Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 December	27 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 redirect to Passions. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony (Passions)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions. There doesn't seem like there are any reliable sources that talk about the town in any way other than plot summaries. Looking for sources, I'm only finding things that just mention it as the setting of the show, with no in-depth discussion about the location. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions. Not independently notable. 1292simon (talk) 21:54, 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 keep. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Younesi[edit]

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

Articles without updated references which are tenuous at best. Completed a single series. Can't see how he is notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed he has served as Executive Producer/Director only on a single series, however that series has aired globally for Three Seasons [1], and has been highly recognized, including both an Emmy nomination and NAACP Image Award [2] [3]. He directed the majority of episodes, including the entire first season [4]. Appears this would satisfy WP:BIO "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:60C5:9300:8017:584C:AB42:559C (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was a SPA account with a single edit coming in to comment. scope_creep (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator is attempting to make good on new references. scope_creep (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple additional, verifiable references added for good measure. MichaelCohenProjectMc2 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BARE and WP:CREATIVE. It now meet our bare-minimum standards. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 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. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Villalba (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG - sources provided are brief mentions, press releases, affiliated organizations, or social media. My searches found little, if anything, to bolster notability. GAB^gab 23:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! We have dedicated a lot of time to get this article right. We have looked into reliable sources and we made sure it met the notability requirements, without being promotional. The subject described in the article manages a company with over 10 million customers and has his own successful company, being only 19 years old. He has appeared on several TV interviews (LevanteTV, 11tv) and articles about him have been published on significant newspapers (infoLibre or La Razon). Do please let us know how to improve this article (make it more objective, include more valid sources etc). Thank you! May the force be with you

Comment: Draft previously declined twice: [5]. AllyD (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a subject who is employed by one web hosting firm and has also started a company of his own, neither of which are notable in their own right. I agree with User:David.moreno72's assessments of the earlier drafts: for me, it describes a mundane early career lacking encyclopaedic notability. Wikipedia is not here to preen the aspiring; pre-existing notability is required. The given references for the subject's company are a newswire press release, a blog posting, a couple of social media pages by the subject, a promotional appearance on local TV and a listing in a start-up competition (in which it has gathered 27 votes): this is far from sufficient. AllyD (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- cross wiki person promo with sockpuppets since 2014 - see file here. MoiraMoira (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough reliable sources (2-3) that do prove the content in this Wikipedia page. I do also feel that the person in the page is notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.136.166 (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced; there is one good source that lists him, from IEET, but that is a listing of one work by him, not about him.Bearian (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – run of the mill puff piece, by a WP:SPA, on an individual that doesn't meet our notability criteria. Citobun (talk)!
Speedy delete. Not notable. Declined draft appears to have been written by Fran himself. Then content was re-posted by a SPA using a different title to circumvent the Draft process. Must be destroyed! 1292simon (talk) 22:27, 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 redirect to Older (George Michael song). (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Older EP[edit]

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

There is no discussion of this EP in reliable sources. The EP is mentioned in the Older (George Michael song) article, so a merge/redirect to there may suffice. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least just redirect. No need to delete an article about an EP that includes four notable songs, charted in at least four countries, and was certified silver in the UK. Let the article grow. If anything, the redirect should be kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I find about charting relate to the song or single rather than the EP. I couldn't confirm at all the Dutch peak of 29 only the 46 for the single. The link to the BPI website are deadlinks and I couldn't confirm, although again it may refer to the single certification. The EP completely fails the most important aspect of WP:NALBUMS, which states that all albums must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll note the potential charting issue on the discography's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article should be part of the single of the same name or, let's say, vice versa as the EP format was released earlier, while the later AA-single featuring also the track "I Can't Make You Love Me" in addition. But that depends also on which format of the work charted higher if both. Gustont (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The 1996 EP and the 1997 double-single (which just doesn't include the EP's other 2 B-side tracks) are not independently notable. Therefore one of them should be merged into the other. I think Gustont's suggestion of retaining the higher charting release is a good approach. 1292simon (talk) 22:13, 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 redirect to In Square Circle. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 23:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger on The Shore of Love[edit]

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

Non-notable single, fails WP:NSONG ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, fails notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In Square Circle. The song itself lacks any independent notability, but it should be redirected since it exists on a notable album. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think this is an article a more experienced editor should fix it up a bit, describe it a little bit more and insert some reviews that the single received at the time and the positive effect the song could have had on his career.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrakd002.302 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to In Square Circle. For reasons identified by Yoshiman6464. 1292simon (talk) 21:57, 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. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Walker Studios[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:COMPANY, as there are lots of unreliable sources that do not establish notability, and no reliable sources can be found that could be added to the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Underneath the inflated claims and PR puffery, I'm not seeing any real sign of real-world notability. --Calton | Talk 23:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a promotional article by a single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a means of self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:50, 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 keep. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reclosing as No Consensus, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Jordana[edit]

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

The AFD in February began with a majority for delete, but was closed as redirect to List of The Howard Stern Show staff. Since then, she's had a minor role in Sharknado: The 4th Awakens, and last month another editor re-created over the redirect. Now for my money, one Sharknado does not a summer make, and the newly-recreated article reads like a straight paste from a press release for her. Still, reverting to the redirect without a discussion doesn't quite seem to be in the spirit of the relevant policies, so I've taken it back to AFD. Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO outside of her association with one band; not notable per WP:NACTOR; has written some blogs, but the WaPo reference only mentions her in passing, so not notable per WP:AUTHOR. Her sole claim to fame seems to be her previous work on the Howard Stern show, for which she hasn't received much coverage in WP:RS outside of the shout-out on Jimmy Kimmel. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie role and the improved sourcing put this article over the edge of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The sourcing is not very convincing, as many sources do not comply to WP:RS. The acting job is uncredited and only mentioned under "Rest of cast listed alphabetically". The Banner talk 18:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete for sure. Not only is the sourcing not convincing, but a lot of it isn't even sourced. The source for her attending the Connecticut School of Broadcasting doesn't even mention her.TBMNY (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a lot of detractors who don't like her but she was apart of a very popular band, a regular guest and writer for the most famous Radio Show in history, had a movie role, written for many popular websites, and is verified on Twitter. More than enough to warrant a Wikipedia Page IMO. LeafK1 (talk) 1:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

LeafK1, judging by your edit history, your opinion is incredibly bias. It honestly seems like the people who are editing this page are either Elisa Jordana herself, or people who knows her. It all looks super suspect.TBMNY (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, without prejudice to relisting in the future if her career does not progress further. All of her achievements alone would not qualify her; Being a member of Cobra Starship doesn't qualify her for her own article (see Matty Healy from The 1975, for example, who was deleted despite being relatively high-profile), nor does the minor acting role or the radio appearances. When combined, though, I think she just sneaks in as an admittedly Z-list public figure, and as such we should have an article. KaisaL (talk) 17:23, 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 draftify and redirect to Whose Streets?. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabaah Folayan[edit]

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

Some notability exists, but with one film only not released, it looks like a case of WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 18 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) 15:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. I think that Arthistorian1997 is correct that Folayan is not yet notable enough for an article. However, I don't think a straight delete is the best option. I'm inclined to say to move the article to Draft:Sabaah Folayan so it can be worked on. I'd also say to replace the article with a redirect to Whose Streets? until Folayan is independently notable: I think one article is warranted between the filmmaker and the film, and I think the film is the more likely of the two to get substantial coverage in the run-up to and following Sundance. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate as per ArtHistorian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 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. The "keep" opinions do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion. Sandstein 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mudgil[edit]

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

Raised at WP:BLPN and also tagged with notability concerns, bringing here for further assessment. Sagecandor (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notability found. He is president of just an association engaged in physiotherapy related activity. Can be considered for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. Presidents of national associations in major fields are normally considered notable. The article however needs considerable expansion and better sourcing.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The national physiotherapy association of India seems to be IAP and not this association. Haryana is a state of India. Input by any Indian physiotherapists may be required to crosscheck notability but it looks like self promotion. WP:SPEEDY {{Db-g11}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs)

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

Keep this article is relating to a person who is notable because he is voice of thousands of Physiothearapists. He is striving for the Physiothearapist Council in haryana State. His contribution is noteworthy and notable in the History of Haryana in Physiothearapist History, He is the President of a Association of Physiothearapists in Haryana and torch bearer for new generation in Haryana State.117.252.4.106 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete hopeless promotional and being made worse with yet more unsourced promotional content even as this AfD proceeds diff. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep hopeless promotion has been made by a different user.2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC) 2405:205:3208:8839:F5FD:3843:8948:11F4 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Hopeless promotion is made by someone who doesn't have wiki account. The language shows that person might be he himself or any close relative/ friend. I dint find any notable information on Google news or Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expl66 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This person has treated thousands by himself and is a torchbearer for the rights of this industry, His article should be kept on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.90.107 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dr. Mudgil is an eminent person in India. The page may be kept, as he is a notable person.Yogitadagar (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Yogitadagar (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – self promotion, contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Keep votes come from single-purpose accounts intended to stack this discussion. Citobun (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is purely promotional and has no encyclopedia value. Note to closing admin, please see that the keep votes have been made by new / un-registered users and user Drm310 has also pointed the same out. Possible COI in voting. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:33, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Guruji Maharshi[edit]

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

The article lacks the importance to be encyclopedic. When I search google for the name I can only found the results for Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader). JackTracker (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 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 15:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop Digital[edit]

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

30-person marketing company with purely local or other trivial awards. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo piece on a run-of-the-mill digital marketing agency that is in no way unique, remarkable, interesting or noteworthy. Mduvekot (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understand that this article may appear on the fringe of notability, but it's not a "promo piece." All cited references are legitimate, third-party sources, albeit primarily local and regional ones. OpenWork is the exception and intended to demonstrate wider appeal, as is the list of clientele to reinforce notability within the industry. From a local perspective, organization's relocation to Shockoe Slip reflects revitalization of the area that includes long-time tenants The Martin Agency and new offices for CarMax. Turnaphrase (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have seen an article defended as notable on the basis that two notable firms are in the same neighborhood. As fir the likely significance of even that, note the number of employees and the size of the charitable contributions. When it has not merely "intended to demonstrate wider appeal" , but has actually done so, will be time for an article.. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a misreading of the argument. The organization is not being defended on the "basis that two notable firms are in the same neighborhood"; the historic downtown area (Shockoe Slip) is notable and, therefore, organizations central to its revitalization are useful in the explanation of why the area has changed in recent years. Additionally, the OpenWork profile reflects coverage and notability beyond local relevance—"demonstrating wider appeal." It was the "intent" of the inclusion of that reference to achieve that goal. Turnaphrase ( talk ) 5:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is hardly any claim of significance here. A small 30 person company with very less coverage, (which is local). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited; this can be extended to "just because a company is in a notable location does not make the company notable." This company fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:PROMO piece on an unremarkable company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Vardoulakis[edit]

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

I do not believe this academic meets any criterion for WP:PROF – he is simply a mid-level academic in Australia. I put up a proposed deletion before, but the creator of the article removed it with the summary note that Vardoulakis has had his work reviewed which means he meets criterion 1. However, almost all academic books receive some reviews in some academic journal – hence almost all humanities academics have reviews published of their work, certainly in Australia where it is standard for even a junior academic to have a published book. If this establishes notability, then almost all professional academics would be notable. Vardoulakis is not highly cited, which is the main thing discussed at criterion 1. esperant 22:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete. GS h-index of 6 not quite enough, even in this low-cited field. WP:Too soon. Nominator is advised to learn more about the academic citation system in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Not sure how you derive this h-index from GS: there is a more prominent academic of the same name working in computing who has a GS proflie and an h-index of 5. By my rough calculation this subject of this deletion proposal has an h-index of 4. esperant 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Web of Science gives him a h-index of 2. Either way I think we can agree it's not very high. Joe Roe (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I agree with an h-index of 2. And WP:GNG is not met either. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I agree that simple having one's work reviewed doesn't meet WP:PROF#C1. As an associate professor with relatively low citations and apparently no other indicators of notability, the subject doesn't quite meet our standard of notability. Joe Roe (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm really surprised by the above comments, which seem to set a too-high notability bar for academics. Yes, lots of humanities academics publish books which get reviewed, and yes, that means lots of academics (lots more than we have articles about) are notable. Equally, lots of bishops, professional athletes and film actors are notable. The article now cites multiple reviews for both of his monographs. This means that each of them meets the general notability guideline on their own; if his books are notable, he certainly is. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My main concern here is consistency, so if the conclusion is that the great majority of publishing academics should have Wikipedia articles for them, then I will be content with that result. I would also note however that the criterion for general notability is 'significant coverage', which is quite ambiguous: while one might think two reviews of an academic book in academic journals is 'significant' coverage, I don't think it is clearly the case that it should count as significant, and indeed I don't think it is 'significant' but rather simply what is expected of a new academic monograph. I would also note that WP:PROF notes that outlets which themselves review almost every book that comes out shouldn't be taken to contribute to notability, and that one of the cited reviews is in NDPR, which reviews almost every new philosophy monograph. esperant 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC
  - I find these claims bizarre. First, plenty of "publishing academics", even mid- or late-career academics, have not published books, or have not published books with major presses, and/or have not published books which have attracted any reviews. If you look through a faculty list at a research university, you might not get this impression, but being on the faculty at a research university already sets one apart from many other academics (or would-be academics). Second, of course a lengthy book review constitutes significant coverage. This discussion would not be arising if we were talking about film reviews, or novel reviews, or album reviews, or episode reviews appearing in newspapers. It's odd that reviews in academic journals are treated with such suspicion. Third, multiple reviews may (or may not) be "what is expected" for an academic text with a university press, that's not, in itself, an argument that it does not constitute "significant coverage" for notability purposes. Imagine how bizarre it would sound if you said "delete- this may have received a lot of reviews, but that's what is to be expected for a James Cameron film". Fourth, the NDPR publishes lengthy (I think even peer reviewed, but I'm not certain about that) reviews of new books (not "every" new book- not even close) from specially selected academics, and is well-respected and widely read in the philosophical community. Again, I don't see why it's being treated with such suspicion. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the reviews would carry more weight if they were accompanied by higher citation rates overall, since WP:PROF guides us to consider these together in judging whether a work has made a "significant impact" in its field. Does 30 citations for a six year old book really constitute a "highly cited" work in philosophy? Joe Roe (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in my view, no, but citation rates are an imprecise science, both in terms of judging the significance of a work (within philosophy, some kinds of works and works on some particular topics are going to see higher citation rates) and because the automatically generated citation numbers are unreliable. That said, this discussion is academic. My claim does not rest on citation rates; it rests on the general notability guideline. As both WP:GNG and WP:PROF explain, a failure to meet the academic-specific guidelines does not preclude an individual's being notable if (s)he meets some other notability guideline. I ask you what I asked esperant: why are you setting such a high bar for academics? This kind of coverage would unquestionably ground notability in the case of a musician or novelist. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not my intention to set a high bar, just to consistently apply the criteria we usually apply to academic biographies in AfDs. I agree there are big discrepancies between the various SNGs (WP:PORNSTAR being the paradigmatic example), and would definitely support a proposal to loosen the criteria for academics, but that's a wider discussion.

I didn't realise you were basing your argument on the GNG. Of course if Vardoulakis meets that then WP:PROF is irrelevant. At this point I can't say I agree that the reviews of his books constitute significant coverage of Vardoulakis himself, but I'd happily change my !vote if shown otherwise. Joe Roe (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great, I don't think we disagree as much as I thought. Two thoughts on "reviews of his work" versus "articles about him". First, these reviews at least amount of significant coverage of his work. But few academics are going to have (say) newspaper articles written about their personal lives or biopics produced about their childhood. Surely, though, that's not that which we want; it's (generally) their work that makes notable academics notable, so discussion of their work is surely enough to ground notability (just as articles discussing a musician's music or a painter's exhibitions would surely be enough to ground their notability). Second, both of Vardoulakis's monographs (and both of his collections, but it's the monographs I'm more concerned with here) literally meet the GNG in their own right; it would surely be odd to say that his two monographs are notable but that he is not. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all academics in this field will publish books. Vardoulakis does not yet have the level of citations to make him highly cited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- John: Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I'm not convinced anyone has answered yet: Why do you have such a high bar for academics? Multiple works reviewed in highly reliable sources would be enough to ground notability of any musician, novelist, filmmaker, etc. Do you believe that the GNG does not apply to philosophers? If so, on what basis? Josh Milburn (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, to be blunter: "Delete. Almost all musicians produce albums. Doesn't matter if these albums have been reviewed in multiple magazines, this musician has not yet charted at a level required by WP:OBSCUREGUIDELINE#C1." Josh Milburn (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Josh, I don't think this is comparing like with like. Being an academic is a profession. Academics produces works that are read, in the standard course of their work, by other academics. This activity does not in itself make them notable. Reviews in academic journals is a communication within a small professional community. Very few people buy and read academic journals any more. Academic journals are not magazines. If you want to compare like with like, imagine a musician who cut an album which has sales of approximately 100 copies and was reviewed in a publication with a total circulation of a few hundred. Such a musician would not be notable. esperant 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't find that argument at all convincing, for reasons I'd be happy to explain, but I'll just cut to the point: What I'm hearing here is twofold. First, you're claiming that academic journals are literally worse sources for establishing notability than popular magazines. Second, you're claiming that the GNG does not apply to academics. Neither of these claims have any basis in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines (or, if I'm wrong here, please point to the guidelines I am not aware of), and they result in the kind of anti-intellectualism for which Wikipedia is frequently criticised. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not claiming that WP:GNG doesn't apply to academics. I am applying it. Clearly we have different ideas about how it applies here. I do claim that academic journals are lesser sources of notability than popular magazines, since I believe notability is established by significant coverage per GNG and I believe this coverage is more significant. I do not believe this is anti-intellectualism. Rather, I believe the opposite opinion is special pleading that takes intellectuals as having eo ipso higher notability than any other class of individual whose ideas are heard by a very small audience. esperant 03:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand your special pleading case in the slightest. Show me the sources, and I'll support keeping an article on anyone, academic or not, no matter how few people hear their views. I don't really understand what that's meant to prove. As for us having "different" views about what the GNG entails; I'm just going off what is written. Are the sources reliable? Yes, they're in peer reviewed journals. Is the coverage significant? Yeah, it's a whole article, not a passing mention. (And yes, that's what "significant" means; ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.") Are the articles independent of the subject? Clearly. Where's the room for a difference of interpretation? Josh Milburn (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to admit after reading it again in light of your comment that you are right and I was wrong above about the meaning of 'significant coverage', hence you are right that on this specific point it's not a matter of interpretation. I nonetheless continue to read GNG as not applying here. Firstly, reviews of book constitute significant coverage per GNG of the books, not the author of the book. You above suggest it would be paradoxical for the books to be notable and not the author, but this I would suggest would be the case here if 'significant coverage' were sufficient to establish notability: we do not have sufficient information published in reputable secondary sources to have an overview article on this person, since we only have accounts of the content of a couple of their books, without linking information. In any case, however, I believe that you are reading GNG as a list of sufficient rather than necessary conditions. That is, it is a necessary condition for producing an article that the topic have significant coverage, whereas the last point of GNG makes clear that while significant coverage creates a presumption of notability it does not in itself 'guarantee' inclusion, because there may be other considerations. In this case I think both WP:PROF and WP:NOT constitute established conventions by which Wikipedia does not give articles to any academic with a reviewed book. esperant 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The GNG is explicitly not a set of necessary conditions, which is why we have WP:PROF and the like. These guidelines are in place to identify notable people who do not meet the GNG. That's not how they're being used here, however; you're explicitly trying to use them to exclude people who do meet the GNG. And that's sad. (I've no idea what part of WP:NOT would justify not having an article about an established academic; the appeal sounds suspiciously ad hoc.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject neither meets the GNG nor PROF; that's the bottom line. I am thoroughly unimpressed by arguments that failure to set the bar for academics as low as some might like, or that the longstanding principle about notability not being inherited shouldn't be suspended in their favor, implies that Wikipedia is "anti-intellectual." If people are unhappy with one or another SNG, the argument should be made at the appropriate talk page, not here. Ravenswing 18:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous articles about Vardoulakis's work are cited in the article. It is not clear to me at this stage what everyone is actually looking for, here. Tabloid stories about his personal life? What establishes an academic's notability if not articles about his work? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone like Vardoulakis is not a notable academic, then who is? According to pro-deletes, I think we have to delete more than 80 percent of academics'pages in Wikipedia. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then who is? What a bizarre question! One answer is philosopher Ernest Gellner with over more than 25,000 citations in GS (I lost count after that) and an h-index of 50. The early-career subject of the BLP does does not come within visual sighting of that. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

That's a hyperbole. Please read my second sentence! --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this article meets the notability requirements for inclusion. As I've argued, it doesn't seem to me that it does. I am quite willing to accept that this means that 80% of the articles on academics on Wikipedia should be deleted. Indeed, I think that WP:NOT implies that we shouldn't have pages on so many minor scholars. The thrust of WP:GNG here is that we should have articles only on subjects where there is a sufficient secondary literature to actually lean on to compose a tertiary encyclopedia article about that thing. Naturally, only a small percentage of the most prominent scholars could ever have properly referenced articles written about them. esperant 13:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am no longer watching this page. If you wish to talk to me in particular, please comment on my talk page. This has been an eye-opening discussion. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears that he just received tenure from a lesser-known university. We have sometimes kept articles about associate professors, but those have been at the most prestigious universities, such as Ivy league or Oxbridge universities. Having taught for almost two decades at a lesser college, and failed to get tenure, I am well aware how difficult this must be. I was managing editor of a law journal and edited two editions of a popular Business law textbook -- and got nothing for my efforts. I'm now starting all over again, applying for a fellowship at the age of 52. Wish me luck at the January 16th interview! My triplet sister, a scholar at a "Carnegie tier-I university", has lots of entries at Google Scholar and has written too books, but does not have a Wikipedia article either, nor tenure for that matter. Usually we only keep full or named professors. Too soon is right. By the way, there are several scholars whose articles I think we need to delete, but that is not on the table for discussion right now. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with what you say, in line with my comments above, I do want to note in fairness that you perhaps slightly underestimate the seniority of Associate Professors in the Australian system: while in North America Associate Professor is the lowest tenured rank, in Australia rank and tenure are separate questions, but tenure is typically achieved at a lower rank, Senior Lecturer – and it may take decades for a tenured academic to reach Associate Professor. Associate Professor in Australia is more closely equivalent to full Professor in North America than to Associate Professor there. But I would suggest that academic rank cannot establish notability in and of itself in any case. esperant 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons described by Joe Roe. 1292simon (talk) 23:24, 4 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 no consensus. After being relisted 3 times, participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhar[edit]

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

Doesn'r meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 03:44, 1 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) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In case the Sandhar clan fails notability, Sandhar should be kept as a disambiguation page because it clearly meets disambiguation criteria, as can be seen in this revision of Sandhar. If the clan fails notability, there won't be any primary topic left here. So, there won't be any need to add the tag "(disambiguation)", as per WP:DABNAME. In short, the revision cited by me will be a valid page in itself.

