker or James T. Kirk but I doubt they will have anything to match. The only ones that deserve to have it’s own article IMO, are Number Six and Kara Thrace but still, it’s a mess not worth saving.

I also propose to ‘’’delete then merge’’’ to List of Battlestar Galactica characters but then this list also has the same issues, so may I suggest Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Cylon B (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Cylon B (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment – An idea is to consider keeping the List of Battlestar Galactica characters article and then considering performing selective merges of the other articles into it. The Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) only pertains to the 2004 series, but the list article covers others earlier in time (Original 1978 movie and series, Galactica 1980, etc.). The 2004 series article is also already a bit long at 81,006 bytes, so merging to it may not be advisable, as per WP:SIZERULE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should tell them that this is Wikipedia not BSG Wiki therefore I cannot see a problem with pruning off any unsourced pieces which will bring this down to a manageable size. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I agree that the vast majority of them should probably be redirected to the character list but I also think it is a bit ill-advised to put every one of them into the same deletion.★Trekker (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since my intention was not to delete everything, my proposal is to merge all until except the main characters though they have the same issues as the others, no reliable third party sources and as how do we know if any of them are notable as nothing in the article asserts. If have to allow for some to have articles, I'd pick the few main actors (the ones who appear on opening credits) that's if the issues are resolved. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what a deletion is for. If the articles have issues you raised your concerns on one or more of the project talk pages and try to fix them. ADF is not meant for anything else than deletions.★Trekker (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The mass deletion of every article on this list. Some could be redirected to [List of Battlestar Galactica characters]], which should be kept no matter what. But if some of these character articles are deleted, then the main character list should be expanded to include details. Each deletion discussion should be done individually. JOJ ^Hutton 01:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY oppose. I'm happy to do some work cleaning up these articles, and I just spent some time getting started. Maybe some of them will prove flabby, but most of these articles haven't been edited in some time. Give me some time to work on them.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you presented with your edits is have you addressed any notability concerns? Also are any of these reliable third party sources other than Wikipedia articles which isn't enough. The two you worked on are some minor characters who are not going to leave a mark in the franchise and will all but forgotten by the most die-hard fans, if there's any left. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through them, and some of the characters could potentially be merged—characters who only appeared in a few episodes like Romo. But that doesn't apply to Kat, and it certainly doesn't apply to Racetrack, who repeatedly plays key roles in the show and is arguably the protagonist.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were only to one or a few episodes, don't get me wrong, I watched the whole series too but they are not significant nor iconic to be deserving of their own page otherwise their appearance is tad pedestrian compared to Number 6, Starbucks and the Adamas. Cylon B (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are certainly characters who could be merged down; you could have a single article for the Significant Seven and the Final Five with breakout articles for Tigh, Tyrol, Six, and Cavil, but otherwise leaving the others in a unified article. Certainly Elosha, Cottle, Crashdown, Billy, Kelly, and Zarek you could move into a unified article. Dualla’s a boundary case. But Kat and especially Racetrack seem to me at least as worthy of standalone articles as Cally, Gaeta, or Helo. I wouldn't agree that they aren't iconic, significant characters. They seem like characters who go to the core of what the show's about.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to hardcore BSG fans but is it to casual and non-fans, nope. Cylon B (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as characters that have in large part received individual coverage sufficient to meet GNG, whether or not those articles currently reflect that coverage. Also, the "delete then merge" outcome is entirely inappropriate even if these were non-notable fictional elements, as merging would itself clean up the presented articles, and deletion prior to such a merge would only serve to impair editors trying to make improvements to one or more of the listed articles. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you mean ALL, does the minor characters get GNG like the main characters but then I'm sorry that this is Wikipedia, not BSG fansite. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with these mass nominations. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Each article/character on here has varying levels of notability and should be addressed independently from one another (I know that takes a lot of time, but I feel that is the best way to accurately separate the notable characters from those that can be merged/redirected to a list page). I agree with the above discussion that List of Battlestar Galactica characters should be kept so that characters that do not have strong enough notability for their own page can be redirected/merged to this source. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or oppose) – I'd argue at least some of these merit encyclopedic articles. Some might not, but then they can't be discussed in this manner. /Julle (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to renominating one or a handful at a time. The notability of these varies far too significantly for a grouped nomination to result in a clear consensus for each. I note that some of those listed above are already redirects, and I support the idea that others could probably be merged/redirected to the list. I also think it makes sense to separate the characters from the two series, but that's a separate discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)*[reply]
("Procedural"?) keep per Rhododendrites. A mass nomination like this isn't ideal. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this just isn't the best way of dealing with this. Artw (talk) 20:36, 30 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 Cyril Ramaphosa. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Ramaphosa Foundation[edit]

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

The article currently lacks any sources of any type. My search for sources produced no indepth coverage in reliable sources to show more than that this organization exists. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with~~ Redirect to Cyril Ramaphosa. The foundation itself is certainly not notable enough for a separate article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyril Ramaphosa. Since there are not sources listed, I don't see a need for a merge. Anything useful could be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Ecuador 2017[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, not in English (in Spanish), on a beauty contest that hasn't been held yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, unreferenced, and of questionable notability. The pageant is notable enough for a article but not yearly editions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles on every year edition of the pageant are a step too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hasn't even happened yet and fails WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party Shadow Cabinet of the 41st Parliament of Canada[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced list of mostly non-notable people, which misrepresents its topic as something it isn't. While the Green Party of Canada has various party members who are designated as media spokespeople for the party's positions on various issues, that's not the same thing as a shadow cabinet — the shadow cabinet consists of elected MPs who serve as actual critics on the issues in the House of Commons (e.g. by actually posing actual questions to the official cabinet during Question Period.) But the Greens only had two MPs in the 41st Parliament, which meant they had an extraparliamentary system of party spokespeople but only two true members of the real shadow cabinet — and since the media doesn't actually devote significant coverage to the party's opinions on any issue besides the environment, virtually nobody else listed here has any real public visibility (and even the two non-MPs who do have Wikipedia articles have them for other reasons not connected to their roles as Green Party spokespeople per se; one has notability as a writer, while the other quit the party and then won election as a territorial MLA with a different party.) So it's simply not a list we need to maintain in the absence of reliable source coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list is misnamed, it is not a shoadow cabinet, and there is no show of reliable source caring about these people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the reasons stated above.Grammarphile (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bornstein[edit]

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

Being a film editor at the level Bornstein is is not enough to establish notability. The only source is what looks like basically a resume. I was not able to find any reliable sources on him from a google search. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Search turns up multiple people with the same name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability and WP:RS and verifiability. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eljif Elmas[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 10:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not yet featured for Heerenveen so fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Harris[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:NKICK or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for kickboxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 28 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Micheletti[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:NKICK or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is WKN world champion, but article needs to be improved.Master Sun Tzu (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - I had read WKA rather than WKN. It really is confusingly written.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is WKN super cruiserweight champion. Indeed, please improve the article. Source Franco s (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Che: Chapter 127[edit]

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

Delete. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator here, a decade ago when our notability criteria for bands were much looser than they are now (having one track on a notable compilation album was once sufficient in and of itself) and sourcing didn't have to be demonstrated anywhere near as extensively as it does now (the fact of having a primary source webpage was, in and of itself, very often enough to get the article kept even if it was never enough to make the article GA or FA.) But by the WP:NMUSIC and WP:RS standards that apply in 2016, there's just not enough notability here anymore, and not enough reliable source coverage about them to actually support an article — and even their own primary source website has since been cybersquatted. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. So sorry about the cybersquatting. That bit really got me. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's pretty evident that these guys don't meet the guidelines for inclusion at WP:BAND or WP:N. — sparklism ^hey! 09:04, 30 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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.H Aidarus Musliyar[edit]

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

This person isn't a notable personality Muhammed Anwar Baqavi (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - MM Basheer Musliyar and C.H Aidarus Musliyar are both recent nominations for deletion who are founders of Darul Huda Islamic University in Malappuram. I am not sure their notability can simply be based on WP:PROF, as DHIU is not clearly a major institution. DHIU is not listed at Education in Malappuram and it doesn't seem to have accreditation for non-religious degrees. I do not know much about accreditation for religious degrees and am not over impressed by DHIU's membership in Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World, Morocco and The League of Islamic Universities, Cairo. All that said, the school seems to be serving a large number of students, and I would guess that there are significant reliable sources in Malayalam about the school's founders. I am not sure the article titles are correct and the tone of the articles is not NPOV, but the subjects seem to me to be suitable for articles. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my !vote. A search for the names of either individual in malayam and in arabic script yields mostly wikipedia mirrors.Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and I was unsure to comment before but I'll say there's still none of the needed substance for an assured article. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 29 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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM Basheer Musliyar[edit]

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

This person is a real person, but not a notable personality Muhammed Anwar Baqavi (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ - MM Basheer Musliyar and C.H Aidarus Musliyar are both recent nominations for deletion who are founders of Darul Huda Islamic University in Malappuram. I am not sure their notability can simply be based on WP:PROF, as DHIU is not clearly a major institution. DHIU is not listed at Education in Malappuram and it doesn't seem to have accreditation for non-religious degrees. I do not know much about accreditation for religious degrees and am not over impressed by DHIU's membership in Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World, Morocco and The League of Islamic Universities, Cairo. All that said, the school seems to be serving a large number of students, and I would guess that there are significant reliable sources in Malayalam about the school's founders. I am not sure the article titles are correct and the tone of the articles is not NPOV, but the subjects seem to me to be suitable for articles. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my vote. A search for the names of either individual in malayam and in arabic script yields mostly wikipedia mirrors.Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as still nothing for the assured substance in independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 29 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 East West Rail Link. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Longville railway station[edit]

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

Proposed station on a closed line. Only ref is to a blog post - not really establishing notability. Nordic Nightfury 07:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: proposed station on planned line, and better refs have now been provided. PamD 08:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East_West_Rail_Link#Phase_1_.E2.80.93_Western_Section - other editors' arguments are convincing. PamD 22:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This station was once proposed several years ago but is not in current plans. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. Sufficient references provided to prove notablity. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently, not in the current plans. Doesn't exist and it appears it never will. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: How about merging, as a compromise. The improved article has just three sentences and four references. It could be merged entirely into East West Rail Link article which currently mentions Newton Longville in one place (but does not link to this article). Merging and leaving a redirect behind would be clearly superior to deletion, because it leaves the edit history and enables re-creation if/when there is more content developed. Keeping the article as is would also be okay, as it does have sources, but I don't think it is terribly important to have it as a separate article if all the material can be merged. It seems silly, anyhow, to argue in this AFD about whether the station will be built or not, which no one can know for sure. It is documented to be a proposal. --do ncr am 00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources in the article even come close to meeting WP:RS. Several of them are nothing more than a name on a map. One is is the "Great Western Passengers' Forum", i.e. a blog. This doesn't even meet WP:V, let alone WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this does meet WP:V in the extremely limited sense that we can verify that it's been proposed. Orthogonal to that, I have no objection to a redirect per MB. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East West Rail Link. Proposed station; Not sure if it is in any current plans. This article doesn't say much other than it is a proposed station - not much to merge into East West Rail Link which says the same thing with a few less words. MB 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - clearly not enough to warrant a standalone article, and there is virtually nothing of import, with reliable sourcing, to merge. The redirect will preserve the edit history, and if at some point in the future this station actually comes into being, and is notable, than the page can be revived. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines to investment in gold and silver[edit]

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

Notability not asserted; I believe this book isn't notable in any case. Yamla (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Note that I think the page could probably be speedily deleted, but the author of the page removed the PROD, so let's jump through the hoops here. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do it swiftly. Thinly veiled advertising, no claim or indication of significance, much less notability. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This reads more like one reader's notes than advertising of the book. I see nothing to establish that the book is notable. In addition though, the current text is non-encyclopaedic, questionable and in poor English, which factors combine to suggest that WP:TNT is appropriate. AllyD (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that a draft was rejected yesterday, with the user directed to the notability criteria for books and the need for references. AllyD (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT, this doesn't even assert significance/notability of any sort. GAB^gab 23:29, 25 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 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. TimothyJosephWood 20:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VrBackupper[edit]

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

Article about software that was releases a month ago. PR-like coverage in several blogs and listing services, but nothing really independent that indicates that this is a notable subject. Fails WP:PRODUCT. - Mr X 13:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{Db-promo}}. Already tagged. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{Db-promo}} is a complete free and easy-to-use tool designed to quickly remove junk from the encyclopedia! TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 13:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vet Talk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. - Mr X 12:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northallerton Shinty Club[edit]

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

Briefly existing amateur sports club, no evidence they ever appeared in official competition at any level. Only source given has merely a passing reference to a previous shinty team in the town. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jellyman (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is entirely unsourced and I didn't find any reliable sources. The single reference that had been included in the article was published prior to their formation. Also, claims in the article around this team's participation in 2013 Bullogh Cup (a competition for reserve teams in the South 2 division) don't appear reliable [4]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. The only source I found online says it doesn't exist anymore. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit Press[edit]

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

Two reliable sources have passing mention. Not passing WP:GNG Marvellous Spider-Man 09:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a small publisher of sci-fi books which has only been founded last year. They certainly dont pass WP:NCORP by any means. The coverage of this company is basically limited to blogs and non RS, and even that is limited. The 2 non-blog sources in the article are just 2 interviews with the founder, source one doesn't even mention the company. Apart from that there is not really anything out there which resembles sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Since they are apparently focusing on digital distribution, I doubt there is anything more offline. I therefore think the article should be deleted due a lack of RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC) This page should be deleted as it does not follow the notability guidelines of wikipedia. ===Dalton Price===[reply]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Now[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the standards of WP:BAND. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though it seems the band have indeed opened for many notable artists, I couldn't find any real coverage in reliable sources that shows how these guys would meet the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. Fails WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 09:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Dorsey[edit]

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

The only sources available are interviews with Dorsey, his own website, and credits on albums. He fails WP:CREATIVE criteria. The only reason I am listing this as an Articles for deletion instead of a speedy delete is because of how old this article is. Elisfkc (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks 3rd party secondary sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Balak Mishra[edit]

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

Non-notable professional, fails WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Hopper[edit]

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

Questionable notability with no WP:RS. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appears to fail WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete roles are not enough to pass notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saniyya Sidney[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. No significant coverage in news or media. No significant contributions to note. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:48, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:NACTOR. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 13:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: You are citing WP:NACTOR, which she does not satisfy. No large fan base, no significant roles, no unique contributions. Not notable for inclusion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets NACTOR #1 & #3 as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:21, 31 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 There is no consensus to do anything. A continuation of the merge discussion can happen I the article talk page if desired.. - GB fan 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

/r/The Donald[edit]