PS: WP:DISCUSSAFD states that alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page, a redirect or merger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases. - NitinMlk (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation as per comments from Nitin above Spiderone 18:50, 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. I can restore if anyone is interested in merging, but keep in mind that this topic may present WP:UNDUE emphasis that doesn't belong in the target article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic cake[edit]

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

Delete. Article whose subject fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. - DZ - 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I were able to find some usage: [6][7][8][9][10][11] but it might be better suited to simply being at List of cakes. There was also some usage of the term "naughty cake". Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a thing, for sure, but is it notable? Bearian (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for a separate article about every shape of cake (e.g., tower cake, sex doll cake). A ton of similar stubs is just mindless clutter. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't demonstrate notability. Possibly transwiki to someplace like wictionary. Anyway, the caption is wrong. It doesn't count as nude if you're wearing a leaf. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge per User:AKS.9955 is not a bad idea, but Cake decorating would be a better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cake. Article is not notable standalone and best merged into the main article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cake. Google shows plenty of potential for the topic, but I think it is best covered in the Cake article. 1292simon (talk) 00:01, 5 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 keep. Evidence has been provided that this village meets WP:GEOLAND. Perhaps users here may be interested in improving the article with references provided herein; it is presently rather poorly sourced. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoana[edit]

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

No sources, nothing indicating it is notable. The content isn't really worth merging. Yellow Diamond (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the NGA GEOnet Names Server brings up nothing by this name in Pakistan (there is a village in Madagascar, apparently) which isn't a good sign. A small village or compound does appear to exist at the given coordinates, but Google Maps declines to name it. The article was created by a three-edit account, so its possible we are looking at a hoax or a gross misspelling here. FWIW, WP:GEOLAND is the relevant notability guideline; I can find no evidence that the location is legally recognized (no postal code, not mentioned in the Pakistani census that I can see), so deletion seems appropriate. Happy to change my vote if someone more knowledgeable about Pakistani sources finds other information. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep, The census ref below is enough for me, appears to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In Census table (1998 is the most recent published Census: 1998 District Census report of Jhang. Census publication. Vol. 114. Islamabad: Population Census Organization, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan. 2000. p. 246.) as "Mangoana QH", with a population of 74,753, so a significant population unit. Also on Google Maps [12] and here and it seems they have frequent power cuts [13] (as "Manguana"): Noyster (talk), 15:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Noyster, I've changed my vote based on the census ref you located. However something isn't adding up, the population figure doesn't jive with the satellite view offered by Google, which shows a rather small cluster of buildings - I just can't believe 74,753 people live (or ever lived) within the boundaries provided by Google. At a generous estimate of 250 buildings, that's nearly 300 people per building. Perhaps this has something to do with the "QH" designation, which I can't seem to find a meaning for - I wouldn't want to add it to the article until it's clear what was measured there. NGA GEOnet does have two entries for Manguana in Pakistan, the one with coords that best match Google's is an alternate name for what they've officially deemed "Chak Two Hundred Forty-One" (no deeplink possible, alas). Antepenultimate (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are: QH, Qanungo Halqa (an administrative subdistrict) [14]. The diagram on p. 38 here shows the QH as a tier intermediate between the District and the individual settlement. I also see Wikipedia has Mangoana is listed as a "locality" in {{Neighbourhoods of Chiniot}} and as a village in the list in Bhawana Tehsil. The likelihood is that the name Mangoana is used for an individual village and also, for administrative purposes, a group of villages. The situation is less than crystal clear but I think there's enough to call it a "recognised populated place": Noyster (talk), 00:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per above this is a real population center which are notable regardless of size or obscurity. --Oakshade (talk) 22:42, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Bettencourt[edit]

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

Non-notable actor (minor roles only) or martial artist Peter Rehse (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would need major roles to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, and next, same is said as a martial artist, therefore no applicable notability has been established. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He isn't an actor at all, he's a stunt coordinator and a fight choreographer. Google turns up a fair amount on him in Turkish, which I can't read, but seems to relate to his work on Secret of the Sultan – apparently a notable film in Turkey. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is very close. But, found what appears to be ok coverage in Turkish (don't read it), he is in a martial arts Hall of Fame, found a 1984 reference in Black Belt magazine where he was included in a list of elite black belts, and he has appeared or done fight coordination in several notable German/Turkish films or TV shows. While I'm skeptical about whether the appearances or coordination work qualifies under WP:ENT, the whole package seems close enough to error on the side of keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martial art hall of fames have never been considered indication of notability and neither is a passing mention in a list defined by an adjective. They attended something and were called elite. Does not come close to meeting WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I said above, I'm not sure any one feature qualifies under any individual criteria of notability, but in my opinion the whole package (including martial arts, with RS mentions, and profile in notable TV and movies) seems likely notable. I stand by that assessment. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dinerman[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD and, curiously, there was apparently a back and forth removal and adding of the PROD, but there's regardless still nothing here for actual notability and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. JeremyL. (talk) 1:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC) — racingfan78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Article creator. Mkdw ^talk 17:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~This page is notable in the field of work presented. Keep Passes WP:GNG. Javier. (talk) 1:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Mkdw ^talk 17:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a very young racetrack announcer. And that's pretty much it. If that's what it takes to pass WP:GNG, then GNG needs a massive overhaul. --Calton | Talk 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bordering on WP:TOOSOON, but I think notability is established by current sources. 1292simon (talk) 23:53, 4 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Egbring-Kahn[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable ACTOR Quis separabit? 18:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Berliner Morgenpost had a 7-paragraph story about her in 2011. [15] Perhaps more can be turned up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 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 14:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actress recently died, which explains the article creation now, but WP:BEFORE points to quite some material which needs to be evaluated. one example a key-role participation in de:Gregors größte Erfindung Agathoclea (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 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 no consensus. No consensus has arisen within this discussion. Some users state that the company has received enough coverage to meet notability guidelines, while others question the depth of coverage provided by the sources and the validity of the sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Element Electronics[edit]

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

Not sure what the motives are behing this article, about a TV import/assembly company. It currently hangs on only 3 lines in a Bloomberg article. The remainder seems to be about a controversy about the products, which was evidently uncovered in the Wall Street Journal in 2014. Someone is now posting original documents in the Wikipedia article to counter the allegations. If this article is becoming a battleground to debate legal outcomes then maybe the article is here for the wrong reasons. It's a newish company that seems to fall short of WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google news search brings lots of independent news articles about this company. - Mar11 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After examining those, all I saw was in fact published and republished PR, so how are we to maintain such republishing is suitable despite said PR? Our policies themselves explicitly state against using such republishing triviality, and hence regardless of supposed significance, are still unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 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 15:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find at least one source in each year since 2012. CBC Detroit, Tribune Chronicle, The State, Twice, Herald Independent, MediaPost Hang googles (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)Note Hang goggles is a CU-banned user[reply]
Keep while the article itself isn't incredibly good, it definitely meets notability in terms of third party coverage. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please state which policy allows "articles [which aren't] incredibly good but has sourcing"? Because WP:NOT is our highest and important policy and it states against such company listings. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and here's why (from the sources above stated as "apparent news")
1 is a republished local news story PR
2 is the same, simply a different republishing host
3 is the same, simply a different republishing host
4 is the same, simply a different republishing host
5 is the same, simply a different republishing host

As it is, simply take this as an example of the sheer bareness of actual quality news, let the alone the obvious fact anything existing is simply their own republished words, hence not independent or convincing; what's else is the fact these Keep votes are simply saying "Hey, as long as these sources exist, that's enough" without actually caring to specify and examine them, and if they had, they would've seen the sheer consistency of the company's republished PR words in each of them. Regardless of numbers, that means absolutely nothing and it wouldn't matter because accepting them would damn us as a PR webhost, simply by the equally damning explanation of "Hey, they're at least sources". WP:NOT policy explicitly states this and it's stated because it's the first policy we used for articles and we still use now, mirrored in this case (policy states as it is, that GNG can be damned if policy is otherwise important, and it is in this case like any other AfD). If we want further amusement of advertising, take the history for example where it explicitly shows, not only an imaginably company account started this, but the sheer fact it was maintained exactly that, that's an all too well-known sign the company knew and maintained this article, given they would never in a snowball's chance in hell, learn how our encyclopedia works, especially given they're only advertising themselves! As it is, at least one of the IPs noticeably geolocate to the company's area, worse considering the fact the article always maintained an "About"-esque format. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's references seem to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. IMO, the company's sole notability is on the issue of American manufacturing jobs. The elimination of US television manufacturing was big news 20 years ago. These guys are performing only final assembly in the US, but that is not insignificant... 108.127.196.48 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP number aside, how is the fact of "big news of manufacturing" subject to satisfying our policies or the fact WP:CORP in fact states "trivial listings are not allowed" which in this case, is exactly it? Simply because it exists or is a significant local economy-business is not significant to us. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per SwisterTwister's evidence. Not seeing in-depth coverage in a multitude of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 11:57, 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 no consensus. After being relisted 3 times, participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Kingdom Parade[edit]

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

plain advertising The Banner talk 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the article is advertising, but the topic is notable.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Major Rewrite: As a big Disney fan and a member of WikiProject Disney and Disney task force on WikiProject Amusement Parks, it is hard for me to suggest the deletion of a Disney-related article. However, an article of this size should have more than 5 sources that have words ("Magic Kingdom Attractions" is just images), and should definitely have more than half of those that are not from a primary source (Disney Parks Blog). Don Dorsey's website is not a great source, except for small details, because it is basically just him bragging about his achievements. Also, the majority of the article (especially the listing the parades) is unsourced. As much as I hate to say it, I have to remove my Disney bias and go with the rational opinion that, unless this article undergoes a major rewrite with the addition of lots of reliable sources, this article should be deleted. Elisfkc (talk) 00:58, 4 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) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Agree with Elisfkc that it needs a rewrite...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:18, 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 15:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AS FC Urziceni[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football club that fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability - has not played at a high enough level and has not received significant coverage. Giant Snowman 17:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails club level requirements of WP:FOOTYN and I can't find any other evidence of notability. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't Liga V teams play in the Preliminary Rounds of the Cupa României? Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but this club didn't exist yet when the last round of preliminaries were played. Not that playing in them would have confer notability since they're not part of the competition proper. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON; currently, I agree with the users that have stated a GNG and FOOTYN failure Spiderone 10:29, 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. There appears to be no agreement on whether her awards can be considered "well-known and significant." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; awards are fan-based or scene/group-related. Sources include online profiles, interviews and trivial mentions in tabloid-like publications -- these are insufficient to establish notability via GNG. Appearance in the mainstream outlets are trivial.

AfD in 2007 closed as "keep" based on the awards but the consensus around adult biographies has evolved significantly since then, along with PORNBIO, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and there is no restriction against "fan-based" awards under our inclusions guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:PORNBIO, especially term of "a well-known and significant industry award" are debatable, nominator - K.e.coffman and his "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! No, this is not a joke. Very destructive and controversial behavior. As for the second case: it does not matter whether a chosen people or "professors" (jury), there are many world-class awards in many industries where the winner chosen people. This is another attempt overstatement requirements by "deletionism pornography gang" with K.e.coffman and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The supposed "significance" of these short-lived awards is based only on an unatrributed quote sourced to the award's own promotional website, which should be given absolutely no weight. It certainly comes nowhere near outweighing the absence of substantial reliable secondary source coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Guy1890 has done a satisfactory job and the article now conforms to Wiki standards. Holanthony (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The F.A.M.E. Award may provide a narrow technical pass of WP:PORNBIO, but the sources in the article come nowhere near WP:GNG's requirements. Only one citation (a fairly routine XBIZ article) remotely qualifies as reliable, independent and non-trivial. The rest are republished press releases or unreliable sites like XRentDVD. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a content guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of PORNBIO + some other smaller achievements + fame (well known, 34 interwiki speaks for itself). Generally, 101% notable. For me, this AfD is trolling by user:K.e.coffman, he inserts to AFD more and more notable pornstars. I suggest a little break in the topic of pornography for K.e.coffman because he lacks neutrality. WP:PORNBIO is not the only argument that you need to consider, also in this case, status of F.A.M.E. Award – Favorite Female (in WP:PORNBIO) is still disputed, where is neutrality? Voices to removed continuously from the same users, i.e. user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz or user:Johnpacklambert (with still the same silly-empty text of "non-notable pornographic performer") are boring and destructive. I understand, to do the cleanup in pornography category (delete pornstars without any achievements), but this is an exaggeration. Compact group which constantly vote for removed, still the same users responsible for the mass removed pornography articles (blindly based on WP:PORNBIO like robot), often they are trying to misuse the official consensus of WP:PORNBIO (for example: AVN Award is the most exclusive award in the industry but for these few users, not all awards of AVN Award are important). More and more we are approaching the final: topic ban for these few users, who massively intercede pornography articles for AFD and massively voting for delete. This "gang" of these few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, what see on each votes (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). I and few other (inclusionist) users like @Rebecca1990: or @Erpert:, we gave up - a constant battle with the same gang. Time to end it. PS. I apologize for my voice during the Christmas season - then again, I forgot... Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: Interwiki links have no bearing on notability. Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines and some include articles because they exist in en.Wikipedia. AfD is not a battleground and this is not about winning or losing. I've kept away from voting in these borderline PORNBIOs with low-quality sourcing debates, but your call for a topic ban is ridiculous. Editors like HW take a hard line about reliable sources. The best response is to provide quality sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner, not to call the editors deletionists. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the amount of interwiki is not a sufficient argument to keep and I know that "Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines" but if article existed on 35 Wikis, and gang of (still the same) few users on English Wikipedia want to remove article based on disputed interpretation of WP:PORNBIO, something is wrong. Alektra Blue is well known pornstar and have 406 films, 11 years in industry, she was the Penthouse Pet of the Month, she has also been featured in several men's magazines, including world-known Hustler (I know, none of them individually are not arguments for keep, but to analyze a person can be taken into account). She won several awards including (individual as requires WP:PORNBIO) notable F.A.M.E. Award and the so-called pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards, the most renowned prize in the pornographic industry. Otherwise, Blue appeared in the music video for the 2010 single "Telephone" by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé (+ independent - non pornagraphic sources, meets of WP:GNG). Alektra Blue meets the basic guidelines of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG and has additional achievements, even Wikipedia:Common sense speaks for leave. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimate "dispute" over the application or interpretation of PORNBIO, at least in the direction Subtropical-man claims. The most recent RFC on PORNBIO "demonstrated overwhelming consensus" for making the guideline more restrictive. If there was any substantial dispute, it was over whether the guideline was not restrictive enough. Repeated deletion discussions and DRVs have also demonstrated strong consensus for the point that, as with every other SNG, failure to satisfy GNG/BLP sourcing requirements generally outweighs a technical SNG pass. Subtropical-man's argument that editors who consistently make policy/guideline-based arguments and achieve consensus for their positions are illegitimate demonstrates, at best, a mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE and, giben the level of repeated, groundless personal attacks ought to justify a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There is no official consensus (on page reserved for this purpose, for example Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)) about awards: XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award (that these not meet of WP:PORNBIO) and also there is not official consensus for AVN Awards (that most of its prizes does not meet of WP:PORNBIO).
WP:PORNBIO say: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award", for some users (including you and your gang), XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award not meet of PORNBIO, for some users these awards meets of PORNBIO. WP:PORNBIO does not specify exactly what prizes accepted, whether something meets the requirements or not, it is debatable case and based on subjective interpretation and own opinion. Until an official discussion and consensus on page reserved for this purpose, to new version of WP: PORNBIO who precisely show accepted awards, there will always be conflicts. PS. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if you think that you create quiet consensus concerning WP:PORNBIO between users of your gang on AfD pages (or other pages this type), you're wrong and you show "mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE". Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subtropical-man, you make perfect sense and your argument bears much merit, make no mistake. Wolfowitz's opinions lack substance as well as credibility as he makes it a constant point to eagerly resort to personal attacks and then whine about how everyone and their grandmother is conspiring against him (just read his signature, that should give you a flavor of what he's about). He is a BLP zealot who even goes as far as trying to invoke it on people who are long dead ("WP:BLP does not authorize scandalmongering about the dead"). [16] I am confident however, that the majority of users see through this charade of his and see this issue for what it i really worth and vote for "keep". @Gene93k, I disagree, I don't think Subtropical-man's call for a topic ban for HW is "ridiculous". As a matter of fact, I think it is highly warranted in his case as he only engages in disruptive, nonconstructive edits aimed at removing content rather than making it better or more constructive, often on completely erroneous grounds.Holanthony (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holanthony, you and Subtropical-man conspicuously avoid arguments that are actually grounded in policy and guideline, preferring abusive comments about other users. You don't participate much in AFD discussions, and your !vote has never yet matched consensus. Subtropical-man's rate is as bad as I;ve ever seen for an experienced user, 16.6%.[17] In contrast, my "accuracy rate" is over 80& [18], while Gene93k, whose arguments you also decry, has an even higher consensus-match over 87%. Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive. Attacking editors for making consensus-based arguments is grounds for a topic ban; establishing or supporting consensus is not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), your percentages are nonsense and manipulation. Most of my votes in the AfD over the few years are in the field of pornography and... you with your "gang" with still the same few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, this gang vote in each AfD about pornography (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). If there would be this "gang", my "percent" is about 90. These numbers do not show anything. You wrote also: "Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive" - there is no official consensus about AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other, there are no official guidelines for AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other in WP:PORNBIO. Official text from WP:PORNBIO: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". For part of users, these awards are not meet PORNBIO, for part of users are meet of PORNBIO. For last months, I act according to the WP:PORNBIO (official consensus) but you not. You are constantly trying to increase the requirements, you falsify consensus telling other users that AVN Award (not all prizes) and F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award and each other awards are not meet of PORNBIO, based on its opinion. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're spouting ridiculous stuff again. The "nonsense and manipulation" you claim exists (without evidence) are actually generated by the standard tool used for RFA evaluation. Yes, your percentage would go up if only people who disagree with you didn't vote. Big deal. Making arguments that you disagree with and getting consensus support for them is hardly improper. It is exactly what's called for by WP:CONSENSUS. Your failure to accept this shows a failure to understand basic Wikipedia principles and reflects poorly on your WP:COMPETENCE. Now stop attacking other editors and ranting tendentiously. If not, it's likely to lead to a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above improvements and sourcing, BLP meets PORNBIO as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the recent set of edits have not substantially improved the article: diff. In fact, it added more trivia cited to the XRent web site & interviews:

She credits fellow actress Taryn Thomas with her introduction to the adult industry, as they used to work at a call center when they both lived in Arizona.^[1]

References

^ Alektra Blue (13 November 2007). "Inside Alektra Blue" (Interview). Interviewed by Big D. XRentDVD. Retrieved 23 December 2016.

Sources are still very unconvincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the nomination, the objection was, "lacks coverage...that discuss the subject directly and in detail." Now the complaint is "added...trivia". Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The extra trivia was added after the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we got that. Other people would identify that as "detail", or responding to the problem identified in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a royal "we"? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Pornbio topics are typically massively notable directly, by the understanding of notability provided by the WP:N nutshell. This one seems to go well above any sense of "typically".
At the last AfD, closed as Keep, the actress only had 97 movies listed, now the number is 406. Nominator omitted WP:BEFORE B6, which reveals 24 interlanguage links, "which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles". The next year after the last AfD closed as keep, the model received recognition as Penthouse Pet of the Month, a recognition I consider just by itself to be sufficient for at least a mini-bio on a page of related bios on Wikipedia.
Pornbio topics needs to satisfy WP:V, and there are 17 inline citations, with 5 "dead links", which are acceptable as verifiable sources, and one citation needed tag. Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:PORNBIO guideline has been tightened substantially since the article was kept in 2007. Being a Penthouse Pet or Playboy Playmate is no longer an automatic pass. Prolificness and number of films was removed from PORNBIO later in 2007. Nominations no longer count and neither do scene-related awards. As for citations, quality (reliability) counts more than quantity. The sources that aren't junk are trivial mentions. The dead links at sites like AVN can be found by searching the site. They turn out to be republished press releases. As for inter-language links, Wikipedia in any language is not an acceptable source for supporting Wikipedia content, and many are just translations of the article in English Wikipedia (circular sources). As for giving the article more time, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of non-trivial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the above post has mentioned more than one "that used to be an automatic pass" criteria that are applicable for this topic. Just because they are no longer an "automatic pass" doesn't mean that they don't still carry weight. And when the benchmark used to be 100 films, and this topic has 400, the weight is considerable.
Republished press releases are secondary sources that carry the reliability of the publisher, and reliability also depends on context.
An issue remains that WP:BEFORE B6 was ignored in the nomination, and at this point, we don't know how much the discussion has been confounded by opinions developed before knowing the basic facts.
If there is a problem in the sourcing of the article, this would be important and independent of notability, but based on the sources and tags in the article, in fact there appears to be consensus that the article satisfies WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:BEFORE, have you actually looked at the interwiki links? They use the same English-language citations that the en.Wikipedia article does. Some are even less well cited. Citing a failure to cross this T regarding an American porn star is legalism that defies common sense. Wikipedia is not a court of law. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the feedback loop here? From engineering theory, the concept of a "system" requires feedback. Are you a supporter of quality AfD nominations? Wikipedia may not be a court of law, but it is also not a back street alley. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re notability criteria: Before my time here, porn stars were kept for having an IMDb profile. As several Wikipedia guidelines and policies state, "Consensus may change." In the the case of PORNBIO, it has changed substantially over the past 10 years. There was a long drawn-out debate about what criteria about a porn performer predict likely notability, and that is the current WP:PORNBIO guideline. Nominations no longer count. Scene-related awards no longer count. X number of films was expressly removed in 2007, since film counts are easily inflated. We use the notability metrics agreed by consensus to determine whether or not an article is kept. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases: Per WP:V, press releases are self-published material. (See note #9 referenced by WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources.) They are not intellectually independent of the agency promoting the good or service being reported. WikiProject Pornography notes that Adult Video News does not indicated whether an article is original reporting or a press release, but a common indicator is contact information. (To book this performer contact.../For more information visit...). WP:V says to treat such sources with caution and not to use them to support claims about living people. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (happening to look in) I'll state the applicable porn actors notability says "Scene nominations aren't notable" and that's what we have here, so citing WP:PORNSTAR is not the same thing if it's not actually stating what's otherwise suggested, hence there's no other significant awards and no actual notability, as the nomination states. GNG is especially not applicable since it's a gamble given how thin and unconvincing it can be used for nearly anything, so WP:PORNSTAR is what applies here alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Unscintillating regarding WP:GNG not being a content guideline. Content is not the main issue we are discussing. Notability is the normal standard we use to determine whether to keep or toss an article. The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast with this assertion, the relevant notability guideline is WP:Notability. The following quotes are from the top of the guideline.
WP:Notability "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
The nutshell states, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied to you in another AfD debate, GNG is the main body of WP:N. The section you quoted stresses WP:RS which is the main problem with this article. Ignore all rules rules requires compelling evidence. As I stated above, I am not !voting in this AfD, but the recent trend is to IAR/use common sense and delete these won-an-award-but-is-crappily-sourced PORNBIOs despite looser interpretations of WP:PORNBIO that used to prevail. Then again, PORNBIO is the most permissive standard in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is one of our ways we reach understanding of WP:N. WP:N can be determined without WP:GNG or any of the SNGs. [redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are pointing to a talk space essay/guideline fork that you wrote to expand on an assertion you made in an AfD discussion. Your complaint was that notability assessments are too GNG-centric. That AfD discussion closed as no consensus. A more productive path would be to bring the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Notability or the village pump. In this case, you propose satisfying it by ignoring all its related parts, another way of expressing "ignore all rules." Following WP:N without WP:GNG, we go to the relevant specialized guideline to the right, Wikipedia:Notability (people)/WP:BIO. The primary criteria (WP:BASIC) restate GNG in summary. Failing that without in-depth coverage by reliable sources, we go to secondary inclusion criteria, WP:PORNBIO in this case. Here lies our dispute: Are the awards won "well-known" enough to satisfy the PORNBIO guideline and do they overcome the lack of reliable source coverage? Again, IAR needs a compelling reason. What do you have? • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you don't seem to like my link. I've redacted the link because you don't show that you've understood it, so it is not helpful. The other two sentences of the post remain.
Other text above that stands is the statement that reads, "WP:Notability is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow...". WP:N is where notability is defined on Wikipedia; not at WP:GNG, not at WP:BIO, not at WP:BASIC, not at WP:PORNBIO, and not at WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k, you wrote: "The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met" - yes, but in Alektra Blue case, PORNBIO are official met: two non-scene awards. The problem is only "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not found , they so called nomination awards,,, is sources from a proomotional website , i cant find enough independent Reliable sources Samat lib (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... but very interesting that - from the beginning - your account is only for AfD (except for a few editions): [19]... and also you were blocked for being / use of sock-puppet. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Subtropical-man ... You know i have made a lot of contribution in good faith , honestly if it meet Wikipedia criteria , personally i will defend the article ... Samat lib (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samat lib: [20] shows lifetime AfD history of 45 delete !votes and one merge !vote.

Two recent !votes were, "this article lack independent reliable sources" and "No evidence of notability , the article lack independent Reliable sources". From these two !votes, it appears that you don't understand the difference between notability and article sourcing.

Your !vote here is unclear. What do you mean "notability not found"? Where did you look? Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- as an alleged member of the Deletionist Gang^(TM), I'd like to add that some may view this nomination as "evidence-based editing" & "adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". I'm going to add this to my Hard-line Anti-Nazi^(TM) label. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 5 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. Euryalus (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Hayward[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Office is not high enough for an automatic pass and all coverage is local.John from Idegon (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no provision in NPOL or GNG that discounts local coverage. In addition, he has been covered nationally. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See WP:POLOUTCOMES John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how an essay trumps the guidelines. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES documents the actual state of consensus about how the guidelines apply in actual practice. This is not a case of an essay "trumping" the guidelines; the essay serves to clarify where consensus stands about what the guidelines actually mean in specific situations where there might be differences of opinion about that. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, then I have a difference of opinion I guess. I simply disagree that someone with significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources isn't notable enough. I'm not someone who just votes keep on every AfD. I nominate a lot of articles for deletion. I would never nominate an article that meets WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But where do we have significant coverage being shown here? All that's been shown here is one piece of routine campaign coverage of the type that will exist for every mayoral election regardless of who the candidates are or aren't, three dead links whose headlines indicate that they were also routine campaign coverage, one dead link whose headline betrays that it was far more about his wife than about him, and one video clip of him giving soundbite about a topic other than himself on the news. How is any of that enough to clear the GNG bar? Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, that's a fair question. I did a Google search and assumed they were included in the article. From Google, there is significant coverage in the Pulse, pnj.com, wuwf.org, Studer Community Institute, BlabTV, indystar.com, weartv.com, nydailynews.com, Huffington Post, and Business Observer Florida. And that's just the first page. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is routine to Hayward's election, and some of it more related to the situation under which he was elected than anything else. The article lacks the level of sourcing we need to justify having an article for a mayor of a city of about 50,000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While 50K is certainly large enough to get a mayor kept if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it's not large enough to give him an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as a mayor. But the volume and depth of sourcing present here is not enough to get him over the bar, and the MSNBC link shown by Ramaksoud2000 above doesn't bolster the case either — it's a clip of him giving talking head on the news about Donald Trump, not coverage which has Hayward as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. 51,000 is not large by any means for a city. WP:NPOL only addresses likelihood of being notable, not actual notability. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 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 redirect to Sony_Xperia#Smartphones. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 22:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Xperia E5[edit]

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

See discussion at WP:COIN. Duplicated by Sony Xperia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sony_Xperia#Smartphones. Plenty of sources out there, but I don't see a need for an article about every model when they can all be covered in one. Adam9007 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sony_Xperia#Smartphones. Based on the creator's history and their use of IP addresses, this and the other articles created appear to be attempts at spam although less well concealed than so we have had in the past. Even if they are not spam and are simply the user's field of interest, they don't qualify for stand-alone articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Coming here from WP:COIN. I put proposed deletion tags on some of the other Sony Experia model articles; there's a nice table at Sony Xperia which is more useful than stubs for each model. Trying to get the editor to engage on talk, but so far, no success. John Nagle (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sony Xperia#Smartphones. Fails WP:PRODUCT.- Mr X 19:38, 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 keep. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grønlid School[edit]

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

This is an article about a remote Norwegian one-room schoolhouse— none of the references appear to include in-depth discussion of the subject by reliable independent secondary sources. I don't see anything in the article's content to explain why the school is notable, and the refs don't convince me of this either. KDS4444 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not quite a one-room schoolhouse, but nearly so, and is a Norwegian historic site of obvious importance, including for German occupation during World War II. This is a helluva lot more historic and interesting than all 52 one-room schoolhouses in New York State having Wikipedia articles (several of which I created). I'd much rather visit this one. See Category:One-room schoolhouses for Wikipedia's lopsided coverage of one-room schoolhouses (all or nearly all in the U.S.). It does not appear to be listed on any specific historic register, but the controversy about its preservation makes it all the more newsworthy, as happens with many U.S. historic sites that are found eligible for listing but are not listed. I added the article to WikiProject Norway and to WikiProject Historic sites; hopefully it can get some more attention and be included into appropriate corresponding list-article(s) of historic sites in Norway, if we have them yet. --do ncr am 02:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It certainly meets the GNG, and I feel that the content here is definitely relevant and of obvious importance. That article itself isn't formatted that well, but that is no reason for a deletion - it isn't unreadable or unsalvageable by any stretch of the imagination. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheMagikCow, could you give some of the sources that make you say that the school meets the GNG? I'm having difficulty finding sources, but that's possibly only because of language issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry Sure! This [21] is a site from the Cultrual Encyclopaedia. This is a tertiary source, but is does show that others are interested. This source (Kleiva, Ivar (1973). Gulen in gammal and new time: gards- and ættesoga. Volume 1 . Gulen. p. 95. ISBN 8271010204) also covers relevant material, and so does this source (Fjørtoft, Jan Egil: Tyske kystfort i Norge. Tromsdalen 1982.). TheMagikCow (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added coordinates to the article from the Norwegian language Wikipedia article on the school and clarified the wording about the relationship of the school to three hamlets it served (it is equidistant to the three, as can be seen in Google maps). I added wikilinks and did some other editing. Of the three, only Rutledal currently has an article; Brosvik and Rutletangane currently are redlinks. Students would have had to come from Rutletangane partway by boat, besides the fact that walking was no doubt uphill in the snow both ways for all three. :) --do ncr am 22:47, 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. Sandstein 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill 165[edit]

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

This bill fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every piece of legislation that exists in every jurisdiction that passes legislation is not automatically a suitable article topic; reliable sourcing must be present to show that the topic is noteworthy. Creator also needs to be aware that pieces of legislation are titled with their short form name, not their bill number — every single state or province in North America will have its own completely different "Bill 165" within the life of its current legislature, another completely different "Bill 165" several years ago during the life of its previous legislature, and then another completely different "Bill 165" a few years into the future after the next election resets the bill numbering again. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoffreyT2000: You say that this article fails wp:gng which I believe is code for not enough wp:Reliable sources? If so I wonder if you tried to find such sources before nominating this article for deletion. The following is a partial list of articles I found by a simple google news search:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-introduce-regulations-for-home-inspections/article31443164/

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/08/17/ontario-to-regulate-home-inspectors.html

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/04/04/ontario-plans-to-regulate-home-inspectors-this-year.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ontario-home-inspectors-regulations-minister-licence-1.3726419

https://www.reminetwork.com/articles/ontario-proposes-home-inspector-licensing-law/

http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ontario-government-table-home-inspector-licensing-legislation-1004098466/

Is this enough or do I have to provide more? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Have you got a source for the legislation actually passing third reading and being signed into law? Have you got a source for what makes this proposal significantly different from the way other provinces or US states regulate contractors? Have you got a source for, oh, anybody actually reacting to the proposal in any notable way besides "oh, okay"? Because so far, what you're showing us is "this is a thing that exists", not "this is a thing whose existence warrants dedicated coverage in an encyclopedia". Lots of laws and proposed laws exist in lots of places without having Wikipedia articles about them — what's needed for a proposed law to qualify for an article is evidence that it has some greater significance above and beyond the mere fact of existing as a proposed law, not just "a handful of sources verify that it exists". Bearcat (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: RE:Have you got a..etc. etc -- No, have you? How is this relevant to this wp:AfD which is based on wp:GNG? Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

GNG is passed when the sources demonstrate something important and noteworthy about the topic, not when they merely demonstrate that the topic exists. Lots of people, organizations and things technically get enough coverage to pass GNG if "coverage of them exists" were all that sources actually had to demonstrate. We would, for instance, have to keep an article about every restaurant in existence if local coverage demonstrating that the restaurant exists were all it took, and coverage demonstrating a reason why the world needed to care wasn't necessary. We would have to keep articles about teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes if "sources exist" were all it took, and coverage which demonstrated any actual pass of our notability criteria for sportspeople were unnecessary. We would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got media coverage a few years ago for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard, if "sources exist" were all it took and there were no need to demonstrate that the context she was getting coverage for was encyclopedically noteworthy.

Lots of things can technically be sourced over GNG without actually being an appropriate article topic — what the sources need to demonstrate to fulfill GNG is a reason why the thing is important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, not just that the thing exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on bearcat are you a judge? The plaintiff has right to due diligence. Let this guy prove his case before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree that the merits of the case stand for themselves. Rebekahalnablack

Delete. I'm going with delete for now, without prejudice to it being recreated if the law turns out to be notable. I see that it's newsworthy, but that's a much lower bar. TJRC (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment This page has been moved 3 times since this wp:AfD started. . Ottawahitech (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Keep (as creator) I have not seen any compelling arguments here for this proposed deletion? I have pinged the nomintor with a question almost a week ago, but have received no reply even though the nom was active on Wikipedia nominating a bunch of other pages for deleton during that time. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find Bearcat's argument quite compelling. Allowing this article to stand without any indication of what makes the legislation notable (something beyond the mere fact of its existence) implies that Wikipedia requires articles for all legislation in all jurisdictions, provided there was news coverage at the time. None of the references listed above show any indication of what is notable about this bill. nerdgoonrant (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a proposed private member's bill that was rejected like most private members' bills. Looking at [22], and [23], this article is not about the actual legislation proposed by the Ontario government minister, which is almost certain to pass, but the bill refered to in one sentence ("In April 2016, Liberal MPP Han Dong introduced a private member's bill to license home inspectors, but it never made it past committee. "). If this is kept through WP:GNG, then that would mean that any bill proposed at any top-level subnational legislature even if defeated would be notable. This might mention a line in Han Dong's article, because it is rare that PMB's even get press attention, but it doesn't need its own article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: Yes this article is probably misnamed (suggestions?), but as I have shown above it does not fail wp:GNG as the nom claims, and it is a piece of valuable information (or could be if it is allowed to develop) for those who are currently considering purchasing a home in the province of Ontario where an Offer to Purchase normally contains a condition of passing a Home inspection.

I know most of the people participating here have no interest in real estate or its coverage on Wikipedia, they are more interested in wiki-lawyering deletion criteria. However, if this goes on much longer, the only editors left here will be paid editors who will continue to flood this place with spam. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

No it's not misnamed, and your sources are a good explanation for why this fails the GNG. This article is not about the proposed government legislation which may be notable in the future, it's about a past bill that has never made it out of the committee stage and will never be passed because it's a PMB from a member of the governing party being superseded by future government-backed legislation. It's theoretically possible for a PMB to meet the GNG, but generally such a PMB should at least because actual law, which this bill will never become.

This type of bill is simply not notable, and your sources demonstrate that. The G&M, 1st Torstar article and CBC only mention the bill in a sentence in their pieces, while the 2nd Torstar article and the Reminetwork article don't mention this bill at all. The only source that covers it in anything more than passing detail is the Canadaunderwriter source, but one source isn't good enough to establish notability. The sources could be used in an article titled, say Home inspection in Ontario, or whatever the government legislation/agency created by that legislation will be called. However, such an article shouldn't be created until the bill is passed, or at least tabled. I have already mentioned this PMB in Han Dong's article, because it's rare for PMBs to get this much media coverage at all, and that's really all the coverage this needs on Wikipedia at the moment. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight:, Are you saying that it is premature to have an article titled Home inspection in Ontario because legislation about it is still in the works? This in spite of the fact that an Offer of purchase and sale in Ontario has a standard clause in it requiring it? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me BTW aren't you lucky that no one has reverted your edit at Han Dong (politician) saying it is wp:UNDUE which I am sure would have happened to me if I was the editor. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Empire Film Group[edit]

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

Deceptively written promotion from non notable company. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing does not go beyond mentions, with some sources not even mentioning them. The awards listed were not won by this company. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company has two films which pass the threshold for notability - Meet the Blacks and Supremacy (film). They had theatrical release and reviews. Not good reviews, and not much revenue, but they did show to paying customers in commercial theaters. But the company itself would fail WP:CORP. The company should get a brief mention in the film articles, but there's not enough for a standalone article. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deon_Taylor John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's an abundance of references on the entry itself. Googling shows other coverage, even if the first page is Facebook and social media results. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HiAsdf etc, what other accounts have you edited with, which ones are blocked? Which accounts edits that I have noticed have led to your current stalking of me? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:46, 17 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) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They've earned awards made notable work, good or not. The company can meet WP:CORP, the solution here is expansion, not deletion. South Nashua (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can they meet WP:CORP? Expansion with what? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They've made a few things with a few notable actors, and it seems like there are more to come. There's probably also more information regarding the current work they've done. South Nashua (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to genuine independent notability and substance, simply a basis of awards is not an automatic acceptance of notability, and then there's the matter of there being no automatic inherited notability; there's simply nothing its own genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The features and people associated with them may/do merit articles, but the company itself? No. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – more WP:ARTSPAM by WP:COI accounts in spite of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for promotion. Citobun (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company's works might be notable, but the sources only mention the company itself in passing. 1292simon (talk) 23:51, 4 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. Consensus is that as per the nomination for deletion, elements of WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E pertain to this article (e.g. "The event (murder) is not significant, and the individual is even less so", "Per nomination above", "... very little press coverage (I ran news archive searches) If there is such a thing as a non-notable, "routine" murder, this was it"). Additionally, another user has stated that the subject is non-notable (" a non-notable murderer"). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Frederick Spears[edit]

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

Per WP:CRIME. WP:PROD'ed by User:Champion initially here, but WP:PROD deleted by User:Mathieu109 here without any discussion. The issue here isn't necessarily quality, reliability, verifiability, or frequency of sources, but determining WP:Notability for articles about convicted criminals. Although Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria may be fulfilled, article seems to fit into Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, discounting subject's WP:Notability to be published in the article mainspace. Filing WP:AfD per #8 in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. JustBerry (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This event is viscerally compelling to many people. Why not include something of so much significance?

Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The event (murder) is not significant, and the individual is even less so. At best, he can be including in some list of murderers or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination above. --JustBerry (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources. seems to have received plenty of extensive coverage for being a (Non-significant) murder.BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete guy killed his ex-girlfriend. convicted. very little press coverage (I ran news archive searches) If there is such a thing as a non-notable, "routine" murder, this was it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable murderer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 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. Fails the subject specific guideline. No consensus that the sources provided below are sufficient for GNG. Appears he has received only passing mentions in media. Agree this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lassana Faye[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was rejected on the grounds that he has now played in the KNVB Cup. The cup appearance was not against a fully-pro-league club, meaning it does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't go as far as SALTing the article. It's only been deleted once before and created again in good faith. --Jimbo^[online] 14:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't go as far as salting though, he has been in the youth teams of many top division dutch teams and is now in the senior squad at SBV Vitesse, playing in one game in the cup. He is only 18 and I would be highly suprised if he still fails WP:NFOOTY in a years time. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in the KNVB Cup and articles like : 1, 2, 3 to start indicate WP:SPORTCRIT. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not repeated deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON is likely, so no need to salt. Otherwise, fails both WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG Spiderone 10:27, 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 03:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Friedman[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with the following rationale: "Removed proposed deletion. The article should not be deleted because the individuals credits of composing for some of the highest rated television series in the last two years are evident from IMDB and other websites."

However, searches turned up nothing on the engines to show that they pass WP:GNG, and I can find no evidence that they pass WP:NMUSIC. I understand he's accomplished, and he's worked on some notable items, but notability isn't transferred or inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under the 'Criteria for composers and lyricists' it state that Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

This individual has credit for writing or co-writing music for notable compositions as found in search engines from IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4970150/), www.JonasFriedman.com, www.Briankeanemusic.com, http://classdismissedmovie.com/about-the-film/the-team/ --Bearmee1 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The question then is whether he has composed a significant amount of the music for the notable shows. Our article on the Music of The X-Files does not mention him. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 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 EMMA for Peace. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 22:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Petrocelli[edit]

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

BLP with weak primary sources. Seems NN or WP:TOOSOON, with claim of notability as "co-founder" of NN committee, plus borderline notable EMMA for Peace. Widefox; talk 15:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC) (note creator is a blocked sock, of improperly disclosed paid editor User:Nmwalsh recently blocked for socking, so the presumption is this is an undisclosed paid article violating the WP:TOU. Also EMMA for Peace created by Khocon who claims COI on Paolo Petrocelli at User:Khocon). Widefox; talk 15:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources including La Voce Di New York, Yale University, Ganzomag aren't primary. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems very much like part of a walled garden. The organizations used to claim notability don't seem notable in their own right.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EMMA for Peace, based on current sourcing. The three best sources are mentioned above. Jury's out on whether La Voce di NY is reliable without doing some digging on its editor's background, but at least it looks clean. Yale is not an independent source, as they hired him as a visiting fellow. Ganzo looks like a regular blog—not reliable. We're left with other junk coverage. I'd redirect to EMMA for Peace, though it looks like that will be up for deletion too (better a redirect than nothing), and there's nothing to redirect to re: his role in the National Commissions for UNESCO. czar 22:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as specified, as a compromise. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 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. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Colontonio[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable for find any secondary sources to support notability. The article sources fan-sites, interviews, self-published bios and dead links. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any sources to suggest subject meets WP:BAND. Ajpolino (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Artist is released on labels such as Universal, Vandit (Germany) , Armada ( BIGGEST EDM label on earth) and many more reliable ones. Hes played in 23 countries at major festivals ( Sunrise festival , Poland) ALL of which is documented via blogs, pictures and videos. Artists has been featured in Countless publications including DJmag the biggest DJ publication on planet earth. Artist has collaborated with some of the biggest EDM artists on earth including Tiesto, Armin Van Buuren dn Paul Van Dyk to name a few. Not sure why hes being singled out for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda Jenning (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list some of the secondary sources that have written about him? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure .. working on that right now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda Jenning (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Just made some improvements to the sourcing on this article. I believe the main contributor is confused to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoblinBoy (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brenda Jenning: and @GoblinBoy:. Thanks for contributing! The reason the article Tom Colontonio got brought here is because an editor was concerned there may not be sufficient sources for us to include this topic in the encyclopedia. For a person to have an article on Wikipedia, they must have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (guideline). For musicians, we generally use these criteria to help us determine if an article should be included on a given musician/music group. If you can find references that are independent of the subject (i.e. something not written by the artist or on the artist's behalf) that show that the artist meets the criteria linked above, then you'll find other editors are happy to change their minds, keep the article, and help you improve it. This is not a referendum on how great Tom Colontonio is. Instead it's a discussion about whether or not sufficient sources exist for us to maintain an encyclopedia article on him. If sufficient sources do not exist, perhaps they will exist sometime in the future and the page can be remade then. If you're interested in going that route, we can move the page to your user page in the interim. If you have questions about the process, feel free to ask them at WP:Teahouse or on my talk page. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thanks AjPolino I am adding plenty of sources now. Also his website is very extensive as well. being a music lover myself in his genre I can appreciate his work as well as his achievements!