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

The notable topics of Donald Trump, fake new and reddit are covered by numerous articles. This article replays non-encyclopedic discussion within the subreddit that would fail our reliable sources check and BLP policy. Though it's not the creators intent, this article is an end run around our WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V policies. Reddit is not a reliable source and it is unencyclopedic to create an article in order to bring up information that fails our source-ability criteria. As an analogy, this would be realizing that the National Enquirer is not a reliable source to verify anything about Trump, fake news or the election so instead of using it as a source, Wikipedia creates an article about National Enquirers coverage of these topics. We already have well sourced articles on the real topics and we don't need back door inclusion of poorly sourced material. Subreddits are not notable in and of themselves when they are covering mainstream topics. Any other position opens the door to free-for-all policy violations. As example, there is numerous garbage in subreddit /r/KotakuInAction. The encyclopedic topics within that subreddit such as GamerGate are covered by articles with very strict BLP and WP:V. Creating an article on the subreddit, though, would open the door to many issues. Subreddits by themselves are not notable but their topic may be notable and the topic, not the subreddit, is what is encyclopedic. Speedy deletion this under A7, A10 and G10 along with WP:NOT was reverted so full AfD started. All the content that is encyclopedic exists elsewhere and the subreddit is no more importnt than a random blog sites. DHeyward (talk) 01:52, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I'm leaning towards speedy. Just because topics involved with this forum are elsewhere does not preclude this article existing. I'm unconcerned about this "opening the door". If the sources establish notability, that's enough. Per WP:WEBCRIT The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. A brief examination of the sources used in this article shows this sub-reddit meets that criteria.That man from Nantucket (talk)
Keep. In addition to being covered by multiple non-trivial published works I'm unsure of where the "opening the door" claim originates from as there are a couple subreddits that seem to have had their own pages for a while now. I don't believe the fact that it is a subreddit changes the notability or importance; whether it is a subreddit or a hypothetical "TrumpForums" isn't important as it has quite a bit of published coverage. Shimunogora (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly speedy. How silly, an article on a subreddit when even the venerable and 10x more notable /b/ from 4chan does not warrant one? /r/The Donald is just a part of a larger message board, one where people talk, sometimes notoriously, about President Trump. Notoriety for things said there does not make the "there" itself notable. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point but I believe it has definitely crossed into the notability threshold after people such as Ann Coulter, Curt Shilling, Roger Stone, and Trump himself have hosted Q&A sessions on the messageboard. At this point it is practically the de facto online Trump discussion hub and according to its traffic statistics page it gathered nearly 5 million unique pageviews last month. Shimunogora (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Reddit I agree with ValarianB, the situation regarding this article is very similar to that of the /b/ board having an article. There is already a section of the Reddit page dedicated to notable subreddits, and the information contained here would probably be better suited there than on its own page. 1adog1 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Controversial Reddit communities. While there's enough sources to argue that this subreddit is notable, at least at present, it doesn't really need its own article when there's a perfectly good one to merge it into. Much of the content here is indeed duplicating information in Reddit. Robofish (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Controversial Reddit communities. Notability is not inherited from Reddit, Donald Trump, Pizzagate or any other topic: WP:NWEB#No inherited notability. I believe it is better to merge this with the Controversial Reddit communities to give a better context for the content, and to avoid overlap as Robofish pointed out above. WP:OVERLAP. Ceosad (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The_Donald is a massive community and their candidate won. There are reliable sources such as the NYT article already referenced. Merging with Controversial Reddit communities smacks of political judgment, since in the USA's two party system the Hillary Clinton subreddit is similarly controversial to the other side (side note: the HRC subreddit is probably not notable, because it never achieved similar traffic, traction, or notability, and obviously because HRC lost). Specific criticisms of reliance on original Reddit content should be resolved case by case and not used to justify a draconian deletion. Wookian (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The_Donald meets Wikipedia's topic criteria of notability. The article content satisfies all the criteria of verifiability (i.e. it has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). A website which has been the sole subject of numerous NPOV, mainstream media news articles, including the paper of record, The New York Times, is obviously suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia.--FeralOink (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as The_Donald maintains notability apart from Reddit. /b/ is different from /r/the_donald due to /b/'s complete and absolute reliance on 4chan for its notability (e.g. "/b/, a board on 4chan has done xyz") where all actions conducted by /b/ could, in fact, fall under a general "4chan" umbrella as all actions of /b/ could be described as actions on 4chan without a traumatic loss of significance (meme from /b/ is approximately equal to meme from 4chan). However, /r/the_donald has a notability apart from the notability of Reddit, whereas it is an online forum hosted upon the site of Reddit, while being separable from Reddit. Other controversial subreddits do not have their own article due to their notability primarily coming from their relation to Reddit as a website. /r/shitredditsays, /r/beatingwomen, and /r/jailbait being prime examples of subreddits where an inherent part of their notability comes from them being a subforum on a website, that website being Reddit. /r/the_donald's notability comes from coverage of /r/the_donald in a manner that is independent of it being a part of Reddit, as it is (one of) the primary online discussion forums for Trump supporters. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion about whether to keep or merge. Sandstein 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE big time. Reddit is not notable at all, anyone with a Reddit account can post on any sub-reddit with no fact checking (except in cases of AMA ). Otherwise nothing is subjected to editorial scrutiny. We wouldn't accept a twitter feed called #The_Donald for the same reason on Wikipedia. Delete and Kill with fire ] KoshVorlon 20:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cards84664 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Reddit It is just a sub forum. It should be the main page with links to Donny and Pissagate.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable enough (compared to /b/ as others have noted). Nominator raises good points. A merge to Reddit would be acceptable too EvergreenFir (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a possible merger to Presidential campaign of Donald Trump or some article where expressions of support for him and his policies in social media can be explored in a more broad context. The sub-reddit itself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article (under a different name) was previously nominated for deletion. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by User:That man from Nantucket. I participated in the previous AFD, and I'll just quote myself here:
"The article already has two sources: "How r/the_donald Became a Melting Pot of Frustration and Hate" (Vice) and "Donald Trump to Drop In on Reddit, Where He's Already a Phenomenon" (NBC). In addition to that, I've found the following:
- "Active Revolt Against Reddit’s CEO" (Vice) - This is definitely focused on the subreddit itself, not Trump.
- "Donald Trump to host Reddit AMA" (CNN) - Brief mention
- "From the media to moon landings: Trump takes questions in Reddit AMA" (The Guardian) - About the AMA, but gets into some details of the workings of the subreddit.
- "Welcome to the Bizarro World of Trump Supporters on Reddit" (Wired) - Totally focused on the subreddit.
- "Some Donald Trump Supporters Are Now Calling Him ‘God Emperor’" (The Huffington Post) - Reporting on events in the subreddit, with some history.
So that's seven sources total, four of which are detailed profiles of the subreddit. That's enough to warrant inclusion."

I see that since then, a lot of additional sources have been added. Right off the bat when looking at the references section, a huge profile in the New York Times seems like plenty to show independent notability. There's also the Washington Post article talking about the controversy with the Reddit CEO getting into it with the subreddit, and that goes into a good amount of detail too. I'm really scratching my head at how people don't see this easily passing WP:GNG, now more than before even. We document notable topics even if they're distasteful. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Donald has been covered in numerous reliable sources and I feel that the page is of a sufficient size to warrant keeping it where it's at, rather than merging it somewhere else. The page has increased in size since the deletion was proposed two weeks ago, and it could potentially continue to grow over the next four to eight years. And deleting it entirely would certainly not be beneficial to people who come here to read about The Donald. AJFU 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Since we seem to have a dedicated article for controversial subreddits, this should definitely belong there. A single subreddit doesn't need a whole article, and if other controversial subreddits don't have an article, this shouldn't either. -- numbermaniac (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - such a wealth of significant mentions of this subreddit in reliable sources! fantastic sources, the best! Pure gold! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Controversial Reddit communities. I agree with what has been said above and in my understanding, the topic should be merged. To echo what Ceosad said above, notability is not inherited. There are many sub-communities that have received way more independent coverage as a community than this one - /b/ of 4chan for example - and those topics have always been a part of a relevant parent article. The community in question has received most of the coverage because it was a subreddit on the popular site Reddit and that it was about Donald Trump - notability is not inherited. Apart from that, a separate article will cause repetition of facts since most of the major facts would be covered in the main article and that the independent one in question would not have enough separately notable facts to warrant a separate article. The subreddit has received coverage mainly because it is a part of Reddit and about a controversial figure. There already exists parent article for topics like this, with which the content can be and should be merged. Ya sh ! 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is notability inherited here? The sources used are all about the sub, not Reddit, not Trump. Just saying notability is inherited doesn't make it so. Speculation about why sources chose to write about this is in the end, just speculation. We go where the sources take us.That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion about whether to keep or merge. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - To all those who say MERGE with the Controversial Reddit communities article, please be aware that the content of that article focuses on sub-reddits such as 1) jailbait; 2) CreepShots; 3) Gawker exposé; 3) beatingwomen; 4) TheFappening; and 5) fatpeoplehate. Those are disreputable or at the very least, self-parodying topics. They are in marked contrast to a grass-roots movement that served as a focal point of support that led to the election of the 45th President of the United States of America and the next leader of the free world. This article should NOT be stuffed under "TheFappening", as that is a ridiculous assessment of importance, unless one has a biased, partisan viewpoint against President-Elect Donald Trump. Yes, I am a member of WikiProject Donald Trump, but I am also an American, Jewish female, and I want to see my nation's president, including the online advocacy networks who supported him, represented in Wikipedia as the encyclopedia-worthy content that they are.--FeralOink (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors motivations into question is all the rage on Wikipedia. I like to let policy be my beacon instead of my political beliefs. From my view, WP: WEBCRIT is the most authoritative guideline for determine notability in this instance. The guideline states in part The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself which is clearly true in this case. Though this being Wikipedia, don't color me surprised when a lazy admin just counts the votes. And for the record I'm not a fan of Mr. Trump. Thats about all I can say without risking a block for violating BLP policies.That man from Nantucket (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been significantly improved since this AfD began, and there are plenty of sources which discuss exactly this topic. Just because reddit itself is not a reliable source has no influence on whether it is a notable topic. There are plenty of mainstream media articles which discuss this, and therefore it meets Wikipedia's verifiablity standard. Bradv 19:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic passes the notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reddit. Cledrupide (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music schools in Uganda[edit]

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

Spammy coatrack article created by a single purpose account for the apparent purpose of forcing the name of ESOM school of music into articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTPROMO. Ajf773 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes it's really just a coatrack for the deleted and salted ESOM school. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the policies referred to by the above three folk are 100% right. Like with all AfD's though, I did a search through a couple databases to see if there was any coverage on 'Music schools in Uganda' in general. Found zero possible content which would likely make any article a violation of WP:OR. Delete. AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:34, 25 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 about the list as such, but consensus to stop auto-generation from Wikidata. This AfD raises two issues: (A) should there be a list with this topic, and (B) should it be auto-generated from Wikidata?