I had a look at some of the sources you have added and they won't contribute a lot to enhancing the notability of this biography. One source you added didn't even mention this person, and the others were YouTube links and personal blogs. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Can you find any reliable secondary sources? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677 not sure what source your referring too not mentioning his name? Personal blogs? please clarify as all the blogs mentioned are legitimate news outlets for Electronic music. I referenced DJmag which is the bible of dance music and published globally. Its no less credible a source as CNN etc. His website and twitter (verified) are also there Maybe this isn't a topic your fully educated on therefore your assuming the citations aren't credible enough? This seems almost personal honestly as MANY Dj's on here have way less or similar content as he does. Even artists named in his article! Not trying to be confrontational here but clearly hes a legit music artists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoblinBoy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising in which it's clear campaigning and the comments here show, and also show the fact there's no considerations of how we actually accept articles, instead simply of what we should change in considerations instead, but that's not the case we'll take to mind with said campaigning. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As seen in the page history, I spent some time trying to "rescue" this article, but the article is still based on passing mentions, blogs and non reliable sources, so fails WP:MUSICBIO.
Comparison with other (unnamed) articles is irrelevant as such comparisons are invalid as per WP:Other stuff exists.
I tagged the page COI based on Brenda Jenning's SPA, GoblinBoy is another SPA as is User:Redsro whose only contribution was removing the AFD notice. Possible co-ordination which may merit an SPI? - Arjayay (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – promotional article contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a means of self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia Test cricket records against England[edit]

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

Delete WP:NONSTATS. This data is available on www.espncricinfo.com. Wikipedia is not cricinfo. Sdm2211 12:43 17 November 2016 (IST)

Keep Availability of information doesn't make article WP:NONSTATS. Test cricket records of national teams are notable. GreenCricket (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as historic consensus is Test records of national teams are kept as notable. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the significance of this, and similar pages, is that it presents a consistent and complete set of information that is difficult to accumulate quickly from any other source, including Cricinfo. A substantial amount of work was required to present the data in this form. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment - Step 3 of the nominating processes was not completed. I have now logged it accordingly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTMIRROR. The information is directly sourced (using external links not references) from espnCricinfo, and is the only place this is sourced, for example [24]. As for establishing notability, I would assume test records against all nations to be more notable than records between two countries. Ajf773 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep but rename~~ to List of Ashes cricket records. At the risk of making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'm going to say that we do have an article on List of Cricket World Cup records, and the Ashes is about as important a series in Tests as the World Cup is in ODIs. That said, the current title is, in my opinion, inappropriate, and should be changed to List of Ashes cricket records. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 17:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I just looked at the article more carefully than last time, and apparently it only shows Australia's records after all. As such, I believe this article should be deleted, and an article for Ashes should be made separately. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 20:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all of this information is available elsewhere on sites which specialise in developing databases of cricket stuff. They are going to be able to update their information far more effectively than we will ever be able to. This is simply going to be a less reliable mirror of that information that will get updated whenever someone feels like it. By all means write a prose article or a section on the Ashes page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the info is from cricinfo, so WP:NOTMIRROR currently applies. Also, the topic is so narrow that I don't think it is of encyclopaedic value (a written history of the two teams encounters would be a different story, compared with this page dedicated to statistics). 1292simon (talk) 23:19, 4 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. czar 22:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grannie (band)[edit]

Author has now added this non-trivial mention. I don't believe that one review of an album counts as meeting WP:GNG though. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable band. I can't find any reliable sources talking about it. All I could find on Google were blogspot blogs. The standard.co.uk reference in the article does not mention the band. The author appears to cite it to back up the claim that the music venues that allegedly played at were "iconic", not that they actually played at them. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG and WP:BAND both look for more notability than the sources, chiefly concerned with record values, should indicate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolutely no actual significance or substance for our policies. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 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 closed.. Has been repurposed as a redirect to main article. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2017[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:FUTURE. -KAP03 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Because 2016 is almost over it needs to start now and get your lazy butts in gear. 2600:8803:7A00:19:A4A9:81AB:1969:F5B8 (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination seems pretty pointless, because by the time the seven days of discussion completes 2017 will no longer be in the future. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been immediately redirected to Billboard Hot 100 or other target until the news on the first number one with a 2017 chart date is released. No need for premature lists with zero information. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Turned the article into a redirect until info about the next Billboard Hot 100, dated January 7, 2017, is released. Usually Billboard writes an article about what's in the top 10 of the chart, one day ahead of their posting the entire chart on their web site. Because today, Monday, December 26, 2016, is the U.S. federal holiday for Christmas (with the proper date having fallen on a Sunday this year), Billboard usually doesn't release chart information if it's a holiday. I will ask nominator to withdraw this AfD since, as someone has already pointed out, 2017 will no longer be in the future by next week, when AfDs are usually closed. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 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 merge to Flanaess. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furyondy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess. No non-primary sources, thus it should be merged into the parent article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:32, 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 merge to Flanaess. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ket (Greyhawk)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This doesn't establish notability. I'm honestly not sure what this page is supposed to be about. It's like 75% general game history and 25% on the actual subject. TTN (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable item beyond the game, no independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regarding notability, Ket was an important cornerstone of AD&D during the Greyhawk Wars period(1991-1997), when TSR sold hundreds of thousands of volumes per year; from 2000-2008, the Living Greyhawk campaign was the largest shared campaign in the world, involving tens of thousands of people globally [Tulach, Chris (2008-06-20). "RPGA Report: Evolution of Shared Worlds (Part 4: The 3rd Edition Era)". Wizards of the Coast)], and Ket again was an important component of this campaign, since many of those players lived in Eastern Canada, and were therefore assigned Ket as their home region. Regarding the balance of content, 4,459 of the 5,281 words in the main body of text (84.4%) are about the title subject, the remaining 17.6% of the content uses the general background of the campaign world to set the why's and wherefore's of this fictional country.Guinness323 (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The importance doesn't particularly matter. Wikipedia notability is not the same as being noted by people within the originating community. It needs to be noted by third party sources, and none of the sources in the article actually seem to do that. This seems like an overbloated fan analysis better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flanaess. Unfortunately, saying that the region was important to the game doesn't mean anything unless there are sources demonstrating this notability. Even if the Living Greyhawk campaign is notable, as that source indicates, notability is not inherited, and thus just saying "This was a big part of this notable thing" does not automatically confer notability to it unless there are non-primary sources demonstrating notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Guinness323, I've sympathy with what you are saying, but I'm not sure how much it counts for without some third-party sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:51, 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. There is no consensus about the notability of the list as such, given that opinions disagree about this, and no consensus about whether it should be moved to draft space for the duration of any clean-up. To the extent that the issue of auto-generating the list from Wikidata has been discussed, people are mostly opposed to it, so I see consensus here to stop that (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female Egyptologists for a similar case). Sandstein 10:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of women linguists[edit]

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

No identified criteria for inclusion. Many of the individuals on this list are not linguists, and it is not possible to determine why they are here - a random sampling of 20 of the entries showed none of them in a "linguist" category. As importantly, this article is not under local control, edits here are not kept and are overwritten by bots using an external source (Wikidata). Risker (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Noting in addition that spot checks of 15 entries into this list on the Wikidata database indicate that, although all of them had a datapoint saying they were linguists, not one of them had any reference source indicating such. It is unacceptable to classify someone as a "linguist" when there is no reference source anywhere indicating that they are a linguist. I have no idea why Wikidata would allow it, but it's clearly not meeting the requirements of this project. Risker (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any citations showing that women in linguistics is a coherent topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some sort of explanation is provided not currently present. In addition to the Wikidata-related issues referred to above, another problem is that it is unclear what definition of the term "linguist" is being used. The Wiktionary definition of "linguist" is "(1) One who studies linguistics. (2) A person skilled in languages. (3) A human translator; an interpreter, especially in the armed forces." If definition (1), which in my mind is the conventional definition, is being used, then only a fraction of the people on this list are or were linguists. If definition (2) is being used, then the term is probably too vague to be the basis of any list; a professor of literature would probably not define herself as a linguist, nor vice versa; and every published author is "skilled with language" in some sense. If definition (3) is being used, then again, most of the people listed do not qualify for inclusion, and the skill is probably not notable enough to form a category anyway. If, as is most likely, no specific definition is being used, then the situation speaks for itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. By providing dates and descriptions, this adds significant information to what a category would provide. And the subject of women in linguistics is clearly a notable one, good enough for WP:LISTN, as it and closely related topics are the subject of multiple books:

Women, Language and Linguistics
Women in the linguistics profession
The Role of Women in Linguistic Tradition and Innovation in a Chicano Community in New Mexico
Women and Language in Transition
Feminist Linguistics in Literary Criticism

(as well as shorter publications that I have not listed). The indiscriminate nature of the list as currently constituted is a problem, but AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, could I suggest you try and cleanup a small part of the list and then say whether you think the cleanup will take so long that it should take place in mainspace or in a draft space somewhere? A good start would be to add the publications you suggest to the article as references. Could you try and do that? Carcharoth (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just removed a large number of people who don't appear to be linguists, and that took an hour - I expect going through the rest of the list, removing more and adding sources for those who are actually linguists would take considerably longer. Particularly if you want to cite facts other than "X = linguist", such as nationality, birth date, and death date. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, as long as the list is driven by Wikidata bots, it's just going to completely undo all of the work Nikkimaria has done to clean up the list; Wikidata's inclusion of all of these people as "linguists" is what is determining who is and is not on the list. I could live with a list of women who are actually linguists (although there has been considerable debate about having gender-based lists, categories and articles in the past, and I can already hear the rage if someone was to create a List of men linguists), but this isn't going to stay that way unless it is divorced from Wikidata. It should not require an editor to know how to prevent bot editing of an article in order to have an article. Risker (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way to clean it up would either be to first disconnect it from wikidata (my preference, because wikidata has too different sourcing standards than here) or to do the cleanup entirely on the wikidata side. Fighting with the bots is obviously not going to work. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that Nikkimaria had already disconnected it from Wikidata with this edit (which was before the AfD was started). People may have missed it because the edit summary was "ce" ('copyedit'). I think this means that any attempt to request a bot update will fail (not 100% sure of that, but I think that is the case). Hmm. I wonder. I am going to try an experiment. It probably won't work, but let's see. I'll not give full details, as it is a bit WP:BEANS. Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC) OK, I tried to do an update, but the bot said "Status: No template match", so removing the {{Wikidata list}} template does disconnect such lists from Wikipedia. This means that any updates to Wikidata will no longer get imported across. Maybe the Wikidata list should be recreated on the talk page? Carcharoth (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth, David Eppstein, and Risker: My changes have been reverted - see discussion below. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start from scratch. I agree with David that the subject is possibly notable, if firmer inclusion criteria can be agreed upon. However, I do think we're past "cleanup" to where it would be a better use of time to blank and build from the ground up. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the topic is inherently notable. There are major problems with the current state of the article, including a lack of clear inclusion criteria, insufficient lead section, and some questionable inclusions. These seem WP:SURMOUNTABLE, though. It's true that clean up will require time and effort, but it's equally true that rebuilding after deletion, presumably with some of the same content there now, will require time and effort, plus entail loss of edit history. (And if more evidence is needed that women linguists is a notable topic, see Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics and links therein.) Cnilep (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is important to provide a list of notable women linguists along with all the other lists of women who have made important contributions to important areas of interest. I agree however that the list needs to be improved, initially by work on Wikidata, for example by deleting "linguist" where it is not appropriate. If that proves too difficult or time-consuming, then the best option would indeed be to compile a new list drawing on some of the info from Wikidata as well as by more traditional work on Wikipedia itself.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic passes WP:LISTN, per the evidence supplied by David Eppstein. The issue of how it is maintained is a separate one. Such bots should not be automatic as they will edit war and so we should have a general policy forbidding them to work in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:ListeriaBot does do automatic updates, but this can be set to various values or even turned off. A link is provided by {{Wikidata list}} for people to click and force an update by the bot. The 'freq' (frequency) parameter allows the update frequency to be set. For those wanting references, see User:Magnus Manske/listeria test4 for an example. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:LISTN. If you're going to start a crusade against Wikidata lists, please do it in an RfC or something rather than sniping individual articles one by one. – Joe (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There already has been an RfC that found no consensus to allow this use of Wikidata. Has there been a subsequent RfC on a similar scale that found otherwise? If not, the burden is on those who want to create Wikidata lists to start one. You're quite right that it shouldn't be done article by article, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Joe, I've just undone your reinstatement of the Wikidata template, on the basis that even if an article-by-article consensus were found, it couldn't override the larger RfC per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I'm now going to do some work cleaning up those lists, which wouldn't be possible with the bot override in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joe: you've stated in the context of a similar article that we "can always disable bot-updating (and keep the list) if it becomes problematic". You've also stated that a decision about Wikidata lists should be made in an RfC rather than at individual articles. However, although we have explained to you why bot-updating is problematic here, you have restored bot-updating here, and with it dozens of entries of non-linguists, claiming that the RfC that already occurred does not hold sway. Please explain why you feel it necessary to make such a point. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have also restored bot-updating on a number of similar lists, and in several cases with that have removed improvements to those lists, because "no consensus is not consensus against these lists". Where have you found consensus for these lists? What happened to your expressed desire not to do this on an article-by-article basis, or does that only apply when it supports your position? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Nikkimaria: Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, that RfC was about the use of Wikidata in infoboxes and article text and explicitly reserved its use in lists for a "phase 3" discussion (which has not taken place yet). The closing statement mentions Wikidata-generated tables as a promising future use but states that there was "no consensus" on it. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but I read "no consensus" as "no consensus", not "consensus not to allow". So no, there has not been an RfC on this use of Wikidata, nor a community-wide consensus against it, so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply.

In the absence of a clear consensus otherwise a number of editors have done exactly what they're supposed to do and boldly created these lists using the functionality provided by Magnus Manske's bot. I would welcome a wider discussion in whether we want this kind of list but I don't think unilaterally de-Wikidataing them one by one (with terse and borderline misleading edit summaries) is the way to go. As such, I have re-reverted to the stable version per WP:BRD.

It is perfectly possible to cleanup the list within the framework that the list already uses (i.e. by updating Wikidata entries and the {{Wikidata list}} template call as required), and I would suggest that is a more collaborative approach than tearing it down and doing it your own way. – Joe (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A quick addendum to respond to your accusation that I am being pointy and/or hypocritical: in content disputes, we fall back on the last stable version until a consensus is reached. I'm simply applying that logic here. You very boldly "converted" half a dozen articles even though the use of Wikidata was being actively discussed in this AfD elsewhere, I can't imagine that encountering some resistance to that action is surprising to you. – Joe (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, are you going to put in the hours necessary to do so? It was very time-consuming to go through a long list like this to try to salvage it; making changes to dozens of individual Wikidata entries will be more so. Your "collaborative" approach has undone multiple unambiguous improvements, simply because you feel - with no community consensus - that Wikidata lists are A Good Thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can, of course, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that we have no deadline and don't have to foist tasks on the shoulders of individual volunteers. There is indeed, no consensus, so could you explain why you feel justified in negating the improvements that continue to be made by ListeriaBot and multiple Wikidata editors because you feel Wikidata lists are A Bad Thing, but it's objectionable for me to revert to the status quo and ask for more discussion? – Joe (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll "do what you can" to restore the multiple useful edits that you've decided shouldn't stand just because they were done locally? We've already explained why overriding local edits is not an "improvement", and many of those who support keeping these lists as topics agree that the bot should be stopped or curtailed. Per your own words, the implementation of Wikidata in this way was "bold" - well, in that case, not using Wikidata in this way is the status quo, undoing it by removing the template is BRD, and the discussion should take place before the bold use of Wikidata is restored. So again, the burden is on those who want to do this to initiate a wider RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Joe. What an absolutely classical misinterpretation of consensus. Are you really suggesting that what ListeriaBot is doing is not modifying article text? Are you really suggesting that that RFC gave leeway to create articles that are essentially uneditable on English Wikipedia? It was pretty clear that there was not enough faith in Wikidata to use it for anything in articles other than perhaps some parameters in infoboxes. The article was created by a human, and ListeriaBot is now editing it and automatically reverting every single edit made by anyone else; it is, essentially, edit-warring. I should note that bots modifying actual article text (as opposed to infobox text) had no consensus, and thus is not an uncontroversial use of a bot. Doing controversial things is how bots get deflagged. Risker (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and Risker: I do understand why you object to the bot and this kind of list. But at the same time: the bot has approval; the previous RfC was at least, shall we say, ambiguous about whether this kind of thing is supported by the community; none of these articles were converted from existing manually curated lists, they were all produced by the bot; and at least some editors feel that this kind of list is a positive contribution to the encyclopaedia. Wouldn't it be better to seek a wider consensus on this kind of thing (e.g. start an RfC, try to get the bot de-flagged), rather than deleting or unilaterally removing the Wikidata list template from individual articles? – Joe (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked up the bot flag approval, which is here, when it was stated that it was focused on a bunch of talk pages. I'm not certain that anyone at BAG realized the intention was to create standalone articles that would automatically delete editing by anyone other than the bot. ListeriaBot does other useful things and having it deflagged is the equivalent of amputating the leg at the hip when there's only gangrene in one toe, but if you think that's better maybe that might be necessary. In this case, however, we are dealing with a single article; call it triage. The subject's notability is borderline {see Ealdyth's dissection of potential resources below), and the content is not within the control of this project. Risker (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that women linguists are considered a coherent topic, also per NYB and Risker. This is totally aside from the issue of the bot creating and overwriting the list's improvements. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Do you not consider the five books David Eppstein listed above evidence? – Joe (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first appears to be a discussion of three life stories of women linguistics, not a study of women in the linguistics profession, so I'm not sure how it makes a case for covering this topic as a coherent topic. I can't find a good view of the second book, but I'm guessing it's a listing of women in the linguistics profession considering one of the publishers appears to be "Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics of the Linguistic Society of America". The third one is here at WorldCat and appears to be a thesis/dissertation about Chicano culture, not women in the linguistics profession (note the subjects given at WorldCat). The fourth one is described on GoogleBooks as "This collection of essays deals with the interplay of language and social change, asking the question: How can language and society be made gender equal? The contributors examine the critical role of language in the lives of white women and women of color in the United States. Since language pervades many dimensions of women’s lives, this study takes a multi-disciplinary approach to the issues considered." Not a discussion of women in the profession of linguistics, it appears. The last one has a description on GoogleBooks of, in part, " The seven essays in the collection analyse widely varying literary texts, using the framework of linguistic theory to address feminist issues. The texts range from Shakespeare's As You Like It to present-day pop songs, and also cover poetry and contemporary fiction. The feminist critics whose approach is under examination include Cixous, Irigaray, Kristeva, Showalter, Woolf and a number of British feminists; and the linguistic models employed cover discourse analysis, politeness theory, lexicalisation and transitivity." - again not a discussion of women in the linguistics profession, but rather feminist literary criticism. So ... maybe one of the books is relevant to the topic, and it's hard to judge whether it is just a listing of women linguists (dating from 1990, no less) or if it actually covers women in the linguistic profession. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sorting and filtering issues are the subject of an ongoing discussion in Talk:List of women linguists § What's a linguist?, with no less than fifteen entries today (27 December 2016).
Definition: @Risker and Newyorkbrad: That discussion included the following:
Entirely apart from the above comment, this list includes many women who are translators but not linguists, i.e., practitioners of the scientific study of language. This conflates two entirely different professions. As expressed in List of linguists,
A linguist in the academic sense is a person who studies natural language (an academic discipline known as linguistics). Ambiguously, the word is sometimes also used to refer to a polyglot (one who knows several languages), or a grammarian (a scholar of grammar), but these two uses of the word are distinct (and one does not have to be a polyglot in order to be an academic linguist). The following is a list of linguists in the academic sense.

I propose ... adding a note to this article similar to the note quoted above from List of linguists.

--Thnidu (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtfulness, Thnidu. However, adding the note doesn't control in any way what the bot keeps adding to or removing from the article. That requires programming of the bot, and modifications to Wikidata to add or remove parameters there. There's no reason to believe that the changes made there will remain, and nobody here will know unless they watch the Wikidata queries for every single person on the list, plus constantly checking for new additions to the list to make sure that they are correct. Risker (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisting the list in the normal way is no different to watchlisting a normal list under local control. The problem is that you only see a bot edit (and some people ignore those) and it is difficult to work out where the change ultimately came from. I believe there are various ways to have changes made to Wikidata show up in watchlists here, but I can't remember exactly what they are (I know, the effort made by Wikidata to teach Wikipedians how it all works has been remarkably poor - I get the impression sometimes that the most active Wikidata people are so caught up in expanding Wikidata that they don't look up to see what is going on elsewhere). I picked things up fairly easily after the initial effort, but that initial effort of learning how things work over there is a bit too much at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good point. Wikidata edits show up in my watchlist (I can't remember what I did for that to happen), but only for pages I'm watching. I wouldn't want to watch the >500 articles on this list! It would be nice if ListeriaBot could summarise changes in its edit summary (e.g. "2 entries removed, 1 added, 5 changed"), and also if we could add a custom edit summary when manually forcing an update (@Magnus Manske:. – Joe (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've attempted to update the list to address the content/inclusion concerns raised here, particularly the inclusion of people who aren't linguists in the strict sense of the word (though there's still a lot of work to be done on that). Essentially the reason that's the case is that we include a host of related disciplines (philologists, translators, grammarians, etymologists, lexicographers, epigraphers, Latin scholars) in our "Linguists" category tree here on enwiki. – Joe (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft deleting redirect. The topic is notable but the present article is not ready for main space. I have also commented at Talk:List of women linguists#What's a linguist?. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft talk:List of women linguists/Bot list (a Draft talk subpage), then use it as the starting point to manually create Draft:List of women linguists. 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]
Keep. This is so obviously notable a topic, based on the number of notable women linguists, that discussing it any further is like a fish riding a bicycle. It is not so bad as to be deleted and started form scratch. Nor is AfD a place to discuss fixing problems that could be improved through ordinary editing processes or bot-assisted mechanism. Not leaving it in mainspace because it needs improvement reeks of Ambivalent sexism, because we would never do that for a list of linguists. Deleting it now will make us look bad at the wrong time. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: If List of linguists was built in the same way and had the same problems, my argument would be the same and I would absolutely support moving it to draftspace. Please don't assume everyone who doesn't just say "keep" is sexist. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was not my intent. In fact, I think it's not intentionally sexist to want to userfy it, but the effect of moving this out of main space could look sexist to our critics. Think of the optics. Or the kittens. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try growing a set rather than worrying about optics or kittens?--Malerooster (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to discuss male genitalia in this context. Unscintillating (talk) 15:54, 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. Deleted G4 by Rmhermen. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List indian records[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, the author may be the banned user User:Nsmutte so it may even be eligible for speedy deletion G5. And finally, it would also be reasonable to consider speedy deletion G4 due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of records of India Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've nom'd this for CSD per WP:CSD#G4 but I support deletion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I know many people like contributing to Wikipedia but only if we allow it to be a platform for the sort of cruft they like. While I can understand the appeal Wikipedia has as a webhost of cruft, we cannot allow this. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgii Nikitin[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax. The article was started by a user who was later blocked by being a sock, it has 10 references but none of them is a reliable source describing the activity of the subject of the article. Search does not give anything useful. Finally, it is unlikely that someone born in 2000 achieved an encyclopedic notability as a writer by 2016. Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Courtesy the same block evading accounts that gave us George Nikitin, an actor also born in 2000, whose bio was similarly laced with spurious references. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. The article claims he was involved in writting a film that was released in 2011, that a look at the article on the film shows is an out right lie. The other claims in the article seem to be equally false. Even if he was a New York Times contributor, which seems to be false, that would not make him default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - even assuming good faith error, according to his listed created this year, he has published zero articles at MSNBC. In other words, he's a writer but not published. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 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 speedy delete (G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar). MER-C 02:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Christina Schwartz[edit]

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

Non-notable model. reddogsix (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has been in several national commercials, including one currently running which features Danny DeVito and she has speaking lines. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure how this evokes WP:N. A line or two in a commercial and a couple of commercials is hardly a significant body of work and does not meet WP:ENT. I see no significant coverage of the individual, lacks WP:SECONDARY support. reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 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. Seeing as the claim of GNG being met has gone uncontested. Will tag as cleanup needed though as the need for cleanup has been stated and not contested either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Fish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no difference than 6 no the ago, absolutely nothing for actual notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet criterial for notability. Seems promotional or self-promotional. Netherzone (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the result of the last AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per last AfD. Nothing has changed about the notability of Fish since June. Penale52 (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per GNG. I found a number of articles specifically about him, [25] [26] [27] [28] plus more secondary coverage. Which should be enough to meet GNG, and that is just in English, not counting the likelihood of Hebrew coverage. Rlendog (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs a lot of work, however he clearly meets WP:NBASE. It states Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team. Being as he has participated in the tournament as a player and coach, this shouldn't even be a question. - Galatz ^Talk 12:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially the same as the version deleted in the last AFD. Contrary to the previous poster he has not played in the WBC... the qualifying tournaments are not usually accepted as sufficient for meeting that requirement. The article also contains many unsourced statements and reads like a resume or promotional blog rather than an encyclopedia article. Spanneraol (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO & WP:TNT. Not suitable for inclusion in encyclopedia: "Fish is affectionately known^{[by whom?]} as the King of Jewish Baseball" ?? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Near as I can tell, he calls himself that on his blog. Spanneraol (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like your reason to delete is the article needs to be cleaned up. Perhaps instead WP:SOFIXIT would be more appropriate than deleting the page. - Galatz ^Talk 20:08, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Sweeney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As I said in the last nomination, Sweeney is only ever given attention for being Miss Nevada, and this only at the time she won the award. This is a classic example of BLP1E. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus even though all participants in it had to that point favored deletion. Since then there has been opened on the Wikiproject page for beauty pageants a discussion that makes it clear that there is a consensus that sub-national beauty pageant winners are not default notable for such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the nom clearly chooses to ignore is this subject and most of the pageant winners who were nominated in bulk, participate in multiple events. In Diana Sweeney's case, sourced, she was Miss Carson City, Miss Nevada, had a title reign as Miss Nevada and competed for Miss America. All are a sequential series of separate events over (including the reign of two titles) more than a year's period of time. All of this is a logical pattern of events which JPL could have discovered WP:BEFORE making the nominations. Trackinfo (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as merely participating is not at all a convincing sign of Notability and we've specified that in Notabilityor itinerary, we've closed enough AfDs here as it is with Delete as the basis of not notable apart these events. There's quite simple signs here since there's no actual substance. There's actually no BEFORE needed since the article lists everything trivial as it is. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The clear consensus is that we need something higher than a state level win or something not at all related to beauty pageants, or coverage outside of the local press, to establish notability for these people. None of this is presented by Trackinfo. What he argues is not a set of sperate events, but one long interconnected set of things that boil down to one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "clear consensus" is defined by WP:Deletion policy, including WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. As per WP:Deletion policy, any editor can move this discussion to the talk page of the article, as the question of notability in this context is a content dispute, not a WP:DEL8 argument. AfD is not cleanup. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing stands out about this pageant contestant, resulting in a bio article filled with trivia, such as "taking a polar plunge in Lake Tahoe". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This polar plunge is there to combat the nom's use of BLP1E. These contestants have multiple occasions of coverage, additive toward WP:GNG and establishing the timeline of multiple events. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this trivia not suitable for inclusion; hence I voted "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Winning a state beauty pageant does not confer notability by itself. If, for example, the contestant levitated herself during the talent competition and ended up on Good Morning America, that would be notable. Rogermx (talk) 21:20, 4 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Foster's sketchbook[edit]

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

The sketchbook does not appear to be a notable artefact in and of itself; there is very limited secondary literature on it, beyond passing references. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am awaiting the arrival of a book with 32 references describing the sketchbook and its significance. I would like more time to incorporate this content into the article. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If said sources are not yet available, then it may not be a bad idea to move the article to draftspace for now, then add the sources and relevance and submit it for review again. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article already has enough references to get it over the notability line, no need to "draftify" it. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, it sounds interesting in seems to meet notability guidelines. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of voting results of the National People's Congress of China[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:IINFO. This is because it satisfies definition 3 which is "Excessive listings of statistics. Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context. Long recitations of statistics reduce readability and may be confusing. Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012) consider placing them in tables to enhance readability; where large quantities are not appropriate (e.g. the main article United States presidential election, 2012) omit excess statistics and summarize." The article is also WP:LISTCRUFT. This is because it is meanings #12, #8, #4 and #2. KAP03 (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's unclear to me what some of these tables are even referring to. A limited amount of this information could be useful in the main article to illustrate the rubberstamp, but it is not appropriate by itself per nom. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved enough. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upon improvements I would urge user Jacehu2012 to use some time to improve the article by writing some prose associated with the lists. As a regular observer of Chinese politics the results on this list were fascinating to me - for example you can see which governments had higher approval ratings. You can also see that even within China's one party system the Supreme Court had very low approval ratings between 2008 and 2013, but has since recovered after reforms.
User Jacehu2012 has been frustrating to work with generally, because he does not respond to messages nor does he care to copyedit the articles to an acceptable standard, which results in a lot of copyediting work for seasoned Wikipedia editors like myself. Colipon+(Talk) 17:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from creator Jacehu2012 Please forgive me that I had just seen the advices Colipon (talk · contribs) gave to me on 27 December, and I truly want to make efforts on adding more prose to this article to avoid being deleted. As you see, this article is useful for any observers of PRC politics because even though these all voting results can be found on the official website of the National People's Congress of China, they always don't appeared in the news of social media, so most of people today in another countries, even in China, still consider the NPC as an "useless parliament" which all delegates are totally agreed with the government, and this is not true------as you see, the Supreme Court always received low approval rates these years, and people who work for the Court are also concerned that if they received less percentage each year, which proves that the voting results of NPC are still give pressure to the government and the ruling party, although China are still a one party country. At last, I promise that more informations will be put into the article and improved annually, so please don't delect it, thank you and HAPPY NEW YEAR, I think we can talk more about PRC politics or other things in the future.
Updated by User Jacehu2012 from Beijing, China on 30 December 2016
This is an interesting case. I agree with Colipon that it's a fascinating and historically important look inside the workings of the congress of the PRC -- a government of no small importance, globally. I ask myself, what is this like? I haven't been able to find a similar list for congressional voting records from the world's other economic superpower. But federal and state elections in the US are exhaustively documented with articles, lists, templates and categories. In the UK, the closest I can find is Motions of no confidence in the United Kingdom (in that any significant deviation from unanimous approval in the PRC system is significant, I believe). ~~The list is completely unreferenced and that's a concern~~. But I would argue it's a highly notable topic, a look at the congressional process of the world's other great power, whose inner workings are I daresay underrepresented here. Having just read the article, I feel like I have a little better understanding of the machinations of this 'rubber stamp', where the nuances of votes are important . I say it's notable, far from trivial or a meaningless set of stats. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no longer unreferenced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If some more context were added (perhaps from National People's Congress), it would be even more clear, but this looks really notable to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:37, 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. Consensus is that the article qualifies for deletion as per WP:NOTADVERT. Per a review of the article's Revision history, there does not appear to be a version to revert to that is not excessively promotional in nature. This said, the company has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (see Google News results in the Find sources template below for examples). As such, I am closing this with the caveat of no prejudice against article recreation if a neutrally-worded article were to be composed that is not promotional in nature. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbies[edit]

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

basically advertising DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. This content belongs in company's promotional mailers, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising followed only by simple company announcements, that alone are classic signs of no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 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. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genebandhu[edit]

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

Seams to be non-notable. I can't find reliable sources. There is some coverage (like [29]), but is seams to be about different organization (http://www.genebandhu.org/ rather than http://genebandhu.in/). Vanjagenije (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional page created about an organization that fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This recently-created article is in poor shape itself and is pretty incoherent, with only three self-published sources, none of which are attached inline. The websites have a very different appearance but both give the same postal address in New Dehli. They article in the Economic Times in August 2015 covering a proposed social initiative is interesting, although there aren't any details about the numbers of people that actually participated. Their website was cited in an article published in the Asian Journal of Transfusion Science in 2015[30], although they are not named. I can't see that notability has been demonstrated when judged against WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:37, 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. Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall Forest Festival[edit]

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

Declined draft from a WP:SPA WP:COI account which was put into mainspace regardless.

Please also give your consideration to the draft's MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Great Wall Forest Festival. Cabayi (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Just because WP:G11 was declined doesn't make it both notable and worth the effort of cleaning up. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:49, 3 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 Withdrawn (see edithistory). Agathoclea (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tartuffe (film)[edit]

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

(eubot) Nope, this is too far. The film is named "Herr Tartüff" in German, but as any fule kno the film/play is a French one, for which we have an article, Tartuffe. To take the name of a German film, mark it as {{R from diacritics}} for a target that has no diacritics to start with, is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Cates[edit]

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

Fail WP:BIO. Zero notability. scope_creep (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assistant district attorneys are not default notable, and we lack sourcing to show why Cates is notable. Even if he had won the judgeship race he might not be notable, but as a defeated candidate he clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO. None of the 3 sources in the article are reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:05, 3 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 03:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Sweeney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As I said in the last nomination, Sweeney is only ever given attention for being Miss Nevada, and this only at the time she won the award. This is a classic example of BLP1E. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus even though all participants in it had to that point favored deletion. Since then there has been opened on the Wikiproject page for beauty pageants a discussion that makes it clear that there is a consensus that sub-national beauty pageant winners are not default notable for such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What the nom clearly chooses to ignore is this subject and most of the pageant winners who were nominated in bulk, participate in multiple events. In Diana Sweeney's case, sourced, she was Miss Carson City, Miss Nevada, had a title reign as Miss Nevada and competed for Miss America. All are a sequential series of separate events over (including the reign of two titles) more than a year's period of time. All of this is a logical pattern of events which JPL could have discovered WP:BEFORE making the nominations. Trackinfo (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as merely participating is not at all a convincing sign of Notability and we've specified that in Notabilityor itinerary, we've closed enough AfDs here as it is with Delete as the basis of not notable apart these events. There's quite simple signs here since there's no actual substance. There's actually no BEFORE needed since the article lists everything trivial as it is. SwisterTwister talk 15:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The clear consensus is that we need something higher than a state level win or something not at all related to beauty pageants, or coverage outside of the local press, to establish notability for these people. None of this is presented by Trackinfo. What he argues is not a set of sperate events, but one long interconnected set of things that boil down to one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, "clear consensus" is defined by WP:Deletion policy, including WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. As per WP:Deletion policy, any editor can move this discussion to the talk page of the article, as the question of notability in this context is a content dispute, not a WP:DEL8 argument. AfD is not cleanup. Unscintillating (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing stands out about this pageant contestant, resulting in a bio article filled with trivia, such as "taking a polar plunge in Lake Tahoe". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This polar plunge is there to combat the nom's use of BLP1E. These contestants have multiple occasions of coverage, additive toward WP:GNG and establishing the timeline of multiple events. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this trivia not suitable for inclusion; hence I voted "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Winning a state beauty pageant does not confer notability by itself. If, for example, the contestant levitated herself during the talent competition and ended up on Good Morning America, that would be notable. Rogermx (talk) 21:20, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of French born footballers who have played for other national teams[edit]

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

I'm struggling to find any evidence of notability for this topic.

Please refer to the following policies/essays:

WP:LISTCRUFT - #1, #2, #3, #6, #7

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

WP:LISTN - One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. Spiderone 17:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lists of this type are unnecessary, as the topic of anyone playing any sport for any nation other than the nation of their birth is not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am going to nominate the article above because it has the same issues as List of French born footballers who have played for other national teams. KAP03 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yugoslavia list - for the same reasons; in addition, there are players on the list that wouldn't have even had the option to play for Yugoslavia anyway as the country had ceased to exist by the time they started their careers. Pointless list. Spiderone 09:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to politely ask @GiantSnowman: and @Jkudlick: for their opinions on the Yugoslavia list also. Spiderone 10:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Yugoslavia list should also be deleted, but it needs to be a separate nomination. Giant Snowman 10:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that it should also be deleted, but it requires a separate nomination. Bundling after the fact is kind of like changing the rules in the middle of the game. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is An Ocean[edit]

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

Article is being proposed for deletion due to the non-notability of the article WP:NRV. No citation was provided to prove notability of the single. A Google search found no news sources listing the single, in any language. The article appears to exist only to have an article about the song, not to provide any additional information that is not available on the album page KIN. Mburrell (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing notable here that cannot be said on the album page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 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 01:30, 19 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 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONG. There is also nothing about the song to be added to KT Tunstall or Kin (KT Tunstall album). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:19, 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phurbu T Namgyal[edit]

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

None-notable singer. I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, or any evidence they meet WP:MUSICBIO either. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 19 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 17:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article entirely based on subjects own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One line article, that gives almost nothing to wikipedia. lbmarshall (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable in any way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC and finding no evidence of the subject meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Source searches are only providing passing mentions of the subject, such as this article and this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 3 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACD (claims services company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A search for coverage from independent reliable sources yields nothing but press releases. The article is promotional in tone, and the awards mentioned in the article are themselves not notable. — ξ ^xplicit 00:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for notability. Almost an A7. The references are either trivial , or judt placement on a list-- "fastest growing" is a polite synonym for "not yet notable." DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 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 17:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete – Per several source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Has not received enough notice by reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 3 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 Merge as the general consensus here is that it's not independently notable and is only best known for the series itself; any suitable materials can be merged from the history as needed (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk Calendar[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Greyhawk or Flanaess. This article consists of nothing but unsourced fancruft. If people are able to actually source some of the specific information here to the actual D&D books that info came from, I would not be opposed to a merge, but as it stands, its just a whole lot of unsourced material that doesn't need to be added anywhere. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Flanaess#Calendar. It's (very) briefly mentioned there, and a little more detail couldn't hurt. Detailed articles about the in-universe aspects, however, would belong on a dedicated fan wiki. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 21 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 17:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flanaess#Calendar. As a recent AfD was closed in similar way, this should be merged. No reason to have a stand alone article as it clearly is not notable enough. Ya sh ! 22:58, 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Lea[edit]

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

article created by SPA account. Tenuous notability. Uncredited in the soloist. Could be notable as per production work. Hedge fund manager. Could be a puff piece. scope_creep (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is horribly written, composed mainly of puffery (some of which I just removed) and is desperately straining to establish notability by name-dropping Joan Collins, Robert Downey Jr. and Anthony Newley for no reason. No viable third-party sources that describe her as anything other than the WAG of a shady hedge fund manager or a fashion blogger. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 19 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 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claims twice that the TV-movie Beverly Hills Christmas which the subject acted in and produced was shown to 70 million viewers. If that were so, it would have been one of the most viewed broadcasts in the history of American television. It wasn't. My guess is that the article creator was trying to mislead readers by citing the number of viewers who had access to the network which broadcast the movie, not the number who actually watched it. But if the article was written with the intention of misleading readers, then it ought to be deleted. If the person is notable, the article can be re-created, but that ought to be done from scratch rather than trying to start from this misleading article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good place to apply WP:TNT. No credible evidence of notability and hoddibly poor article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 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) 09:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Altieri[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Ajpolino (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom that subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:05, 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 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:07, 3 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 redirect to Electrocardiography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you mean Redirect to Electrocardiography?
  - Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normal ECG[edit]

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

Should be merged into Electrocardiography Rathfelder (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge, exactly. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like there is much to merge, so I think a redirect will do. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 19 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 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electrocardiography as ecg already does. As HyperGaruda observes, within this two-sentence article there isn’t particularly anything of any value to merge- even the image used on this page is from a signal generator (and there is nothing "normal" about that). I can see there are currently seven separate articles on the different waveforms that appear on ecgs. Interpretation of the ecg to exclude any abnormalities isn't straightforward by any means, but I suppose redirects are cheap. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:15, 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. A redirect can perhaps be created separately. Sandstein 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople[edit]

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

Does not appear to have significant coverage in third-party sources. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Appears to have indicia of notability as a legitimate trade organization. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a branch of UNIFOR, I see. I've added that category to the page. I suppose we could simply redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if proper reliable source coverage can be located to support an article, but no claim of notability ever entitles an article topic to an exemption from having to pass GNG just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:17, 19 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 17:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the org exists, but this is not a reason enough to have an encyclopedia article. WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 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 snowball delete on the basis of discussion below and/or speedy delete, on the basis CSD#G11. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Henry[edit]

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

Non-notable, fictional character in a non-notable series of books that hasn't been printed yet. Fails WP:BKCRYSTAL and there's lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Authored by a SPA with a probable COI. Speedy was declined on the technicality that the subject is fictional. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But you could have left the PROD tag in place! Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have. But it takes nothing for the SPA to remove it or recreate the article. If we're going to wait 7 days, it's better to do an actual AfD, which can't be contested for no reason 6 days later or merely recreated only to start the AfD process. The PROD process takes just as long and is easily circumvented. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about every single PROD tag placed on every article. AFD consumes people's time and attention, and PROD was instituted to avoid that where possible. If the creator had removed it, then, fine, the article would have gone to AFD. By removing a PROD tag because someone else might delete it defeats the whole purpose of PROD. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with the PROD process has left me less than confident in it. I think it's a bit of a waste as long as PROD's can be removed for no reason at all. But that's another discussion for another place. My AfD nomination was not improper by any means. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are dissatisfied with the process, I recommend that you read WP:POINT before expressing that dissatisfaction by interfering with the currently prescribed and legitimate use of the process only because you aren't happy with it. I understand that under the guideline, you can remove a PROD tag. But if you started removing lots of PROD tags based on your principle, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person who considers it disruptive. Largoplazo (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you just started talking about "if" I start removing a lot of PROD's, but find it odd that I mention an "if" about the PROD tag getting removed for no reason? I didn't interfere with anything. I'm sorry you got your feeling hurt, but there's nothing improper about what I did. If you still feel it was improper, I'm sure you know where ANI is. If it's not worth taking there, then perhaps you'll consider putting the whip away and stop disrupting this discussion with your complaints. Or at the very least, use a talk page. By the way, my nomination wasn't to make a point, it was to be more efficient. Try to AGF next time. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Character from a book series that, even if it exists (Google is unaware of its existence), won't be published for several years. Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's interesting this coming up while a discussion is being lost at the CSD talk page about a proposed new criterion for fictional characters. I declined the A7, but by heck, if there was a case that cried out for a speedy this is one. I'm quite pleased that this has come to AfD so more people will see it. I don't consider it disruptive to apply a recognised procedure that would probably have to be invoked anyway when the author removed the prod. Anyway, this would be a classic A7 if A7 covered fictional characters, or an A14 if that had succeeded. No notability - not even a vague claim to significance. Peridon (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit to being curious as to how the release is pending, and copyright 2016, but not expected out for three years. Self-publishers are never that slow, and even the most long-winded regular publisher doesn't sit on stuff for that long. My feeling is that the writing isn't yet complete, and the author is trying out the market before wasting time finishing it. I could be wrong. Could just be allowing for writer's block. I know the feeling sometimes... Peridon (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete,Delete, Delete What absolute dreck. I wish the speedy deletion would have just gone through for this, the character doesn't even exist yet in book form.★Trekker (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, snowy, snowy, snow, snow, snow, can an admin please close this early? does not meet WP:GNG, way too soon, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BFL CANADA[edit]

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

Non-notable insurance broker. Few google news results. Essentially an advertorial. Risker (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly. As written, this does indeed have some advertorial/PR shades to it (not blatant enough to warrant speedy, but definitely still present), and it's sourced almost entirely to primary sources, such as the websites of other organizations with which it has a direct affiliation and WP:ROUTINE paid-inclusion notices of executive staffing appointments in the business-section equivalent of the classifieds, with virtually no evidence of any real reliable source coverage about it in the journalism sections of newspapers or magazines. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a company over WP:CORP regardless of how notable it may be in theory. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – run of the mill wikispam by WP:SPA. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American LGBT[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT. This is because it satisfies definitions #6, #8, and #12. KAP03 (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has an appropriate parent at African-American LGBT community (which has some overlap) and is fully consistent with the relevant Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. WP:LISTCRUFT is one person's essay and is hardly a matter of policy let alone a valid excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the article was not placed in any categories and a bit messy. I placed the article in two categories and two portals and I cleaned the article up a bit, removing a lot of the fluff (the overlap). Hope that helps. If you search around Wikipedia there are many articles that provide a list of notable people, there an article that provides a Lists of African Americans, an article with a List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, an even an article that provides a list of African-American Jews. Since there is an article about African-American LGBT community wouldn't a list of notable people be appropriate? As for references, well each person is linked to his or her personal article that lists their occupation, credentials and contains references for such. Freethemindfull (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do see that List of LGBT Jews has now been kept three times at Afd (the first as no consensus, the latter two as keep) and I don't see why that precedent wouldn't apply to this ethnic group. I would suggest a rename to "List of LGBT African Americans" per our naming structure but that's not a matter for here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 26 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) 23:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the location of the LGBT it is after the "African-American" because I wanted it to be consistent with this article that I consider to be its parent African-American LGBT community and the "LGBT" is in back. However, I decided to bring this idea up for discussion on the article's talk page Talk:List of African American LGBT so you and others could add their thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethemindfull (talk • contribs) 04:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As consistent with other such lists. It's maintainable and not infinite. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:54, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sungai Buloh City F.C.[edit]