About the first issue, there is no consensus, perhaps because the discussion was mostly sidetracked by long arguments about the second issue. The core disagreement is whether the topic meets WP:LISTN, but there was not much substantial discussion about that, and which reliable sources, if any, establish the topic's notability. Instead we have a lot of pure "votes" both ways and broader arguments in the vein of "we need more lists and articles on women", which I think most people (including myself) would agree with but does not address the issue of the notability of this specific topic.

There are also several "delete" opinions based solely on the Wikidata issue, but that can be addressed without deletion. Almost all who voiced an opinion about this second issue were of the view that articles should be able to be edited locally on Wikipedia, which is not currently possible because ListeriaBot overwrites the content based on Wikidata, an external source. I see therefore clear consensus to turn off the autogeneration of the list, which can be done by removing the {{Wikidata list}} wrapper around the table.

With that distraction off the table, I think that a second AfD would be able to examine the issue of whether this topic merits a separate list in more depth. Sandstein 10:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Egyptologists[edit]

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

This may be a good category, but not a good lists. No reason to split lists of Egyptologists by gender, it is not like sports where gender is an essential element of the subject. Furthermore, this list is generated by an unreliable site (wiki) and the contents are not controlled by enwiki any longer (which explains the things like the rather ridiculous "Description" column, these come from the individual Wikidata pages: Wikidata is supposedly used to increase consistency, but fails rather badly here). It is unsourced as well. Fram (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gender is not a significant characteristic of Egyptologists, any more than, say, hair color. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list of Egyptologists is sufficient; there is no need for this fork Spiderone 14:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have a huge number of lists of women and this deletion rationale could apply to almost all of them. I'm confused about why this one has been singled out and wary of !voting because it seems like you're using this AfD to grind a bigger axe. We have the functionality to do it, and I notice the bot that maintains this list was approved to do so, so at least some editors support Wikidata-generated lists – why mention it in the nomination? – Joe (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list provides enough extra information about its subject to add significant value compared to a category. And this meets the criterion of WP:LISTN of being "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" — there are multiple books about modern women who have studied Egypt: You Can Be a Woman Egyptologist, Women Travellers in Egypt: From the Eighteenth to the Twenty-first Century, Women’s Orients: English Women and the Middle East, 1718–1918, Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists, The Life of Margaret Alice Murray: A Woman’s Work in Archaeology, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All but one of these works only deal with the pioneering ones; no one cares whether an Egyptologist today is a woman or not, except for this list. In almost every workplace, the pioneering women were important. Afterwards, not so much. Major policitians who are women? Still remarkable, though less and less so. Scientists who are women? Commonplace (finally). Fram (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Egyptologists. This is not an area of scholarship where it makes any difference which gender its practitioner has. However that list is worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with Peterkingiron. Hmlarson (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My immediate reaction is that lists created directly from Wikidata should not be posted on the mainspace but could usefully be included as project pages for guidance. Wikidata can certainly be used as a source for compiling lists but before they are included in the mainspace, they should be carefully reviewed and revised by editors to ensure that the details are correct and that important missing information is added where necessary. If the list consist only of blue links, then in most cases sources are probably not necessary. I also see that on 17/18 January 2016, Emijrp not only created this list but several others including List of female librarians, List of women linguists, List of female archivists, List of women anthropologists, List of women botanists, List of africanists and List of movie theaters. As at least five of these are lists of women, I think it would be useful to seek comment from some of the principal editors involved in Women in Red. As to whether a List of female Egyptologists should be developed for the mainspace, I would certainly be in favour as women have generally received less attention than they should in areas such as this. It is important that their work should be more widely recognized.--Ipigott (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list is useful and important information for anyone researching women in the sciences, and Egyptology in particular. For those researching specifically for women, this page is helpful, as a reader cannot always determine gender by a given name. It contributes to women's representation in the historical record. This adds value to the encyclopedia. My only suggestions are to: standardize whether "female" or "women" is used to designate a gender-based list; and to continue to develop this resource. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. David Eppstein has made a strong case that this topic is notable per WP:LISTN. Contrary to Fram's assertion, some people do care about whether archaeologists (including Egyptologists) today are women, e.g. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The Wikidata argument is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned; the list is referenced, albeit in a roundabout way, through the Wikidata entries (perhaps this could be made more explicit). If the nominator is seeking to ban bot-maintained lists from Wikidata, that should be a much wider community discussion. Personally I think it's an extremely promising solution to the problem of lists get created and then never properly maintained. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's off topic but I'll just add that I became involved early on with Wikidata -- though I've since stopped. I was told that Wikidata-generated lists were way off and I'm very excited to see them being created now, so soon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll get off the fence and say that I think David and Joe have raised enough examples from sources to maintain a fooian occupation by women list here -- and a list does have a somewhat lower threshold than categories per NONDEF. What's more, as I mention above, I'm eager to see where this experiment in Wikidata-generated articlespace lists is going, and I don't want us to start deleting these pioneering earaly examples unless absolutely necessary. I don't see this as a really problematic case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of Egyptologists. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - on the basic principle that Wikidata should not be used to generate lists like this in mainspace. All such bot-generated lists should be deleted because anyone wanting to work on the list is forced to do so through Wikidata and can't edit the article directly. How can you add footnotes and details and context? You can't because it is just a mindlessly generated list. Those wanting to generate such lists should have somewhere else to put them. e.g. subpages in Wikidata, or a "Listpedia" site especially for bot-generated lists. I still struggle to understand how the culture at Wikipedia has degenerated so far that people have forgotten that Wikipedia should be about writing articles, and are instead willing to just let bots generate lists for them. Such lists can be useful as a starting point, but need human review and input to make any sense. The vast majority of the 600+ pages in Category:Articles based on Wikidata are in userspace or the Wikipedia namespace. I think only 21 actual list articles exist based on Wikidata. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that human review of the initial Wikidata output is needed. But anybody is free to edit Wikidata entries, and it's better to update the information at it's source than copy it and have the list become immediately outdated. I think people forget that Wikidata entries are either created by humans or harvested from Wikipedia articles written by humans. Far from this being "mindless" bots writing articles, it's a helpful bot collating information written (largely) by Wikipedia editors into another format, which reduces duplicated effort and has many advantages over a conventionally (un)maintained list. In any case, I think that this is entirely the wrong forum to debate whether or not we should have Wikidata-generated lists. That should be a wider discussion somewhere like the village pump. If we return the focus to this particular list, what errors or unwanted content has using Wikidata introduced? It seems fine to me. – Joe (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is un-wiki. How do you collaborate or work with someone on creating such a list? How do you edit such a list? I know that you can edit a particular entry in the list by going to the wikidata page and editing that, but that changes the focus from editing a single page to editing large numbers of individual Wikidata entries. You are no longer editing articles, you are maintaining a database. Is that really the future of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors? To become database maintainers rather than article writers? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also lazy. An overview of the history of pioneering women who worked in Egyptology could well be the basis of an article. Just generating a list gives no context. Such lists will always be a poor substitute for a properly written article by someone who has thought about what can be said and what needs to be said (and what should be left out). Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place for such lists is as an appendix to a properly written article. Much as you might go and browse a category after reading an article, so people might go and browse a list like this after reading an article on a related topic. Such lists shouldn't pretend to be an end in themselves. Without context they are mostly useless and sometimes worse than useless. Such lists should have their own namespace. How it was ever thought appropriate to have bot-generated mainspace content, I shudder to think. There is too much disconnect, too much atomisation, between the content and the end product. To find a BLP-violating edit, for example, you would have to track down the edit made to Wikidata. You can't find it in the edit history of the page. It is just a mess. When I read articles, I know I can track down where an edit came from. With a list like this, the whole process is much harder. I know someone will wave their hands and say tools are being developed to make things much simpler. The tools should be developed before something like this goes live. Wikipedia is being used as a test-bed to see what sort of things work (or not). Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But are they poor substitutes for the typical Wikipedia list, i.e. a partially complete list created on a whim five years ago, forgotten about, and sporadically updated with random additions? I don't think so. I appreciate that this new type of list involves a shift in practices and certainly has its downsides, but we'll have to part ways on it being "un-wiki". An open, collaboratively built database sounds very wiki to me. All the tools and elements are there, albeit in a slightly different form. You edit the list by editing its constituent parts. If you see a problem, fixing it is just two clicks away instead of one. You collaborate by using the work of your fellow editors who created the articles in the list, used infoboxes to give them machine-readable summaries, and collated these in Wikidata. Personally I think this is a fantastic solution to the major flaw with lists on Wikipedia: the lack of consistent maintenance. You delegate that to a bot, but there's nothing stopping you augmenting it with extra context and background information. I do understand not wanting to be involved in creating these kind of articles yourself, but why are you so adamant that they be removed or hidden away in appendices or a separate namespace? Clearly other editors (at least 21) have found this a useful tool, and as far as I know no conventional lists have been replaced. – Joe (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be partly because anyone who has spent care and given attention to detail in carefully collating a list, using sources, and thinking carefully about what should be included and what shouldn't, using clear criteria (based on reliable sources), know how difficult it can be and where the problems are. Assigning the property 'Egyptologist' is not a simple matter. There are various ways that can be defined. If the wikidata entries are carefully curated, then this sort of thing works (to an extent). But it is too easy for people to get that 'Egyptologist' criterion wrong, and that will see the list degenerate. Such lists still need to be watched and maintained as much as any other sort. All this does is speed up the initial creation of such a list by querying a database, followed by tidying of that database to correct mistakes. Ask yourself why so many of these lists are still in Wikipedia namespace or userspace. It is because nearly always they are in an unsuitable state for an article because the underlying data they are drawing on is so incomplete or inaccurate.