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

No sources provided in the article and I can't find any evidence of notability for this football club. Spiderone 12:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a semi professional club playing in a local league, not notable Seasider91 (talk) 22:25, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic rivals (Denmark)[edit]

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

PROD from @Mr. Vernon: removed without a reason. The concern was relating to WP:NRIVALRY although I could go further and cite WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG. Spiderone 12:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seemed like a legitimate rivalry until checking out Google results. No news, no books, no coverage of these teams aside from regular season play. Maybe results in Danish might be different? Regardless, I've also found no evidence of notability.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:27, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Zala[edit]

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

She doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The handful of sources I find are affiliated, social media, and/or material where she's been quoted about the topic of the material. Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is currently a list of fifteen references in the article which all appear to be articles written by the subject between November 2015 and August 2016. I note that while these are published on the BBC website, none of these appear inline and they don't appear to actually verify any of the various claims made in the article aside from having had a role as a journalist, nor could this source be considered independent of the subject. Around 2014 a women’s rights activist in Kabul of the same name was quoted in a few sources, including the Wall Street Journal [31]. Otherwise I didn't find any sources worth mentioning. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of South-Eastern Jutland[edit]

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

Teams have only met 6 times; see WP:NRIVALRY, WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 11:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the nom and one of the refs, the teams have only met six times which can't be considered a notable rivalry. Not enough substantial coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Kosack (talk) 15:51, 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 speedy keep. The article does not qualify for WP:G7 deletion, and essentially there is no valid rationale for deletion presented herein as per English Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Furthermore, in reference to use of the word "we" in the nomination, no evidence has been provided that the nominator is associated with the company. Lastly, the nominator has been indefinitely blocked for "undisclosed paid editing and probable sockpuppetry" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India Transact Services Limited[edit]

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

We don't want to take this page live currently as the information is subject to change, we request you to please unpublish the page immediately Akshay Aswani (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Akshay Aswani: the above request, being sought against a page which has been created and edited by other users, is not a suitable deletion rationale here. AllyD (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:NCORP; also no valid reason for deletion given Spiderone 14:00, 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competition (economics)[edit]

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

I'd take a paragraph listing what exactly is wrong with this article, but I think it's clearly expressed by the amount of tags: This article has little references and, in my opinion takes an unencyclopedic tone, and I feel the economy section under the main article does or would do a better job of this. Either it should be deleted entirely, or it should be merged with Competition#Economics_and_business. – 🐈? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 16:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important topic in the field of economics. There is a need for an article on this topic and it is certainly a notable topic.45.72.152.96 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable JonSonberg (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An appropriate topic for an article, well-integrated into articles related to the subject of economics and backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:48, 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 no consensus. Participants of the discussion have not determined a consensus after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Oui[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a band which just asserts that they exist, and completely fails to even try to make a claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for anything. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist; reliable source coverage which verifies passage of a notability criterion must be present for an article to become earned. This was originally listed for prod, but the prod template was removed by another editor with no actual rationale (or improved evidence of notability) provided except "remove wp:PROD take to wp:AfD if you feel strongly about it". Which, er, not a real reason. Bearcat (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Delete - I found some minor references, but nothing that would make them appear noteworthy, from this corner of the globe (Ireland) anyway XyzSpaniel Talk Page 17:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article is very lacking, but enough coverage exists both to establish notability and to allow the article to be improved, e.g.: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] (p14), [38], [39], [40]. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantive blurbs right across the board, exactly zero of which actually support passage of any NMUSIC criterion. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 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 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Southern Jutland[edit]

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

As per WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are required to pass WP:GNG. The sources provided in the article are just head to head records and a list of titles won; in its current state the article is also failing the notability criteria as per WP:NOTSTATS. I can't find any reliable evidence online that this is a notable rivalry; one club is significantly older and more successful than the other and the clubs have not met that many times; they are also not that near each other geographically. Spiderone 10:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:12, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Being Earnest/Act II/Scene 1[edit]

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

Inappropriate article. We normally do not make individual articles for individual scenes of a play. The text is just a cop of the play--it's old enough not to be copyvio, but it is unattributed. Perhaps move to wikisource if they do not already have it. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unattributed copy of public domain material. It's already available at Wikisource. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it hard to imagine even acts of a play meriting their own articles, but never a specific scene.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article creator removed all but the afd notice, i have reinstated it so that editors may consider the content. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lung (band)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, all they've done is release a demo. Fails WP:MUSBIO, delete. Narky Blert (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and WP:TOOSOON. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:32, 18 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) 09:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NMUSIC. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:47, 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BOOM MMA India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BOOM MMA India

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

Doesn't adhere to notability guidelines, more of a marketing front and lack of relevant sources for citations Haribhagirath (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - heavily promotional and not notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of relevant citations and independent sources. The scale of events are not relevant. Also the content isheavily promotional and not notable. 45.249.169.212 (talk) 05:38, 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. Participants of the discussion have not determined a consensus after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrasphere[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. The only biography found was this self-published bio. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are OK and establishes notability. More improvement on prose and sources needed though. Established band.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Boyd Consulting[edit]

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

Fails GnG. Run of the mill promotionalish article about a seemingly non-notable NYC consulting firm. Google search for "MJ Boyd Consulting" returns a big 40 hits... Carrite (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is some independent coverage there, but it seems to be more about tangential topics rather than the actual firm. South Nashua (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a recruiting firm going about its business; no notability or significance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Food Future, Inc.[edit]

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

Promotional article without any reliable third-party sources. Those sources that are reliable and indepdendent predate the company and thus cannot report on it. Google News does not give any results whatsoever for the supposed current name "FoodFutureCo" and no additional results beyond press releases for the original name. No indication of notability. Huon (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 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 08:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY with no independent reliable sources. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but no objection to a merge/redirect to Shen Tong. Neutrality^talk 03:21, 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. Participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Wilson (basketball)[edit]

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

The only independent source that mentions the subject is a blurb here. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in ESPN, NY Times and 2 books. His college stats are irrelevant as he is a known streetball basketball player who has been covered in a numerous places. Easily passes GNG. BlackAmerican (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that those are all Wikipedia:Trivial mentions of the subject, except for the linked source in the nomination statement. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Complex article on his a dedicated and definitely not a trivial mention. [41] BlackAmerican (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, figures in the book Asphalt Gods: An Oral History of the Rucker Tournament by Vincent Mallozzi as well, although it is not cited in the article.Jacona (talk) 01:05, 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 16:24, 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 08:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:43, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Instruments TMS320C6400[edit]

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

Unreferenced article; no legitimate claim to notability. While this product is used in many commercial products, it is not notable in itself. Also, WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas (talk) 16:30, 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 08:36, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Lake (film)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, and searches turn up no indication that this film satisfies WP:NFILM, only blogs and IMDB seemed to take notice (and not kindly). Should also note that most of the blue-linked actors/actresses in this article are 'best know for their role in Ghost Lake'... Keep clicking, and you'll find an entire constellation of zero-reference, self-congratulatory articles whose common thread seems to be director Jay Woelfel. However, I don't typically edit in this area so I'm open to being educated regarding reliable sources I may have missed. Antepenultimate (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not familiar with this film. The IMDb claims that this was a low-budget, direct-to-video release. There is probably no information about its box office performance. Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 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 08:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of evidence notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news articles surrounding the film exist on Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:49, 4 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. Euryalus (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Gavlas[edit]

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

Originally prodded with "Does not meet GNG, and junior volleyball players, by consensus at wp:volleyball, are not notable." Was de-prodded with the following rationale: "I believe that the page should remain, as he was a member of the Canadian junior national team, and was CIS Rookie of the Year. There are many college players in other sports who have wikipedia pages of their own, so it seems fair that volleyball players should be able as well." WP:OSE isn't a valid rationale, and the reasons for the original prod still remain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 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 08:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable volleyball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's true that we do have some articles about college players in other sports, that's because those players pass the inclusion criteria that permit a college player to have a Wikipedia article — it does not mean that all college athletes automatically get into Wikipedia just because they exist. Being on the national volleyball team at the Olympics, for example, would be a notability pass, but being on the national team at the regional NORCECA championships is not. And while winning Rookie of the Year from Canadian Interuniversity Sport is potentially a stronger notability claim, it's not strong enough to get a person into Wikipedia if the only source you can provide is a PDF of NORCECA's own organizational newsletter — even our inclusion rules for sportspeople still require the claim to be referenced to reliable source coverage in media, not primary sources published by organizations the subject is directly affiliated with. No prejudice against recreation in the future if better sourcing can be shown, but the sourcing here ain't cutting it — a person passes our inclusion criteria when the claim to passing our inclusion criteria is reliably sourced, not when it's merely unsourcedly or primary-sourcedly claimed. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of businesses that refuse to work with Donald Trump[edit]

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

WP:Attack page, WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPVIO, take your pick… — JFG ^talk 17:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. How could it possibly be a BLPVIO to repeat what's reported in RS about a public figure? I am not stating an opinion about deletion at this time, but none of that alphabet soup sticks. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is very much dependent on a single source [42] from Slate (magazine). However, the Slate article implies that NBCUniversal has refused to work with Trump since June 29, 2015. Since then, Trump hosted Saturday Night Live on NBC on November 7, 2015, and he is still apparently the executive producer of The New Celebrity Apprentice which is scheduled to premiere on NBC in about two weeks. So apparently NBCUniversal's refusal to work with Trump doesn't go that far, and if this article is kept, it ought to reflect that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List/subject is notable, added more references to article just now. Neptune's Trident (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly undue weight, and a very indiscriminate list indeed. Nothing truly significant about refusing to work with a specific person. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:08, 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 08:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another attack article created against Donald Trump. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why would anyone care if a furniture company, a perfume company, a shoe company, and a cereal company had the people running them saying they'd not do business with someone they don't like? You have a sports team and a famous chef on the list even. Ridiculous. Dream Focus 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to violate WP:BALASP. There has been enormous coverage of Donald Trump, and the published material that addresses the article's subject are a few opinion pieces. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough to be a stand-alone list (see WP:SALAT) and also serious NPOV issues Spiderone 10:22, 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 03:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiah & Tara Jean[edit]

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

Delete. Single-market radio program with no strong claim to passing WP:NMEDIA, which is serving in part as a WP:COATRACK for WP:BLPs of the hosts rather than an article about the show as a show. Virtually all of the referencing here, further, is to primary sources rather than reliable ones; for example, each assertion of what other stations Kiah or Tara Jean worked for before this show was created is "sourced" to the website of the named radio station and not to any third-party coverage of their work for that radio station. As always, every radio show is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; it must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass NMEDIA and GNG, but nothing here fulfills either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. 21:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 21:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local radio program.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 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) 09:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Hawkyard[edit]

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

A contested prod. Hawkyard has not played in the Super League and so fails WP:RLN. Does not appear to meet GNG as coverage is routine. Mattlore (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for rugby league players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, fails WP:RLN having never played for a Super League side and not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 10:39, 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 Flanaess#Calendar. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common Year (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reidrect to Greyhawk. There's no real question that this concept doesn't even come close to being notable enough to keep as an article. There are only a handful of sources, and the only one included that is an independent source is actually not about the subject at all, and doesn't even mention it, making it somewhat of a false flag. The vast majority of the content in the article is completely unsourced, and I'm not finding any information that supports any of it, as all I'm finding is mirrors of this article. So, there is essentially nothing to bother merging. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:10, 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 08:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flanaess#Calendar, which is where I suggested the calendar be merged. If we keep all this stuff in one place, it will be easier to locate the information. Still, if people want to merge/redirect this somewhere else, that's alright, too. The article stays admirably out-of-universe, but there's really no coverage of this minor topic. All I see on Google are fan sites and Wikipedia mirrors. If there's offline coverage, it would probably be best added to a relevant article until it requires a split. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 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 no consensus. Participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Yerou[edit]

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

I originally PROD'ed, but the article creator rejected it. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. There is no indication of notability whatsoever. The only claim of significance is winning "Top-performing Broker award in the Mortgage Intelligence Awards", but that is an insignificant/unknown award. IagoQnsi (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I worked on the article to see what of it I could find sources for - about 1/2 of the article and a good chunk of his career info went to the talk page because I could not find reliable secondary sources for the information. I do see that there is a Telegraph article, Finally: lifeline for self-employed on mortgages, a mention of nomination for the Barlay Prize, and 32 news articles, which seem to be about his mortgage business.

This is not a strong case for WP:GNG, and it was very likely started for promotional reasons, but because he seems to have either been a pioneer in contractor mortgages, or at least a leading force, I say "weak keep". I think that there is enough out there to expand the article from the news items I identified. Someone may also find some content that could be used on the web, but it would take some serious hunting as a lot of these are sources that could not be used (e.g., primary sources (on a number of websites or as author), social media, blog, etc.). If there is near consensus for "delete" based on additional votes, and I'm the only hold out, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is an orphan, and I don't see any other articles that mention him. So, the only present opportunities I see to link him from other articles is if someone created an article about Telular (which could be linked to from this article and 2 others) and to add something to an article about mortgages about contractor mortgages with info about him.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GIBSS[edit]

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

Clear advertising in which policy WP:NOT applies since everything is literally PR advertising and it's clear in the blatant consistency shown here, and what searches found were naturally only PR advertising since we've established these publications so notoriously publish company advertising, we cannot begin to conceivably accept it as such. Another concerning sign is that this was actually accepted a year ago and yet there was then, as is now, the sheer blatancy of company-involved advertising hence this is deletion. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is borderline promotional. No sources I could find online to substantiate notability of the subject. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 10:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any evidence of notability Spiderone 18:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dare (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable debut album recently released XyzSpaniel Talk Page 16:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of how recently it was released, the album is notable because it has received significant coverage from many reliable secondary sources, some of which are used as references. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article's references include reviews in Alternative Press, Kerrang!, Rock Sound, and Upset Magazine. Hang googles (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could use some expansion, but enough coverage exists to make it notable. --Michig (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above reasons. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:23, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gulp.js[edit]

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

Non-notable javascript task-runner. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. agtx 15:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per moninator XyzSpaniel Talk Page 22:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gulp is one of the most installed packages in npm.org with over 100k daily downloads. It is mentioned in several books about Javascript and has at least one book directly about it (Getting Started with Gulp). Venti (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is somewhat convincing. Does anyone know anything about the publisher? Is this a real secondary source? agtx 15:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have entire article about it: Packt - judge yourself. Pavlor (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based entirely on primary sources. Not particularly helpful in this instance. agtx 00:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Packt was discussed briefly on WP:RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Packt; It is a commercial publisher, but publish-on-demand. A google search for 'Gulp task runner' might turn up something useful, but a few pages in, I am only finding incidental mentions.Dialectric (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 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 08:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gulp is for Javascript what Makefile has been for C/C++/… See Webpack, Browserify, Grunt (software) for related Javascript tools. Gulp is covered in many blog posts, tutorials, see [43], [44]. Also take the download statistics from [45] into account ("2 346 286 downloads in the last month"). – Simon04 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt these are reliable sources. Independent coverage would be more helpful (eg. review in online/published magazine). Pavlor (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not affiliated with the article, but I see the importance/relevance of Gulp for web development.) I see your point. With those requirements many of the existing Software articles would have to be deleted. For Gulp: an article by Smashing Magazine is cited in the article [46]; an article published on MSDN.microsoft.com [47]; IBM blogs [48]. One of the largest webdev IDE WebStorm supports Gulp [49]. The docs on ASP.NET Core list Gulp first for client-side development [50] – Simon04 (talk) 07:52, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive schools[edit]

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

Selective list, listed in order of unreferenced price conversions from various currencies to U.S. dollars at what's claimed in the article to be their respective November 2015 rates. A lists of goods by price of historic transactions makes sense, like List of most expensive films, or List of most expensive association football transfers, but a list of fees with ongoing price changes does not, and WP:NOTCATALOG may also apply here. Article was deleted in 2011 following prod, but restored and redirected, per Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 56#List of most expensive schools. A year later, it was resurrected. If WP:RS can be found that a particular school is the "most expensive school in country X or "in Europe" or "in the world" on a given date, that's worth mentioning in the school's article, but I can't see the value or maintainability of this list: how often should the currency fluctuations be updated? Daily? The Swiss Franc, the British pound and the Euro also vary against the U.S. dollar at very different rates lately, for political and macroeconomic reasons: is the dollar the best currency for comparing all of these? Wikishovel (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I completely agree. This also relates to WP:LISTCRUFT #6 and #11 among other points. Spiderone 19:24, 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 08:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all above; also WP:NOT would seem to apply. John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 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) — Music1201 ^talk 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Woodruff[edit]

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

I do no see anything to suggest that this person meets WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She doesn't have to pass the standards of WP:ARTIST. Instead, all we have to show is that she passes GNG. Here are some sources: Huffington Post 2013, full article on Woodruff, LA Times 2001 significant review of her work, 2013 Review of Woodruff's work, Huffington Post 2013, a mention, but showing where she fits in art trend continuum, Entertainment Close-up 2013, description of her work and venues (subscription needed to HighBeam), Money 2005, an article about Woodruff and her husband (subscription to EBSCO needed). She has also been covered in other sources, but I'm not able to get access to all of them. They are listed here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the 2 reviews shown are still not enough and there's certainly no actual museum collections here to begin with, next is the fact the other sources that are said to be significant are in fact event announcements, that's not substance at all, and it's worse if we're going to say that's the best existing. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is actually passing WP:ARTIST, which is more narrow criteria than WP:GNG. She does not need to have permanent museum collection as it's just one criteria of WP:ARTIST. She's passing the following sub-criteria of WP:ARTIST: 4(a) - method she invented is widely reviewed, 4(b) - there are a lot of her exhibitions - in public and private galleries, that received a lot of critical attention and 4(c), which is visible from the references. Since only one criteria is enough to pass, she's easily should be granted and article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it is relevant in the world of Wikipedia, but they are clearly horrible paintings.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems to pass WP:ARTIST by a thin margin and per the coverage received. Although I completely agree to what TheLongTone said at the end. Ya sh ! 22:53, 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. MER-C 05:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clínica Eugin[edit]

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

An old speey was declined because theye were refe, nevertheless I do not think notability is established. And there is a strong smell of spam. TheLongTone (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As I explained in the page, I added this company because I think is important enough to be part of the Wikipedia. Is part of NMC Health that already has a page and one of the most important clinics in Spain. Also is an international company (currently in 3 countries) and collaborates in researchs with major spanish universities. If I can do something to improve it, please tell me. Thanks :-) --Dovidena (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is just a run of the mill fertility clinic; nothing shows notability and fails GNG. WP is not a directory and it doesn't serve as the webpage for the clinic. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this content belongs on the company web site, not in an encyclopedia. No notability or significance here, just a company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 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. MER-C 05:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robocoin[edit]

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

Nominating deletion because the main WP:Notability of this article, (first Bitcoin ATM in Vancouver) is included in the Bitcoin ATM page. As the company has closed down, I see no expectation that this page will be improved in any great detail. Lbmarshall (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are lots of innovations, projects and startups in the bitcoin space. In this case notability has not been established. We have to trim the fat. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON for this bitcoin company with a coverage of 45 machines globally. This is not yet noticeable by reliable sources to do stories about it thus nothing for Wikipedia to rely on to include the entry. Xaxing (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a snowball's chance in hell since there's no actual significance in "One of the companies", and there's simply nothing else but clear advertising hence our policies explicitly allow deletion. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 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. MER-C 05:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Center for positive aging in lower merion[edit]

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

Local service center for the aging, no signs of notability for WP:GNG, no coverage beyond community info resources. Largoplazo (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this center is most often called PALM and there are more sources available when searching PALM Lower Merion instead of Center for positive aging in Lower Merion. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW I didn't restrict the search that fully. I searched for "center for positive aging" merion. Granted, I didn't search for PALM. Largoplazo (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I've run several searches on PALM and "Upper Merion", variously excluding set phrases like "palm beach" or including (aging OR senior), and, except for a couple of articles in one area publication, Main Line Times,[51][52] I couldn't find anything but event calendar entries and community resource listings. Largoplazo (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Lower Merion), I think the second link might be a small notable entry. It's an article on how the PALM is celebrating their anniversary and goes into what the PALM does. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can neither see nor find any evidence of notability for this centre. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:36, 13 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 17:23, 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 08:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this content belongs on the org's web site, not here. WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a small, local social service agency that services not more than 1,000 people annually. How is that notable? Bearian (talk) 18:45, 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 03:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FR-50(B)[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Reviews published in places where reviews of such products are published, but doesn't have non-trivial coverage in reputable publications. Doesn't meet WP:GNG Mikeblas (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 12 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 18:18, 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 07:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References barely establish existence but fall far short of demonstrating notability being little more than social media and forum posts. Having little more than simple listings and brief reviews shows that it has not had a lasting legacy on the ham field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 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 no consensus. Participants of the discussion have not reached a consensus after 2 relists. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CET Piteşti[edit]

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

Non notable structure, backed up by only a voutube video as a source XyzSpaniel Talk Page 23:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:33, 13 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 18:25, 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 07:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to List of tallest structures in Romania#CET Piteşti] (with creation of a target anchor in the CET Piteşti row in the list-article). Deletion would be wrong obviously, in my opinion, as there is the good alternative to deletion of merging the material and leaving a redirect behind. I say Merge rather than Keep because the article is very weak and its substantial content is not more than can be included in a row in the table at List of tallest structures in Romania So what if there is a Youtube video as a source, there is nothing wrong with Youtube videos being used like photographs that establish the reality of something, and it can be used as a source in the table row. Leaving the redirect preserves edit history and allows for re-creation if/when there is more material including sources. --do ncr am 01:25, 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 no consensus. Clearly no agreement here on whether this is a topic that merits a standalone article or whether it would be better covered elsewhere. Arguments are made that this is WP:SYNTH but there is no real agreement on whether that is the case. It is disappointing that this discussion seems to have fallen around partisan lines, and just a friendly reminder that using unnecessary juvenile terms like "butthurt" in an AFD may result in an "Afdexit" for the offending user. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

I really do noy think that this is a notable topic. All the references seem to date from shortly after the referendum, WP:NOTNEWS and I do not believe that there is any serious ongoing debate whatsoever concerning this idea. I listen to a lot of talk radio and have not heard any mention of this, even in comedy programs. TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief mention into Brexit after removing a pointless list of pro/contra people. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the prod rationale, this seems to be quite heavy on WP:SYNTH. Not sure why an AfD was needed when the prod was still in place though? Number 5 7 16:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prods often disappear without a murmurTheLongTone (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a concise version of the same to Brexit...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it should find a mention in Brexit...? Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, topic is not notable, and the article consists of either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR depending on how you read it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, off to a bad start here guys, I have spent the evening augmenting and improving. Perhaps you could do the same? Rather than attempting to mindlessly censor to shelter your fragile, personal political persuasion - with no evidence whatsoever to back it up or address the body of text. I am in the process of adding to people like Boris Johnson's (for) and David Cameron's (against) pages (as well as Andrea Leadsom, John Oliver, Douglas Carswell etc. etc.) to mention their opinions and/or statements on a British 'Independence Day'. I think if it's notable enough for them, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Unless your whimsical internet reality is more real than elite-level politics and journalism? Bear in mind the UK Government have officially debated the topic, at tax payer's expense. Whether it's trending in the supposed current 'talk radio' isn't actually a metric of a page's viability on Wikipedia. Nor is which way the wind is blowing or how you 'feel'. 'Support' and 'Opposition' is catered for, allowing a neutral and factual representation of dozens of statements, speeches, columns and articles on the topic. This page is about the debate itself (statements of opinion, factually cited and proven by world-renowned politicians and columnists from impeccable sources), not the actual existence of the national holiday. Where is the proof that these statements didn't happen, aren't viable, aren't relevant to the title and aren't about the topic at hand? None so far. Mdmadden (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — Mdmadden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Firstly, regarding your snippy comments, WP:AGF. The reason for nominating this for deletion is that there is no such debate. Or certainly not so one would notice. I suspect you are the one with a political horse in the race, a blief only partly down to the fact that this article and edits on the topic are your only contributions to Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reasons as above. As for the list of supporters/opponents, merely mentioning 'Independence Day' in a statement, usually as campaign/political rhetoric, isn't the same as taking a firm position as to whether there should be a national holiday observed every year, which account for very few of the people who have been listed. Furthermore, the fact that most of this article mostly consists of people who are allegedly supporters or opponents of the topic suggests that the topic isn't particularly substantive or notable. In addition to Brexit, suggest it might also be better mentioned in British National Day. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Seems completely reasonable to me to have this as its own article. CyboDuck (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — CyboDuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, wholly don't think we need a national holiday of a British Independence Day. However I see the petition gained over 21,000 signatories to be debated by the UK's MPs. The MP Robin Walker said it would be too expensive and had competition from St George's Day - so at least it's been officially discussed by government with even budget requirements... I'm sure this will resurface in 2017 when we get to anniversary of referendum too. But think it has to STAY/KEEP, too many MPs and MEPs have commented on it for 23 June to be celebrated/considered/recognized as 'Independence Day' and the public getting the government to respond for national holiday is significant enough. I might find some time to improve it - I will add some more people that have publicly opposed the national holiday suggestion. Slashmire (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best Merge. Having standalone articles on the basis of something having been debated in parliament would keep us busy with several new article a day. This was all a, rather dim, flash in the pan. Mdmadden's assertion that deletion is reliant on proof that the topic is not notable has matters rather the wrong way round. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I've provided around 30 sources, on top of the Parliamentary debate, I have quoted literally some of the most notable, modern UK-politicians like Boris Johnson (Foreign Secretary), David Cameron (former Prime Minister), Nigel Farage (former UKIP leader), Andrea Leadsom (2016 Conservative leader final candidate) and so many more, directly addressing and debating the issue. You have provided nothing as a rebuttal. The onus is on you to credibly produce reasoned evidence against the inclusive 'for and against' debate on this issue existing, or once existing, at a viably notable level, which you have failed to do. I have proved the existence of direct quotes, comments, support and opposition. Your rebuttal is; "flash in the pan". A very unscientific and weak thesis. Why the obsession with removing a factually discussed recourse on an issue, that's taking a few Kilobytes space on the Wikipedia, I wonder? ~~Keep~~ Mdmadden (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:SYNTHesis of a long ragbag of quotes in varying circumstances and contexts is not the same as reliable sources referring to an actual significant debate. At best this is worthy of a couple of sentences at Brexit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking back at this debate - I don't think on the 1 hand we can lament a proper/focused Parliaments debate by MPs on the issue because of the successful petition, and then also lament that there are other quotes on it in varying circumstances and contexts ETC - I think this might actually support the page (INCL. foreign politicians, USA, ETC) I think it's fanciful this will ever be a national holdiday but I can see MPs/MEPs who've spoken out in support AND opposition of it. Think it's got to STAY/KEEP, especially as I think there is more to add to opposition section eventually! Slashmire (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how lamentation of anything figures in this discussion. The implication seems to be that other participants here are taking sides in the supposed debate of the subject of the article, rather than neutrally discussing its notable existence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry thought you said before about standalone articles for Parliament debates being problematic to you but then also were worried about all the other quotes from lots of different circumstances/contexts (like foreign politicians/newspapers/blogs ETC) - I actually thought that might actually help with its notability (DIFF/VARIED sources ETC).. I just added a The Guardian Observer article to opposition section that I found, I'm sure there's more opposition debate out there.. Slashmire (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, please stop projecting lamentation and worry upon me and just stick with what I've said. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have struck the second vote by MdMadden. Feel free to make more comments but don't double "vote". Cowlibob (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the issue of an Independence Day as a result of leaving the European Union has been discussed and reported in political circles from those on both sides and the page represents both opinions. I would rather have this page showing the opinions of those for and against rather than it being hijacked by one side in news outlets. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an issue that was heavily discussed in the UK before and after the referendum. As previously stated, it is notable for a summary of both sides the debate to be present on Wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heaqvily discussed my curvy pink butt. Understandably nobody was talking about this before the referendum; ubderstandably only a few hardline arses are talking about it after.TheLongTone (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or briefly merge to Brexit. Is part of that issue, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Sandstein 13:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well about 1/2 people don't agree with that. There's certainly not a consensus. AfD was put on here prematurely in my opinion (and as others have said) as many say "or merge" after vote. Clearly the most ethical/right thing to do was put an IMPROVE notice above and encourage building prose on the article - not a hasty AfD. The sources and types of people quoted are legitimate, the Parliaments debate happened as well.... isn't that the most credible place in the UK for debating? The debate also has varied proven contexts/evidences FOR/AGAINST (as many on here agree), so why delete the home for this debate? Slashmire (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, is this article meant to be about the (non-notable) parliamentary debate or the non-existant public debate??? Really, this should be merged to Crass brexit triumphalism before the hard reality kicks in TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you do have your "political horse" in the race, after all. Numerous people disagree with you, so amp up the rhetoric to mock and pigeon hole other people. Ah so; it's "non-notable" because you said so and it's "non-existent" because you said so. Never mind all the references. You claim it's "Crass brexit triumphalism" as though that means the debate article can't exist because of it, as though the crassness on the "Support" side removes it from existence; that crassness cancels out elite-level politicians remarks, televised debates, Parliamentary debates. In what world does that happen? Equally, does the "Opposition" sides' liberal scathing cancel out David Cameron's or John Oliver's opposition? Remove it from existence, because others might not like that publicly expressed viewpoint? Also, referring to your "pink curvy" anatomy to RaviC above, just because they disagree with you - not especially helpful to a fair discussion either. You've made it clear you're on the side of "Opposition" - that doesn't mean the debate doesn't, or indeed hasn't, existed at viably notable level. Sorry, I think you AfD'd seemingly too quickly, flimsily and, clearly now, rather based on your political opposition rather than logic, and I think the split consensus proves that. Mdmadden (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. I afd'd this because there is no public debate about thids catastrophically stupid and divisive idea.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't believe this is a thing, it might be worth a small mention in the Brexit article if it can be substantiated. But in my view it is just a bunch of soundbites with no constitutional or legal substance to it. Shritwod (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belief is not a metric for Wikipedia articles and their viability. It has been substantiated already, in it's own article. It's best to read the article and it's cited references first before any commenting. Constitutional and legal substance is not a metric for whether an article is notably viable. Thank you. Mdmadden (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it's being considered for parliamentary discussion, I don't see how it's not relevant, whether you agree with Brexiters or not. That being said, if the resulting parliamentary discussion results in little uproar or external discussion, I'd support a merger to the Brexit page. --WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, present tense, it is not. To the extent it was ever any sort of live issue (not much) it certainly isn't any more. Merger's fine though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.--WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the input. Present tense is not required for notable viability of an article. Thank you. Mdmadden (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Logic against seems fairly weak and politically-charged. See TheLongTone's comment, it's clear there's a lot of butthurt behind this motion. SteelMariner^Talk 16:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The logic against it is just logic, the article itself seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH at the very least to push a political point that also smacks of WP:FRINGE. Shritwod (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how something that has been discussed by mainstream politicians is "fringe". --WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, mainstream politicians involvement and then labeling as "fringe" is an example of cognitive dissonance with this issue. As is the idea that there is a "political point" being pushed. Both "Support" and "Opposition" is, or has been, pushed by mainstream commentators, politicians and media. This article documents them and provides both viewpoints, plus a Parliamentary debate explicitly on the national holiday request. Mdmadden (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On re-reading this discussion and the article, it appears that it is based on even flimsier grounds than I had thought. Both the article title and my reading of the posts above implied to me that a major aspect of the supposed notability of this topic was an actual parliamentary debate held on the matter of a public holiday. That itself would not be sufficient grounds for notability but on re-reading the article and Hansard, there seems not to have been any such debate. There was a discussion to consider six public on-line petitions relating to the UK’s exit from the European Union,^[1] held in the Grand Committee Chamber of Westminster Hall, not the main chamber, one of which called for an Independence Day. It was a consideration of the petitions, not a debate of their proposals and certainly could not be characterised as a parliamentary debate about Independence Day. The government responded negatively. (Incidentally, to be considered for parliamentary time, a petition should reach over 100,000, this one having reaching over 20,000.) Aside from this parliamentary footnote, the article is just a synthesised list of disparate quotes from people touching on the aspect of a public holiday, also largely talking in a much wider context. None of this is a tangible debate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant strawman fallacy, admirable as it may be. The viability of the article does not rely on which chamber the tax-payer-funded MPs discussed the issue (at the public's request). Nor does the word "debate" in the title explicitly have to refer to a Parliamentary debate. Nor does the article rely solely on the debate of the petition, even with a spurious claim that is wasn't debated, subjectively or technically speaking. In fact, the Government's official statement on that petition is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" As seen on UK Parliament petition: 123324.

More widely, Boris Johnson claimed about the 23 June; "I believe that this Thursday can be our country's Independence Day" in the BBC's own 'The Great Debate'.^[2] This was a public debate, at Wembley Arena, watched by millions of British voters. Then-Prime-Minister, David Cameron was explicitly questioned on Johnson's claim, who said "the idea that our country isn’t independent is nonsense. This whole debate demonstrates our sovereignty." These examples of the wider debate, partially on a British Independence Day, are catered for in "Support" and "Opposition" sections of the article. Those 'fringe' politicians Boris Johnson and David Cameron with their "disparate" and "wide" discussion on the issue; a wonderfully hair-splitting and artificial condition of article viability - whatever next. Also, perhaps someone should let these MPs know that "None of this is a tangible debate":

Robin Walker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, claimed that "tempting though that might be, I think the idea of an independence day would face fierce competition from the likes of St George's Day, Trafalgar Day and many more. It's very hard to commit to June 23 over its many rivals. Unfortunately it's just too costly."^[3]
Patrick Grady MP, claimed that "of the 21,292 signatories to the petition that states that '23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually', two were residents of my constituency." Grady has been MP for Glasgow North since 2015. He further stated that "in years to come, 23 June will not be a day for celebration. It may indeed end up as a day of deep regret", and that "I sometimes wonder if I have woken up in a parallel universe and the independence day referred to is the day of Scotland becoming independent".^[4]

Furthermore, "The government responded negatively" in fact supports the viability of the article (and is pointedly mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article itself); it proves the executive branch of government has acknowledged the desire, from some quarters, for an Independence Day national holiday on 23 June and has, for the time bring, rejected it, explicitly taking loss of revenue and budget concerns into account. Here's another MP's reaction to that government response:

Nigel Evans MP, in October 2016 after the government announcement on a 23 June national holiday, stated; "What a shame the government has made this decision, this is an absolute belcher of an idea. This is the day to celebrate that we voted to make 100 per cent of our laws in the UK." He provided a further suggestion that "if its too expensive then why don't we swap it for one of those summer bank holidays in August and have our day of celebration. If it worked for the American's, why not us?"^[5]

Do you mean 'belter' Or is this a frank admission that this is all malodorous guff????TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all-due respect, unsupported declarations that concepts aren't "tangible", or simply don't exist on one's 'say-so', have no standing next to elected MPs and the highest-level, most mainstream politicians' comments, declarations, debates or responses on the issue both colloquially and explicitly concerning a national holiday - both for and against. Mdmadden (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So a number of debates and pronouncements which are about Brexit broadly, in general, where a detail mentioned within them is the idea of Independence Day? That does not make them debates about Independence Day, any more than they are specifically about any of the mutltitude of other potential aspects of Brexit people have touched on. Are we to cook up supposed stand-alone "Debate over post-Brexit Fisheries Policy" or "Debate over Erasmus scholarships in the light of Brexit" articles - you'd be able to list a similar number of cherry-picked quotes where these issues have been touched upon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I address the questions in artificial isolation from the petition, Parliamentary debate, Government response and separate stand-alone calls from several mainstream politicians explicitly for a national holiday? Your concession on the Parliamentary debate issue you raised is fine, but if you want to then jump to exclusively examining the wider mainstream references in isolation; I would suggest that you'd be better off editing and improving the article itself. If the discussion has moved onto that already, we're essentially in indirect agreement that the main thrust stands.Mdmadden (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?! Why would you do that? It wouldn't alter the fact that this is synthesised list of disparate remarks on one of many aspects of a much broader topic, made to look like a coherent "debate" on this aspect exists. Specify my "concession" please - I'm puzzled. Tinkering with an article whose basis is spurious is futile; this would not be a fruitful use of my time, or anyone else's. Where is there the merest hint that I believe the article's existence is vindicated? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was your intervention above (starting Comment) about how this subject had not been debated, and with an irrelevant over-importance projected about which chamber MPs debated it in. Which was immediately refuted as a strawman and proven to be a false statement. Literally, the government disagrees with you. You then went on to abandon that topic completely and focus solely on "wider" comments in isolation, as though this somehow evolved the debate. That's quite demonstrably a concession and abandonment of your argument. Thanks. Mdmadden (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thank you not to make false statements about my having conceded a point which I have not. You disagreeing with someone, even if you believe your supposed line of logic, does not mean you can just pronounce they now agree with you. That is flagrantly underhand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting your concession of a point is not a false statement. Saying that the petition wasn't debated by Parliament/MPs is a false statement. If you haven't conceded on that specific point, I look forward to your response on it. Thanks. Mdmadden (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The parliamentary debate is an irrelevance. (I can't be arsed to trawl thu hansard, but I would be very surprised if there was any debate of substance). What the article claims to be about is a public debate on the topic... which as you well know is nonexistent. Not only do I read newspapers: I do latex gloves and skim the Daily Mail and The Sun'. The article is a sorry farce anyway, a list of people who have said something on the subject of Brexodus. (I note that Uncle Tom Cobley hasn't made the cut yet)TheLongTone (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops , I didn't see the Hansard link below. Couldn't see anything but a scant mention of the 'independace day' nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mdmadden, you don't seem to be able to accept that people don't agree with you. I would suggest that you live with it. Debating the points of the AfD is one thing, but you are coming very close to resorting to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps I can suggest that you read WP:ADHOM? Shritwod (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He said, starting a random, unsourced accusation on another user. "Very close to"? I don't buy into your "belief" system, as I said before. Prefer facts and evidence. Provide some if you wish, or carry on as before, your choice entirely. Mdmadden (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you don't seem to have been able to come up with any facts of evidence supporting your assertions that this "Independence Day" is anything more than a collection of soundbites amounting to nothing more than hyberbole. Apart from a brief flurry of news items that really coincided with the release of a movie of a similar name, I completely fail to find any evidence of sustained debate about this issue anywhere at all, not in the news, not in social media. Although I am impressed at your tenacity on providing a list of quotes from two apparent sides, I do not believe that in any way they indicate that there's a real debate at all. Shritwod (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwod, you seem to be just repeating sentences with zero evidence to back them up. I DON'T agree with the "Independence Day" national holidays either but why are you ignoring all the main newspapers and news sites references AND the Parliaments debate (and as others say) "mainstream" politicians who have talked about it? Why does the debate HAVE to be "sustained"? When, everyday? This clearly will be raised again and again. It has been debated at NEARLY the highest level you can officially debate something in Great Britain. What's wrong with that? Who said those were the rules that you're claiming? If we change the article name to Calls for a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom is that fine? or "Support and Opposition for a British... etc."? Why do you think you think CyboDuck, Stevo1000, Mdmadden, RaviC, WhyIsItWereHere22 and SteelMariner disagree with you? You don't seem able to accept people disagree with you perhaps. Come up with some logical evidence against the credible cited sources rather than your own "soundbites" with nothing to back them up. Slashmire (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for a British Independence Day observed in the United Kingdom, or better List of thereof would at least be a less inaccurate description of what we have here but are we really here to produce articles that just consist of lists of mentions of something?

The important distinction about the sources is that they just support that a thing has been mentioned several times, each in a context where lots of other things were mentioned. They do not refer to and do not support that there has been a debate regarding "thing" and to make a conclusion that there is one by tying these sources together to say something that they do not individually say is to advance WP:SYNTH. Neither is a debate considering a petition about "thing" (amongst several others) a debate about "thing". Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the nub of it - it is not a "thing" at all. It doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not, if it were a "thing" then a good NPOV Wikipedia article would be useful. But this article appears to exist to attempt to give the concept notability, when in fact it has no such thing. Looking at both Google News and Twitter as a couple of good ways to see if there has been a debate about it, I find nothing of consequence. Shritwod (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-17/debates/0D10F53C-7241-46AC-88CD-BD91964FADE2/UKExitFromTheEuropeanUnion
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36593120
^ "Turns out there are 'no current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Aol. 17 October 2016.
^ "UK Exit from the European Union — [Phil Wilson in the Chair]". TheyWorkForYou. 17 October 2016.
^ "Tory MP calls for 'Independence Day' Brexit bank holiday". The Telegraph. 25 October 2016.

I think its high time we close this discussion as no consensus and start another one after the dust settles. –– Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED - clearly enough people back the references here. We can't just un-exist this because people don't agree with it politically - mainstream examples of for AND against is there for all to see. Slashmire (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as only best fitting clearly since this was itself still only a one-time event, but at that then only something it's going to be itself: A debate. There's clear connections to Brexit hence best suited there; both Delete and Keep thinly concur this is not both independently notable and currently improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No don't agree with that. In fact, I put a couple of hours into improving it yesterday. Now we have a better split of general opening detailed description, Parliaments debate, specific notable calls for national holiday, and separate notable wide/general references to British Independence Day in all forms of media. Let's KEEP evolving/improving. Slashmire (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked through your recent changes in detail but the immediate aspect that leapt out was the subsection title misrepresentation of a debate on petitions as a debate on Independence Day (the result of which was that the topic is not to be allocated a debate). This goes past the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH aspects into outright untruth. Banging on about supposed references is neither here nor there if they do not support the POV that the article advances. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate further, per the categories on the government web site regarding the way e-petitions have been dealt with, this one is one of the many which "got a response from government" as opposed to the comparatively few which "were debated in the House of Commons"/"Petitions debated in Parliament". (Apparently the government website is blacklisted here, so I've had to remove the link from this post!) Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt Lunker, I'm afraid you're unnecessarily conflating terminology and again, drawing the same absolutely irrelevant straw-man distinction between which chamber MPs debated in. The petition was debated by Parliament. That is a fact. The government statement is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" - UK Parliament, Petition No.123324.^[1]

My very point is that the petition was debated in parliament. The petition. And the conclusion of this debate, on the petition, rejected the issue therein being given a debate. Wording this to imply a debate on Independence Day was granted is false. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This part seems to be ignored (for obvious reasons): The government statement is: "Parliament debated this topic. This topic was debated on 17 October 2016" - UK Parliament, Petition No.123324. You claim MPs "rejected the issue" via " a debate". So what "issue" was debated? Please provide sources Mdmadden (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, the petition is the vehicle for delivering the "topic" to Parliament for debate. The government asserts: "This topic was debated". What is the topic? An Independence Day national holiday in the United Kingdom. There is video footage evidence of Members of Parliament officially debating that topic in Westminster Hall, that you can readily refer to, as well as the Hansard transcript you provided previously. As Robin Walker MP said in the debate on 17 October 2016: "We have already enjoyed a number of excellent debates in both this Chamber and the main Chamber."