Here are some simple questions (some easy to answer, some less so) referring to this version of the list:
Why is the capitalisation of Egyptologist inconsistent? 13 edits made on Wikidata with various minor fixes (is this really what should be done?)

Why does the description for Hilda Petrie say "female" when the others don't? fixed

Why does the description for Miriam Lichtheim omit her nationality? fixed (but debatable, she was born in Istanbul in the closing years of the Ottoman period)

Ditto for Christiane Desroches Noblecourt. fixed

Colleen Manassa was born 1980, but this data point is not in the list. fixed

Why does the entry for Renée Friedman say she was born in the 2000s? (Unable to fix, queried here)

Why does the entry for Willeke Wendrich omit her birth date? fixed

Why is someone like María del Carmen Pérez Díe missing from this list? (en-Wikipedia article created October 2016 and has a wikidata item since October 2015I found her by simply going to Category:Egyptologists. How many more women are in there and not on the list?) fixed

I know how to fix some of these problems. I'll add some diffs here for edits I'm going to make that I think will fix these problems. But why should it be me making these edits? Is no-one actually bothering to maintain this list that was created in January 2016? Going in and making edits to a manually-created list would be relatively easy. If the barrier to making corrections to a bot-generated list using Wikidata data is too high, the lists will degenerate and become unusable. I'll now try and track down the Wikidata values causing the above, and see if the edits I make make a difference after forcing an update to the list. Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here I got stuck. The list is generated using '?item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581072 . ?item wdt:P106 wd:Q1350189' That is really difficult to understand if you don't know what it means. You need to understand it to add anything to that list. How many people are going to understand that. This is what I meant by "un-wiki". The barrier to learning how to collaborate on this list is very high. If you look at the page history, you will see an IP tried to add someone (non-notable, but that is not the point here). And a regular Wikipedia editor reverted it. Clearly the instructions at the top of the list are not preventing this sort of thing. Anyway, I managed to work out that Q6581072 is 'female' associated with property 21 (P21) and that Q1350189 is 'Egyptologist' and that P106 is 'occupation'. So I think by doing this, a new entry will be added to the list here (once an update is forced). Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And hey presto! List updated with all those little tweaks (minor and major) I made over on Wikidata. Now do people begin to see the pros and cons of how this works? Some people will go in raptures of delight at how clever this is. Others will think "that could all have been done in one edit (or a series of edits) on Wikipedia, why does it now have to be done with multiple edits on Wikidata?". The response will be "but look at how the data is being maintained and curated!! Yeah, look. Whoop-dee-doo. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From these comments, it looks very much as if you are now happy with the list. Do you still wish to maintain your "Delete"?--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am maintaining my delete !vote. The irony here is that with any local list, the edits I made would have ended up not visible if the list was deleted. In this case, I can carry on merrily editing away at Wikidata and the 'edits' are still there and get imported over every time someone presses the "update the list" button. I can (sort of) re-add the edits (more 'make them visible') by regenerating the list in userspace. Anyone can regenerate the list in a draft or userspace. So in a very real sense, I don't care if the list here is deleted or not. It still exists in distributed format in Wikidata, just waiting to be called into life again... You will note that I didn't provide any sources for dates of birth, even for the living people on the list. If I had been editing Wikipedia, I would have done that. There are ways to add references to Wikidata, but those references should really also be appearing locally. At some future point, the ability to have such lists fully referenced (again, probably drawing the data from Wikidata) will happen, but I don't think that is possible yet. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite list locally. I think the topic potentially warrants a list, but this implementation is not how to do it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikidata_Phase_2 found no consensus for this use of Wikidata, and AFAIK there's not been any subsequent RfC that did. This list demonstrates some of the reasons why: the output is inconsistent, no local sourcing is provided, local edits are overridden, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia articles must be able to be edited locally, with the changes made locally driving the article. I would prefer a merge to a single list of Egyptologists (because this ghettoizes women in the field) although I could potentially consider a locally written and controlled article. Editors should never have to go to another site (even a related site) in order to make edits to an article on this site. It's not like we only have 2000 articles and are just starting out. Risker (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already have to another site (Wikimedia Commons) to edit most of the images, videos and other media in our articles. What's the difference? – Joe (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Videos and media and images are not text-based articles. That is a key difference. There might be an argument that tables pulling together data are different from blocks of text, but they are certainly not images. Wikimedia Commons files are discrete entities that can be handled as a single item with a fairly obvious edit history. Discrete items of data and text using grammar and language are different and need to be handled and edited differently. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Carcharoth said, Joe Roe. We do not permit articles that are solely images or media from Wikimedia Commons on this project. Images and media are considered "nice to have" but are not requirements for any article, and we have had many challenges over the years when Wikimedia Commons images in use here have been deleted or overwritten. In order to effectively curate this list, it needs to be editable on this project, without being overwritten by bots from another organization. Risker (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the essential difference between images pulled from another WMF project and list entries pulled from another WMF project myself, but okay. By the way, since people keep complaining about the bot "overwriting" human edits: it's quite straightforward to tweak the template so that new rows can be manually added to it. I don't think it's a good idea, because it's more helpful to simply add an "Egyptologist" property to the desired entry and have it carry through automatically, but it's possible. – Joe (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds that this is the wrong format to create an article with. Whether this article is worth having is a question we can save for another time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Risker and Carcharoth. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seeing as no-one else was going to check through the categories that list many women among those categorised at Egyptologists (some very eminent ones included), there are a total of 35 we have articles on that are not on this list, which at the start of this deletion debate only listed 32 (it is now 33 as I added one earlier). So that is a list of 32 women Egyptologists, that had 36 missing. Someone might be able to check through the list to see when the articles were created, but clearly the data on Wikidata is so woefully deficient that less than half of the female Egyptologists were being included. Wikidata is clearly not fit for purpose until the data is improved. The list is appended (I am going to work through them, adding them to the list, but I suspect there is a way to 'batch add' the relevant Wikidata properties). Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC) List is: Rosalind Moss, Delia Pemberton, Betsy Bryan, Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, Barbara Mertz, Natacha Rambova (a real stretch to include her), Janet Richards (Egyptologist), Nora E. Scott, Sara Yorke Stevenson, N. de Garis Davies (article on a married couple, how on Earth is that handled?), Janet Gourlay, Winifred Brunton, Geraldine Harris, Anna Anderson Morton, Penelope Wilson, Mary Brodrick (how on Earth could any coherent list of female Egyptologists omit "perhaps the greatest lady Egyptologist of [her] day"?), Margaret Stefana Drower, Charlotte Booth, Dorothy Eady, Alessandra Nibbi, Lyla Pinch Brock, Amice Calverley, Violette Lafleur, Hana Vymazalová, Susanne Bickel, Danielle Bonneau, Aurélia Masson-Berghoff, Paule Posener-Kriéger, Guillemette Andreu, Nathalie Beaux-Grimal, Elise Baumgartel, Natalya Yevgenevna Semper, Sarah Israelit Groll, Danijela Stefanović, Sally Katary. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I made the necessary edits to Wikidata to ensure that the update I forced included 32 of those 35 that I found. I left out Natacha Rambova as too much of a stretch to call her an Egyptologist (goodness only knows where that gets discussed if it is contentious) and I left out Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban on the basis of this edit (possibly but not certainly made by the subject herself) which removed the description of her as an Egyptologist (again, where this sort of thing is discussed is not clear, on the talk page of the individual articles; discussing at the list talk page seems a bit pointless). I tried to include Nina M. Davies, but I don't think that Wikidata edit will allow N. de Garis Davies to be included - I am going to admit defeat with that one (though how Wikidata handle it is correct, the fact that different language Wikipedias handle it differently make it a mess anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do that, Carcharoth. I know you disagree but to me this is an illustration of how articles like this can benefit both projects, even if there are still creases to be ironed out. – Joe (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I don't disagree with curating the data (here and on Wikidata, though the data has lots of problems), I don't disagree with the generation of such lists, I just disagree with the list being in mainspace, rather than in a WikiProject space or draft space or talk page space, etc. A couple of follow up points (as I must move on soon): List of French Egyptologists has several tempting redlinks of clearly female Egyptologists; Wikidata gender can be wrong as here; and List of Egyptologists may or may not include some of these women Egyptologists I dragged out of the categories into this list (via Wikidata). From a brief look, I think I got most of them. You may find more. Good luck with that and the editing you are doing to the layout of the list! (But your references got wiped out.) Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Badly formed request - has created some thoughtful comments. This AfD involves two big, and unrelated, subjects. The role of wikidata as it becomes as important (or more important) than Wikipedia is an important subject. Whether this particular list is deleted isn't going to effect that debate one bit. Confusing that debate with the debate over the role of gender in Wikipedia is not helpful to either subject. If I closed this debate then I would leave this list. A policy on the creation of wikidata lists within en:wiki needs to be evolved, but not here. Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the light of the above comments, this is important in its own right as a list of female Egyptologists, in common with many other groups of women, provides a useful overview of their contribution to this field of study.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list but disable the bot. The list should be kept because the topic passes WP:LISTN – see Women Travellers in the Near East or You Can Be a Woman Egyptologist, for example. The bot should be blocked or disabled because the note on the article indicates that it has been set up to always revert to its preferred version and that is contrary to WP:EDITWAR. Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent so-called bot edits have actually been me (and some others) forcing updates to the list by clicking the update link, and effectively importing the edits I made on Wikidata (example). I'm not happy that this is not clear and seems to be misleading people at this AfD. Normally, work being done on an article at AfD would be apparent in the article's edit history. Here, the bot-link to Wikidata obscures who is actually working on the article and what is being done. I have worked out how to do updates to the list via Wikidata (what I found doubled the length of the list). Others either haven't worked this out, or want to edit locally. Which neatly highlights the basic problem here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that to add references you do this. I then forced an update which resulted in this. It is moderately helpful, but shows how far things still have to go (and also the potential that is there). Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List, but not in the way it's presented. I agree with many above that the list itself is a notable topic, but the way it was implemented is better served in other wiki areas. This list should be properly researched and referenced, like our other lists and timelines are on Wiki. So... this article needs some serious improvement if it's kept. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the information but reformat its presentation, to include references, as per Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to list of Egyptologists. Carcharoth has explained at length why we should not autogenerate content based on Wikidata. Though I disagree with Carcharoth about Rambova, who collaborated with Alexandre Piankoff on his editions of the New Kingdom netherworld books. The inclusion I'm most dubious about is Eady. Women's participation in Egyptology has never been a major subject of controversy or concern, although, as in every other field of endeavor, more women are involved now and their contributions appreciated more than in the past. A. Parrot (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Egyptologists The bot is edit warring with me on the article. ;) But seriously, I would rather have an article on Women in archaeology which explains the general topic of Archaeology. In fact the references are more about Archaeology then Egyptology and I don't see enough to create a standalone article on women in Egyptology. A list article is not very useful here and it can be easily navigated through categories. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As we need more lists and articles on women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flow234 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that such gender-specific lists are helpful on Wikipedia. Ideally, this page would be eventually improved with an opening section contextualizing the history of women Egyptologists. I also think that it would be best for most editors if this list were a simply editable page and not based solely on wikidata, though I agree with Victuallers that the role of wikidata-based pages is a separate discussion.Alafarge (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft talk:List of women Egyptologists/Bot list (a Draft talk subpage), then use it as the starting point to manually create Draft:List of women Egyptologists. That way the bot can happily do its thing, and everyone else can curate the bot's output in a more appropriate manual list. When that list is in decent shape, it can be moved back to mainspace, and the bot list will become a talk subpage. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:33, 30 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 Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). Also consensus to turn off the automatic updating from Wikidata. Sandstein 13:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hieronymus Bosch – Visions of genius (exhibition)[edit]

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

An incorrectly titled, poorly constructed gallery without the necessary content to be regarded as an article. Content is generated on an external, unreliable site (wiki) and edits here will be overwritten by the contents added there, so we don't even have control over the contents of this article on enwiki. Article starts with an editor alert which doesn't belong in the mainspace (when reading). It has loads on info without encyclopedic value (the Wikidata Q number), but lacks any introduction or background (what is e.g. the difference between the "painting"(sic) section and the "misc" section?). An enwiki list in the Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition) would be a good idea; this however is not to way to go. Fram (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (info) Merge (article) This article is indeed too short and too uninformative to be a stand-alone article but the list can be merged into the exhibition article Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). The Q numbers can be added as inline references, but in any case the catalog numbers should be added and it is that which should determine the list order, not the brochure. The archived brochure is a nice-to-have, but it's the catalog that needs to be referenced here, in my opinion. I just checked and it appears that all the items have catalog numbers, though I guess you might have to get them out by hand. Since it is such a short list it seems quite manageable and I don't see why it needs to be an actively updated list. Jane (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (info) Merge (article) as above, now all are listed under paintings--Oursana (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the list can be perfectly curated here, references, now on commons and Wikidata, can as well be given here--Oursana (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Oursana, the bot reverted your changes. It is, essentially, edit-warring with you. I think it may be possible to make the changes you were trying to make by changing the programming in the top of the page. It still does not resolve the issue of the bot inserting at least three paintings into this list that were not part of the actual exhibit, and that is caused by inaccurate information on Wikidata, not on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a rationale for deletion here. You've listed a number of perfectly surmountable content problems. We have full control of the list through updating the relevant Wikidata entries (anybody can do this), adjusting the parameters in the template that tells the bot what to do with them, and can always disable bot-updating (and keep the list) if it becomes problematic. – Joe (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with merge of content to Jhieronymus Bosch - Visions of genius (exhibition). The content is generated by Wikidata and cannot be curated on this project. There are no reference sources to confirm that all of these paintings were part of the specific exhibition; there were only 17 paintings and 19 drawings,{see this reliable source) which means that this list has more paintings in it than were actually in the exhibition. I am fine with having the list of paintings/drawings added to the main article, but not driven by Wikidata which is even less reliable as a source than Wikipedia. There should be an exhibit catalogue that lists all of the paintings, so it is possible to create a reliably sourced, Wikipedia-curated list. Risker (talk) 04:12, 30 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 both. Michig (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) locations[edit]

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

Original research and WP:FAN article. Doesn't benefit anybody other than fans of the series, therefore not encyclopedic to be kept. Cylon B (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Somebody had waaaay too much time on their hands. Joe's Bar? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT and possible copyvio. There are also two other pages of similar content that could be considered as a bundled AfD List of Battlestar Galactica (1978, 1980) locations, Lists of Battlestar Galactica locations. Ajf773 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - pure WP:FANCRUFT Spiderone 13:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT and Somebody did this instead of their homework. That's a real thing, you know. Of interest to fans only, not much use for general reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:38, 27 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. Uncontested. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fell Farm Holiday[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK Marvellous Spider-Man 02:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The new user who created the article on this particular book had also created one on the series, probably a better option, but that had been deleted by WP:PROD. My searches are finding very little on this volume or the series, beyond a passing mention of the series in The Guardian. In the absence of anything to demonstrate notability, the existing coverage in List of early Puffin Story Books is sufficient. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 15 December 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) 08:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mall of Islamabad[edit]

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

Can't see how it can be notable? Future building with shopping centre etc. scope_creep (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little coverage, nothing significant, except for promotional content. Fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 05:38, 16 December 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) 07:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Elephant Man's Alarm Clock[edit]