Please provide your source (and a direct quote for ease of searching, if possible) of the result being that: "the topic is not to be allocated a debate." Major news outlets, such as BBC and Yahoo! News have reported the petition and topic as debated by MPs and debated by Parliament.^[2]^[3] I have also provided MPs discussing the topic in Parliament both in this discussion page and in the article. All this, on top of the government's own position that "Parliament debated this topic". So it's very intriguing as to what source you are drawing your opposite conclusion to the UK executive's and legislative's position on this. Mdmadden (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very minor talking point within the larger Brexit debate. Here are Politico: [53]], and that's really all it amounted to, handful of op-eds, a handful of speeches. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this entire debate seems entirely politicized. With that in mind, I'd say let's leave it with appropriate tags in place, and let interested editors like Mdmadden take a crack at the POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karunamon (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a well-sourced article, and the topic appears to be notable given the range of high-publicity figures who have commented on it. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This certainly warrants mention in Brexit as a relatively minor aspect of that, but it doesn't meet the standard necessary to stand alone as a separate article topic in its own right — the fact that we have to invent an implausible and overly prolix title for it, because a standard name doesn't actually exist, demonstrates that right on its face, as does the fact that the content here consists very predominantly of "what people tweeted about it" rather than substantive content. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 3 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. Consensus is for deletion, with users stating that the article qualifies for deletion as per not meeting notability guidelines and as per WP:NOTPROMO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunteck Realty[edit]

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

I am not convinced that any of the awards are significant. I note a few of them are for "young achievers", a convenient synonym for "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I tend to concur about the awards, although I am not an expert in the area. As for general coverage, I found a couple of mentions in mainstream sources[54][55] and several mentions in the financial press (chiefly about stock prices, etc.). I don't think that this is enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but if anyone finds any solid sources I might be willing to change my mind. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article copy consists exclusively of "Awards" (possibly pay-per-play), thus offering no encyclopedic value to the reader. WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No value. scope_creep (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what's offered as sourcing is simply PR itself and that's not surprising given the article circumstances here. SwisterTwister talk 00:41, 3 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. MER-C 05:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Harvest[edit]

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

Simply a PR business listing in which everything is clear PR, regardless of anything or anyone else, and searches noticeably found nothing at all but actual local published and republished and local news stories; none of that establishes notability regardless, because our policies explicitly state any intentions of business advertising and "LinkedIn-esque" matters are unacceptable. In fact WP:NOT is the first policy we started for such occasions. Even compare the article with this and now, and see how enlarged the named-mentions of others and accompanying PR have in fact made the article worse, hence it actually goes to show that's all this literally is, policy is quite clear about it so we delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sounds promotional and reads like a press release. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. This copy belongs on the company web site not in the encyclopedia. WP:TOOSOON applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 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 04:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan's Oothoon[edit]

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

I was unable to find reliable sources discussing this book and believe that it fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book is notable or that it has received any coverage since it was released in 2010. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find anything useable on this book, WorldCat shows just 4 libraries holding it, all in author's homestate of Texas, article created by a WP:SPA, who may have been a WP:FAN of the book? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not receive sufficient coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 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. Michig (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

District 5 Hockey Club[edit]

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

This was a close call, but I declined an A-7 CSD nomination on this. That said I believe the subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't even have an article about the amateur league that this club plays in. Also, I suspect that the linked players listed in the article are more likely to be unrelated persons who merely have the same name as people who are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro90 BobLaRouche (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cynical Metropolitan90 doubts that a California physicist, a 91 year old actor, a professional basketball player and a professional soccer player all compete together as members of an amateur hockey team on Long Island. Correct. Those notable people are not involved, and this local hockey team is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would decline a CSD on this; an article needs to assert a credible claim of importance, which a championship in a local beer league is most absolutely not. No evidence whatsoever of notability, let alone a GNG pass. Ravenswing 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to this and I tend to take a conservative approach to interpreting the guidelines that regulate my use of the tools. If I ever get trouted I'd rather it for being too restrained than too trigger happy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I think I'll chime in here and say that I think I may have come across this and considered declining A7, but then saw that the bluelink names link to different people of the same name. In my experience, you're much more likely to get into trouble for being conservative than making erroneous A7 nominations and deletions. I'm not saying that's right (for what it's worth, I too believe it's better to be cautious if in doubt), but that is the case nevertheless because Wikipedia is full of editors with a liberal interpretation of the policies and guidelines, and A7 is often very liberally applied, as you've probably already noticed. Not too long ago, I was worse than trouted for declining A7s, to the point a topic ban was on the cards! That could well have happened again if I had declined this. Adam9007 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a few people warned me about the damned if you do and damned if you don't part of the job. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 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. MER-C 05:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Gouvas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I tried to clean this up, but I found it impossible. It's a highly promotional bio, apparently an autobio, for a surgeon also interested in antiquities. He seems notable in neither field. The claims for medical firsts are exceptional claims, which would require excellent secondary sources. but there are no MEDREF compliant sources for any of them. The other medical claims do not seem significant. As for his books on antiquities, it unfortunately seems they are mostly self-published, by a museum he personally founded. (I cannot track down the publisher of the others) In terms of WP:PROF, Google Scholar shows no significant citations. (We might also consider deleting Museum of Arts and Sciences of Epirus, but that should be a separate discussion ) DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a medical doctor or an antiquarian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG; and per nom extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources and they are not available. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dana LaCroix[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a musician with no strong claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source coverage to support it -- except for two articles in smalltown community newspapers that aren't widely distributed enough to count as WP:GNG-conferring coverage, the referencing here is otherwise entirely to YouTube videos, blogs, directories like discogs.com and performance listings on the primary source websites of the venues where she played. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform where every musician is automatically entitled to an article just because she exists -- but what's shown here is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get her over the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi I am the orginal poster of the article. I dont really know how to use this discussion function, so am editing here, hope that's ok. I'm trying to figure this out. I see many noteworthy achievements here, beyond local reviews but have been unsure how to cite them. I have followed LaCroix's career for years. Her first release was chosen as a top-12 by The Performing Songwriter Magazine out of Nashville, the premier songwriters magazine in the country at the time, but this was before the internet - I think 1995. The mag is now defunkt and I can't find the issue in their online archives. The only thing I have is a hard-copy clipping in a drawer somewhere. Also when I lived in Canada she was featured twice on a National TV program called Morningside, once with the late Peter Gzowsky, a legendary Canadian journalist who did a piece on her family, and the arts influences she grew up. A few years later, journalist Avril Benoit did a follow up piece on cbc national about LaCroix's debut cd and her writing influences. it was interesting to hear about how her artistic style has developed, and then watching songs from that record get picked up by The Performing Songwriter, got her invited to the second largest folk festival in Europe (MIdtfyns) get picked up by Nils Winding Refn in Europe for his feature film, Fear X. But how do you cite that kind of thing? Midtfyns festival posters were all hard copy and they are long gone by now. The only place I can find her credits on the John Turturro movie are at the end trailer. Is there away to post that? Her early connection to the Mamas and the Papas and the grassroots music she learned is something that's been really exciting to watch and hear as its developed over the years and I think the journalists who interview and review her feel that her contribution is significant. But the review clippings I have are, again, all hard copy. Artie Lange was interested in her longevity, her background and her sound and he, like a lot of other journalists whose reviews I've read feel that she is contributing something exciting to roots music. But again, I dont' know how to cite a tv interview, so I just posted the video. Was that the wrong thing to do? LaCroix is like a lot of artists who have had long, slow simmering careers and have done notable things through the 90s and 2000s. But Internet citations from those times are almost non-existent, so what is the best way to compose and cite an article about them? The only documents I have of such artists, many of whom I believe are some of the most interesting grassroots artists we've seen, are press clippings, recordings of interviews and sometimes copies of playlists. Does that mean those artists can't get written about on Wikipedia? I think it would be a shame. Many of these artists are as notable or more so than some I see posted here on Wikipedia, but they don't carry a wealth of online evidence because of their vintage. Is there a way to cite these kinds of things that I don't understand how to do? How can I get these artists up and make them stick? Can I photo copy scan and attach documents that I've pulled from defunkt magazines? Please help! Lovintheroots

We don't actually have a requirement that the sources be available online. We certainly like to provide a convenience link to a web-available copy of the source if one is available — but that is in no way a requirement that a source has to meet in order to be a valid one. You can source to print-only content like books, magazine or newspaper articles — so long as you provide the complete citation details (title of the article, name of the publication, etc.) so that somebody who wants to see the original content can locate it if they need to, the reference does not have to link to a web page and you don't have to post image scans. So if you've got newspaper or magazine articles, or books, that can bolster her notability better than has been shown so far, then by all means bring it on. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the discogs references and added three reviews from Denmark and some local coverage.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she passes WP:MUSICBIO due to touring Canada, United States, and Denmark. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 3 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 redirect to The Three Bogatyrs. Sandstein 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Bogatyrs on Distant Shores[edit]

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

Page is irrelevant as there is already an adequate section on this film in The_Three_Bogatyrs See: The_Three_Bogatyrs#The_Three_Bogatyrs_on_Distant_Shores_.282012.29 Parkywiki (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it well now, and I don`t think it should be deleted.Thanks--CARROT4231 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)--CARROT4231 (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: CARROT4231 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I linked this with the Russian Wikipedia's page and I found this site, which looks to be about the equivalent of Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, as it collects critic reviews from very specific outlets, which are listed here. I don't know how discerning they are, but if they're similar to either of the aforementioned two, then the reviews here (seven of them) could help establish notability. I'll ask the Russia WP to help out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this review and this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:42, 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 01:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Three Bogatyrs. Almost all plot summary and unreferenced. No need for standalone article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diaosi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability except passing internet references ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 01:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator probably did not notice the first AfD two years ago, which was closed as Speedy Keep. -Zanhe (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references already in the article are quite good and a Google News search produces plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources showing that this Chinese slang word describes a real social group and therefore the topic is notable. An example is this 2015 article called 'Diaosi' - the generation of losers building China's counter-culture. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The term meets WP:GNG from English-language sources alone. Daß Wölf 02:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanhe. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn M. Wagner[edit]

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

Non-notable local pastor lacking non-trivial support. References are either listings, announcements, or about his retirement. Appears to be WP:MILL. reddogsix (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 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 01:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically still an ordinary pastor, since loads of pastors now write a book at some time during their career. The subject seems to fail WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He has probably had a distinguished career, but not a notable one in WP terms. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 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 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeamSnap[edit]

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

It's quite clear this is only existing for the benefits of company advertising and it's clear also since the sources are simply published and republished advertising therefore not actually independent, significant, substantial or convincing at all especially when the article history clearly shows and confirms it. We never make compromises with such blatant advertising especially when there's the advertising consistency (note it's quite suggestive this article may be paid advertising). SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 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 01:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs more independent, significant coverage to cross over the WP:CORPDEPTH bar.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 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. Sandstein 13:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-990[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Reviews published in places where reviews of such products are published, but doesn't have non-trivial coverage in reputable publications. Mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment QST is published by the ARRL and is reputable. --Mark viking (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but they review everything. But that's the point of saying that these are reviewed by places that review radios; that doesn't demonstrate notability for the product. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated by in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources per GNG. It doesn't require selectivity. The amateur radio and SWL market has relatively few products introduced each year, so it is natural for the publications like QST and PopComm to cover most or all new products. --Mark viking (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it requires selectivity; otherwise, every product in the Sears Catalog would be notable. Wikipedia is not a catalog; magazines like QST endeavor to review every possible product in their scope, notable or not. Of course, the magazine also has editorial and technical content. If this radio was discussed in such content, then that would be a far more convincing argument. The fact is that this radio is not a notable product; it did nothing that notably changed the market or the industry. Compare its place to truly notable products, which have a tremendous amount of third-party coverage about their effect, design, influence, and so on. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 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 01:37, 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 01:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References establish existence but fall short of demonstrating notability in terms of affecting the field. Having little more than simple listings and brief reviews shows that it has not had a lasting legacy on the ham field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 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 redirect to House (season 3)#Episodes. czar 06:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cane and Able[edit]

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

Consider this a test case: the GNG notice has been on this page for years, so.. House might be a notable TV series, but individual episodes cannot surely be automatically notable. We have a huge amount of House trivia including lists of episodes, lists of characters, summaries of the plot of individual seasons and so on, surely we do not need to have additional detail about individual episodes. WP:TVEP states that "..it is likely that each individual episode of a television series will not be notable on its own, simply because there are not enough secondary sources available". Quite. WP:PLOT. We then delete all TV episode pages which do not have RS showing individual notability. JMWt (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge. Individual episode articles including this one are notable since significant coverage in reliable sources (including reviews) exist. But if the articles are not maintained, they should be merged. So merger discussions should happen at season/series talk pages, not AfD. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House (Season 3). Extensive plot summary without context of greater influence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt, re: precedent, usually the metric for episode notability is whether a number of reliable reviews have been written in response—that would give us enough to write a plot summary from secondary sources, and to respond on what parts resonated with critics. If reviews aren't available and there are no other sources, don't be afraid to boldly merge. czar 06:43, 4 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. Copyvio. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Richardson[edit]

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

Was de-prodded without rationale. Basketball referees need to pass WP:GNG, and this person simply doesn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of additional sources: Suffolk News-Herald [56], The Virginian-Pilot [57]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has officiated over a thousand NBA games. For perspective, players are deemed notable if they only play one game in the NBA. AIRcorn (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no mention at WP:NHOOPS that 1,000 games of refereeing is sufficient to presume that sufficient coverage exists to meet WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 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 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The source from National Basketball Referee Association is not independent of the subject. I could not find more significant coverage like the ones that Arxiloxos found (above); however, it's likely those do not exist anywhere but hometown newspapers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The body of the article is copied from here, so the whole thing is a WP:COPYVIO. The second and third references don't even support their adjacent claims; they're just kind of thrown in there. (All of that material actually comes from the NBRA link.) From a notability perspective, I actually think Richardson is notable enough. Besides the sources mentioned by Arxiloxos, I found a profile of Richardson in this, from the magazine Referee. But the whole article will need to be rewritten. (User: Zagalejo, logged out) 15:08, 4 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 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The same person was the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavlo Hrytsak closed on October 3, 2017. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Grytsak[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Unfortunately, I have trouble reading and understanding Ukrainian, but none of the sources cited seem to be in-depth and reliable - they seem like mentions in passing, or primary sources. The entire article is written like a promotional puff piece resume (the author is a clear WP:SPA), and having read it, I simply don't see why this person would be notable due to the virtue of his career, which is reasonably successful, but not encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 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 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the references in the article don't actually support the statements, they just link to the webpages of events Pavlo Grytsak is supposedly connected with. I'm not sure whether this counts as significant coverage, but in those sources that's as good as it gets. He gets more mention in a few other articles, but they are focused on the company he works for. Since I'm not good at searching for sources in Ukrainian, there could still be significant coverage of him somewhere, but until proven otherwise I'll assume that if that's true it would have already been added to the article. Daß Wölf 02:26, 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. Sandstein 14:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom (2016 Malayalam film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, fails WP:GNG. The sources are classified as blogs by WP:ICTF or are IMDB links. Jupitus Smart 03:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 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 01:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Sources in the article are unreliable. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:32, 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. Sandstein 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Studies Foundation[edit]

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

Claim of notability (top 10 meteorite collections), but good faith google search is not turning up independent, reliable sources showing notability other than a couple of mentions in their local paper. PROD was removed by article creator, but no additional sources were added to show meeting notability, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A big claim in an otherwise terrible article. I've not had a chance to look at this closely, but a quick search turned up "Status of the James M. DuPont Meteorite Collection 1995 to 2004". Bibcode:2005M&PSA..40.5008S. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) which does seem to back it up. Perhaps searching by the name of the collection ('DuPont Meteorite Collection') would be more fruitful? However, maybe that would suggest that we should have an article on the collection itself, rather than the museum which currently houses it. Modest Genius ^talk 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Modest Genius. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 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 01:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no independent, third-party sources for this org. This content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 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 keep. as an article on the village Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dullar[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that this is a notable group. Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In case the Dullar clan fails notability, Dullar should be kept as a village article, as there's a namesake village in the clan's region – for details, please see this revision of Dullar. If the clan fails notability, there won't be any topic left on wiki, which is titled as Dullar. In short, the revision cited by me will be a valid article, as per WP:NPLACE.

PS: WP:DISCUSSAFD states that WP:ATD should be considered, which in turn states: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." BTW, the title 'Dullar' is in itself ambiguous. And the clan should've only been mentioned under it if it was a primary topic. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to the original village version as previously mentioned; the clan is not notable at all Spiderone 14:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to this version of the article (same as listed above by NitinMlk), which is about the village and meets WP:GEOLAND as per being verified by the Census of India (example link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as village article. Earlier I just suggested the valid ATD. But now I have actually searched about the clan. It is not only non-notable but also wrongly placed as the primary topic. So, Dullar should be kept as a village article. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:18, 3 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. Sandstein 14:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saroha[edit]

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

I couldn't verify their notability Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 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 01:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence available that this is a notable clan Spiderone 11:04, 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 delete. Sandstein 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prajesh Sen[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker who is filming his first feature. It's just too soon. Please discuss. Jean Stair (talk) 16:22, 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 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete director who has not yet released his debut film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bir (Mezarkabul album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album, only reference is Bands own website. A mention in bands discography should suffice in this case XyzSpaniel Talk Page 12:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I've added a link to Encyclopedia Metallum which is a not-so-great-but-decent reference. I've also added a short book ref that confirms the statement that Bir was the band's first recorded entirely in Turkish and contains material that could be used to expand the article a bit. Pichpich (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 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 00:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mezarkabul. Not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 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 no consensus. Insufficient discussion to determine outcome. Sandstein 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reuven Bar-On[edit]

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

Concerns about notability, pseudoscience, and self-promotion reported at WP:BLPN. Bringing here for further assessment. Sagecandor (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 2004 MIT Press book Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth says: "While Goleman's name is rightfully associated with the popularization of EI, equally influential has been the work of Reuven Bar-On"[58], and it has an extensive discussion of his work, although not all of this is visible in GBooks. The rancorous talk page discussion includes assertions that he is not frequently cited, but I am puzzled by that given that GScholar turns up nearly 2,000 references. The talk page discussion, in which the subject himself appears to be a participant, also touches on whether the overall topic of emotional intelligence is fringe science, in the Wikipedia sense as discussed at WP:FRINGE. So I don't view this as presenting a serious question of notability. Given the extensive sources, it appears to me that this might be better handled, at least for now, by using Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to seek wider participation in the talk page discussion, with the goal of improving this content through use of the appropriate independent reliable sources and ameliorating any concerns about conflict of interest, rather than trying to erase it using AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:11, 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 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes notability criteria, his citation count might be the largest I've seen at an AfD discussion. Add to that his Fellowship in the British Royal Society of the Arts, and notability is more than adequately addressed. The issue is the current state of the article. Certain sentences suffer from WP:CITEKILL, will other swatches of the article are wholly unsourced. While there is a definite taint of promotionalism, I don't think it rises to the level where WP:TNT needs to be invoked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abdollahian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an imp[roved version of an earlier deleted article. (now at User:Reneemoon/Mark Abdollahian). I remain uncertain of notability. He is one of the eight editors of an important book, but the other academic work is minor. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Xxanthippe, can you explain little bit more on why the article you think is "too soon"? the 1st version hadn't been updated on big modification for a quite long time (such as publish not on date, ref not clear, words should be reworded, so the 2nd version improved all those from that quite long time ago (I don't know where to look the date of big modification for a article, but I guess should be more than a year or so). But please feel free to leave any comments or improvement that could make this article better. Thank you. Reneemoon (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the citation count for Power Transitions is a nice 459, that's about it. With only that, doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC, and there's definitely not enough coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)d[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Space Between (2017 film) and redirect the others to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Between (2017 film)[edit]

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

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

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

Delete. Three films with no strong claims to passing WP:NFILM, which are all sourced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. The "notability" of all three films is stacked on having won minor awards at non-notable film festivals like Buffalo-Niagara or the Toronto Short Film Festival (the latter of which was being falsely misrepresented as TIFF until I corrected it just now), which simply is not an automatic inclusion freebie. All films are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; RS coverage which verifies something that would pass NFILM is required for an article to become warranted. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep The Space Between (2017 film). I think there's enough coverage to keep it for now: [59] from the Vancouver Sun, [60] from Complex, [61] from TheWrap, [62] from People, [63] from The Hollywood Reporter, [64] from Variety, and [65] from IndieWire. Once it's released and distributed, it'll probably get some reviews. If not, we can figure out what to do then. The other two are short films, and those often have much difficulty in establishing notability. I would redirect them to Amy Jo Johnson. The awards look minor, and I don't see any obvious coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Space Between and redirect the other two per NinjaRobotPirate. While we do have an article on Buffalo Niagara Film Festival, it doesn't look important enough to establish the notability for Bent, and Lines has pretty much nothing going for it. Still, I think Amy Jo Johnson is enough of a redirect target that I don't think we have to delete those. Daß Wölf 01:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Space Between and redirect the other two per the above 2 editors. Can't add much to their evaluations, which appear spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 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 keep. But tag as advert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yemeksepeti[edit]

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

Nominated as overly promotional, but I'm not so sure. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems large enough to be notable, also some independent coverage. South Nashua (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This needs work to get rid of the advertising aspect, but there is a wealth of hits from very reliable sources, such as the WSJ, The Daily Sabah, [Time] Digital Age (although I'm not sure if this isn't PR), CNN, and that's just on the first page of News. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Hamilton Latzen[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Besides a few "Where is she now?" articles, there is little to no coverage of her today or during her acting years, none of her roles were significant or major, she did not win any awards for them, and though she has a Twitter profile, it is not enough to prove a significant following The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:04, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable child actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say redirect, but there isn't really a solid single target. Would it be to the vacation film? Fatal Attraction. If I had to pick, it would be the vacation film, as that was her most significant role. But definitely not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and she definitely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her only noting in pop culture is the "Is it Ellen or Allen?" 'joke' about her Fatal Attraction character, or possibly "Sorry, shittin' rocks!" from Christmas Vacation. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Michael[edit]

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

BLP without a single source as subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Quick check didn't find much (difficult search given namesake) Widefox; talk 00:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find a lot of secondary sources. Appears to fail WP:BIO. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any designer who has designed existing cars is notable and should be included, as any produced car is Skartsis (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited, unfortunately, and the fact they have designed cars simply isn't enough. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:38, 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.

^ "Petition No.: 123324 - The 23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually". UK Parliament. 23 June 2016.
^ "What happens when a petition gets debated in Parliament?". BBC. 18 October 2016.
^ "'No current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Yahoo! News. 17 October 2016.

[xrent-1] Alektra Blue (13 November 2007). "Inside Alektra Blue" (Interview). Interviewed by Big D. XRentDVD. Retrieved 23 December 2016.

[2] ttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-10-17/debates/0D10F53C-7241-46AC-88CD-BD91964FADE2/UKExitFromTheEuropeanUnion

[3] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36593120

[AoL-4] "Turns out there are 'no current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Aol. 17 October 2016.

[5] "UK Exit from the European Union — [Phil Wilson in the Chair]". TheyWorkForYou. 17 October 2016.

[6] "Tory MP calls for 'Independence Day' Brexit bank holiday". The Telegraph. 25 October 2016.

[UK_Parliament:_Parliament_debated_this_topic-7] "Petition No.: 123324 - The 23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually". UK Parliament. 23 June 2016.

[BBC:_Petitions_debated_on_Monday-8] "What happens when a petition gets debated in Parliament?". BBC. 18 October 2016.

[Yahoo:_Speaking_in_a_Westminster_Hall_debate-9] "'No current plans' for a British independence day on June 23". Yahoo! News. 17 October 2016.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]