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

Not a notable album per WP:NALBUM. Nothing to be found but the usual listings on websites, and a zine or two maybe. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 December 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) 07:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 26 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. Uncontested. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel J Amirtharaj[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines even on a basic level. The claim to fame seems to be the fact that she designed the clothes of notable people which isn't enough on its own. The sources given only drop this person's name and do not provide in depth coverage. My google search didn't turn up any in depth coverage. There might also be a promotional element here as the creator seems associated with this person in some way. A draft of this page which is largely the same was previously rejected as not meeting notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as simply none of this establishes actual independent notability or substance of it, the fact this has been restarted the same immediately after a G11 is self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 17 December 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) 07:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by MBisanz (citing this discussions). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pillai (community)[edit]

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

There is no such community called Pillai (community). Pillai is merely a Title of various communities, mostly among Vellalars. There are many Sub groups add Pillai along with their community name such as Saiva Pillai etc.. but no community exists as Pillai (community) itself.Winnan Tirunallur (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; misleading article Spiderone 09:38, 21 December 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) 07:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khoka Chalu Cheez[edit]

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

Unreferenced unreleased film. No credible claim of significance. Unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - doesn't meet notability criteria due to there being no reliable information at present; should this change then it can be created again Spiderone 13:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.no evidence.Doesn't meet notability WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 13:04, 25 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. Michig (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short Man[edit]

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

Unreferenced film. Google search reveals very little about this movie. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - Delete Short Man 2 and Short Man 3 also. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced advert by production company acct. Cabayi (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Speedily, even, as promotional. --Calton | Talk 11:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an advert. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidarbha Chandika[edit]

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

Previously PRODed by me as "Claims no notability. Fails WP:GNG." Later @SwisterTwister: CSDed it as A7 No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). Both CSD and PROD declined by @Espresso Addict: as "Declining speedy; not suitable article for A7; also deprodding. Long-standing article, website provides adequate verification of existence".
If proven existence meant notability, Wikipedia is gonna be doomed soon. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-How could ever be existence=notability?Fails WP:GNG.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no suggestion of notability/impact Spiderone 17:23, 30 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. To cut down on the amount of relisted debates, I'm closing this uncontested nomination as "delete". Given the low levels of participation here, I'll restore the article and reopen the discussion upon request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (Olivia Holt song)[edit]

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

This is a single that does not meet WP:NMUSIC. There is no significant coverage about the song. Of the four references, three are primary sources and not independent. The only independent source is used in the background section which is all about the singer and makes no mention of this song. Whpq (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources provided are not about the song itself. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic tongue[edit]

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

Information is factually untrue, represents a summary of original research (without accompanying references/publications), and serves to mislabel an entire research field by associating it with a specific commercial product Plantling (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plantling, as this flawlessly executed AfD is your very first edit, can you please inform us who this account is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade - I simply followed the instructions for nominating an article for deletion. I found a checklist after searching for 'how to nominate an article for deletion' - is following the rules somehow a bad thing? For what it's worth, I'm a chemist primarily doing research on Electronic Nose topics. I've heard (many times) about Electronic Tongue technology and research, but I've never heard of the scientist mentioned in this article or his commercial product. That's why I nominated it for deletion. --Plantling 23:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe you. I've changed somewhat the wording of the article so it doesn't look that the scientist named in the article "invented" the technology definitively.--Oakshade (talk) 03:52, 19 December 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) 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these sources: [15] [16] [17] KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. And the references provided by the "keep" !vote above actually prove the point made by the nom that the article mislabels an entire research field by associating it with a specific product. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the sources are still too trivial and unconvincing, with the closest one being the US government listing, there's simply no substance here. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does appear to be an actual thing and it has been written up about in detail by notable publications like New Scientist, National Geographic, Northwest Public Radio, Haaretz and wine-based publications. [18][19][20][21][22]--Oakshade (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oakshade's links to those reliable sources make it pretty clear to me that this meets GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 26 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. Whether a game list article (of four games?) could be created is a separate issue. This discussion is about an article about the company, and there's no real argument being made here to keep that. Sandstein 23:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GameMill Entertainment[edit]

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

The article is a stub, the company does not reach notability guidelines. Constant edit disputes over the company's history in biased edits from company owner Tim Flaherty lead to no progress, wherefore it should be deleted to resolve the edit war. Article should be recreated if the company ever reaches notability. Lordtobi (✉) 15:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or move to List of GameMill Entertainment games. Although the company doesn't receive coverage, their creative works do, some which pass GNG and some which would exist best in a List article.--Odie5533 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of their creative works, one, Cartoon Network: Battle Crashers, only hardly manages to reach GNG, while other two, Water Sports (video game) and Frozen: Olaf's Quest, have been listed at AfD as well, where the first is completely unsourced, and the latter half-based on one source, and else unsourced as well. Only Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing has a semi-proper article and semi-good coverage to keep it as an article. So considering that #2 and #3 could potentially be deleted, you would have List of GameMill Entertainment games, which includes two items, or three if you wish #3 to be included with the one source provided in the article. From my POV, your proposal does not really make sense. Lordtobi (✉) 14:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The List would include all their games, notable and not. They've developed and published more than just those 4. Some of others are notable, most probably aren't, but they'd all work well in a List. It would give the non-notable, slightly notable, and edge cases like Water Sports a home as I think the best place for them is a List. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern would be that we don't usually have "List of X" articles where "X" doesn't have its own article. I think it would be like having a List of Halo 6 characters before being able to establish Halo 6 as notable. I think we'd find ourselves right back at AFD if we did that... Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a rather interesting case. Normally, I'd expect to keep a company article and use it to store reviews of its games if, say, one game is notable, but several are not. But in this case there is little about both the company and the games. Without prejudice to separate AfDs, none of its four games appear notable. All lack multiple, significant reviews. The Frozen and Cartoon Network games should be covered in their parent list/articles. Water Sports lacks coverage altogether. And that leaves Big Rigs, which has few reliable reviews and is known primarily for being the butt of jokes. With only reviews from GameSpot and G4, and little extra news commentary, I'd delete that one too (or perhaps try to redirect it to an article on games with exceptionally poor reception?) So that leaves the company itself, which has no independent coverage in reliable sources. (Here, have some press releases for shovelware:[23][24][25]. Nope, no presumption of notability here. czar 07:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: We do have such a list, but I haven't figured out the inclusion criteria for it. --Izno (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean List of video games notable for negative reception, that's a discussion for its talk page or WT:VG, but Big Rigs is already discussed there so nothing would be lost in turning the current Big Rigs article to a redirect. Don't see a list for GameMill. czar 17:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move To List of GameMill Entertainment games. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No rationale? Please consider what Czar stated on the listing issue just above. Lordtobi (✉) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst other things, Big Rigs cant just be redirected to the mentioned list mentioned by said user because that list require entries to have articles, and it seems that many of the games produced by this company are getting kept on afd. I think if atleast 2 or 3 are notable, all their games can reasonably listed in an article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, the company has four games with articles, of which two are undergoing AfD, one of which is strong delete, and the other just a weak keep, but neither reaches GNG, really. Apparently, you are referencing "the mentioned list mentioned by said user"; Does that have any relevance here?; Should I know about it? Considering that you would see Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing redirected here, or to the to-be created list, only one game with an ok-article would remain, again rendering that list notability-less and resulting in a new AfD. Makes no sense, really. Lordtobi (✉) 19:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frozen: Olaf's Quest definitely meets GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And "meeting" the GNG (read: having sources) doesn't mean that we create separate articles. The Frozen game, as the Big Rigs game, can be adequately covered in existing sections. There still isn't cause for a separate company article, nevertheless a "list" article (which would technically be a split from the company article). czar 19:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Czar's rationale, I would say merge to a list, but we really don't have lists where the target subject isn't notable in their own right. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 594[edit]

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

De-PRODed saying Google shows some sources for this number, but the only source added explicitly does not use the I-594 nomenclature at all. In fact, a Google search for this number does not turn up any usable sources, just online discussion board postings (fails WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL for starters) and sources about Illinois Route 594, a totally separate highway. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG for the standards of Interstate Highways. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 03:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for this interstate number? No. Sources for aspects of the claimed proposal? Yes. That was the reason I de-prodded, as there are other potential options (renaming and editing to remove the interstate number, for instance). I didn't consider this controversial when I was moving through the PROD backlog. This isn't an opinion either way, just an explanation of the deprod. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Illinois 53#Future, which already has more information about the subject than this article has. I'm seeing the same problem as in the nomination: I-594 is a made-up name from a message board of no weight, for an extension of Illinois 53 and possibly part of Illinois 120. The only citation in the article is to a 2013 Illinois Tollway proposal, which explicitly says 45 miles per hour for the main stem, which implies that it's not even intended to be up to Interstate standards. I mention Delete here because there's no evidence this is even a name used for this topic, except in a couple of speculative web pages out on the Internet. --Closeapple (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is better than outright deletion, because the edit history would be preserved if/when there is more sourced content to add, and perhaps more importantly so that the Talk page will preserve a link to this thoughtful AFD discussion. Perhaps helping any future editor decide not to start up an Interstate 594 article. I say Redirect rather than Merge because I gather from comments here that there is not really any significant, reliable content to merge. --do ncr am 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:RS. The only highway with this 594 designation is a road in Monroe Louisiana. Not at all notable and not in the U.S. federal interstate system. Perhaps a WP:Hoax?SW3 5DL (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Sun[edit]

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

Non-notable small-town newspaper. As much as I hate to delete anything with a history going back to 1883, I can't find any sources which satisfy WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. I found one book that mentions it, so we at least meet WP:V. I'm actually hoping people are able to find sufficient sources (and would be happy to withdraw this nomination if any surface). The article itself is badly written, but that's fixable if we can find sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Cool story, but not notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:58, 27 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 where overarching article does not exist, redirect (allowing for merge) if it does. There is a slight consensus to delete here; there is a number of comments about merging the content, but as regards the Algeria article these talk about merging to an article that does not exist. Therefore, I have deleted the article, but if anyone would like the content from any of the deleted articles to attempt to create a notable article like the one discussed in the comments, please contact me or another admin. As the overarching article for the Netherlands (Netherlands at the UCI Road World Championships) does exist, I have redirected there; the content is still in the history if anyone wants to merge it in. Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 2015 UCI Road World Championships[edit]

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

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [26], "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the articles in the following category: Nations at the UCI Road World Championships except the ones that are not in a subcategory . Total article count:642 +

Note BRFA has been submitted to add AFD notices to all relevant pages. Primefac (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC) BRFA put on hold until I know exactly how deep this AFD rabbit hole is going. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update all pages nominated in this particular AFD have been tagged. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - it is an example of proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left for dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated, these articles are a considerably different case than X at the Olympics. --Tone 09:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While I generally agree with arguments in favor of delete, I feel the best solution would be to merge the per-country-per-year articles into per-country articles (Algeria at the UCI Road World Championships, etc.). GregorB (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consider merging to per-country articles only if there are viable significant non-stats content (e.g. historical/social/cultural details) worthy of mention. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per GregorB. -- Shudde ^talk 09:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

1) The nominator says events that are borderline notable themselves, well the event meets WP:NCYC and it's even at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items.

2) As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at the 2014 European Athletics Championships. (Note that the European Athletics Championships are not listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items)

3) THe nominator says Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. But the same kind of series are made for the Category:Nations at the European Athletics Championships and Category:Nations at the World Championships in Athletics. These events have the same notability standard.

4) The pages where discussed at the Cycling Wikiproject, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 12#Country pages for the UCI Road World championships. Lugnuts, XyZAn and Buzzards-Watch Me Work joined the discussion and nobody was against.

or Renaming: It might be better to rename all such pages into like 2015 in Dutch road cycling, 2015 in French road cycling etc.. (Note that merging into the national pages is difficult as there are already pages named Netherlands at the UCI Road World Championships, Germany at the UCI Road World Championships and United States at the UCI Road World Championships. )

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per GregorB, standardise to [Country] at [Competition], this is also something I brought up at WT:CYC XyZAn (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Each country's total statistics at specified competitions. No need to have an article for each separate year.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine coverage of a particular country's participation in an event, therefore not notable. 1292simon (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same rationale as 1292simon above. GauchoDude (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Into Algeria at the UCI Road World Championships, similar to User:GregorB's suggestion above. To me, the gold standard for the various year/country UCI Road World Championships articles is Italy at the UCI Road World Championships. Italy has won the most medals, and that tally is succinctly showcased in that article. It covers all the years in one place. I've also noticed that of the various articles flagged for deletion, Algeria's cannot claim any medal finishes at all. Their participation in the event is borderline notable, and at the very least not deserving of a granular year by year tally of their unsuccessful participation. Absent any medals, the merged article could perhaps recount the closest finishes they had, and perhaps also have a running tally of participants by year. Others more familiar with the cultural significance of this race might have additional ideas for substance.Timtempleton (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kinto (storage)[edit]

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

Non-notable web content. Maximum search results are about person names. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like someone wanted to use WP to promote his own smallish dev-tool. Has been created by a SPA. Anyway this one does not pass WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:PRODUCT by any means. It may be a useful and neat tool when developing apps using JSON, but this is a very niche case of application. Unsurprisingly coverage of this tool is basically non-existant, apart from some dev-blogs and forums. It therefore fails WP:GNG too. Since WP is not a directory for apps/software, I think the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To cut down on the amount of relisted debates, I'm closing this uncontested nomination as "delete". Given the low levels of participation here, I'll restore the article and reopen the discussion upon request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Soetens[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As with the last AfD - notability not established. The one or two references added since the last AfD do nothing to alter the outcome. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 29 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdahu Kashaf[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E biography. The subject is apparently only notable for his alleged involvement in a crime. - Mr X 02:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political party's social media manager is in no way whatsoever an automatic "just because he exists" notability freebie on Wikipedia, but the referencing shown here is nowhere near good enough to actually get him over WP:GNG for it — of the five references shown, three of them just namecheck the subject's existence while failing to be about him in any substantive way, while the other two are about Asaduddin Owaisi's personal app while completely failing to mention Kashaf's name at all. That's simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to make someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 28 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. Michig (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fetla's[edit]

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

Not notable, poorly written. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any significant reference beyond local news involving renovations, reinvestment, etc. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources and fails WP:GNG. Can't even verify it is even a shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This is not a notable gun shop. Fails WP:GNG.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 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) Ya sh ! 08:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crean[edit]

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

This is a close one. There is some coverage or at least mention of his disappearance and the finding of his body two years later [27][28][29] but it's a little superficial and borderline WP:NOTNEWS. This obituary [30] has a bit more depth although its content does not really match the focus of our article. So: is this just about good enough for WP:GNG or should we delete this? Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep. Well reported at the time, but prior to WWW and news on line - so google and others are mostly blind to it. Still referred to 10 and 20 and 30 years later as a reference event. See right. If I get the chance I might rewrite and fully reference myself tomorrow. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references including news at the time
17 years later - http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/16/1034561213053.html 28 years later - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/how-does-a-bushwalker-go-missing-never-to-be-found/news-story/8a784ed4e5594e7a74576455b015a1ab https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fJAPTvn5sP0C&pg=PT132&lpg=PT132&dq=stephen+crean&source=bl&ots=MU5bdd51lk&sig=KNWbvG9_XqFM_Zll3lXNArSmXdk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC6aTx4P3QAhVGKJQKHYAlANE4FBDoAQg-MAg#v=onepage&q=stephen%20crean&f=false 29 years later - http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canadian-hiker-prabhdeep-srawn-still-missing-a-year-after-kosciuszko-disappearance-20140515-zrduo.html 30 years later - https://52adventuresblog.com/tag/best-walk-in-the-snowy-mountains/ 14 years later - https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/119677799/ 28 years later - http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/letters/walker-invited-danger-20130603-2nm16.html 12 years later - http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1659872_1659465_1659442-2,00.html http://read.schoollibrary.com/articles/eng/Frank_Crean http://www.worldebooklibrary.net/article.aspx?lang=eng&title=simon_crean http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476797 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119477022 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118117279 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/127539959 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122522885 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119477022 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476582 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521919 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476409 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521908 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521316 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521785 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521479 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122521720 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/119476797 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/118117279 http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122522387

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently has significant coverage. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done an almost complete rewrite with full in line referencing - so I believe a definite definite keep Aoziwe (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Aoziwe and clear demonstration of broad coverage and lasting significance. TimothyJosephWood 16:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to the additional work - I think the nomination was fair, based on the article at the time - sometimes AFD provides the incentive to improve an article - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mahfujur Rahman[edit]

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

While accomplished, this individual does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC by a long shot. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:AUTO JarrahTree 08:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:31, 28 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. To cut down on the amount of relisted debates, I'm closing this uncontested nomination as "delete". Given the low participation, I'll restore the article and reopen the discussion upon request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim Space Fund[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional. The references are, as usual, either press releases of announcements. The numbered references that show at the bottom but do not display are announcements of individual investments, mostly from media devoted to press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 01:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Also, Wikipedia is not a site for adverts/press releases. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:02, 26 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.