Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 December	28 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The result was nomination withdrawn as the article now contains a much stronger notability claim and better sourcing than it did at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Cage (Tennessee)[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as "Speaker of the House" in the unofficial provisional legislature of a proposed U.S. state that never actually became a real state. While that might be valid grounds for an article if he could actually be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it's not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in the absence of any valid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for a standalone article. He is already mentioned in the State of Franklin article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There is a lot of coverage of Cage, some decently in-depth. The best source, I think, is a one page biography of him on page 313 of History of the Lost State of Franklin by Samuel Cole Williams Press of the Pioneers, New York, 1933 [1] Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 200-word blurb in a book that's over 300 pages long is a strong source to you? Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ask for much, I guess. I updated the article, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable. Changing to Keep as the subject meets NPOL. I read History of the Lost State mentioned above. I also found this, this, and this. I don't see general notability. He perhaps served in the Continental Army as a Major, moved to his home in Tennessee (Franklin), and for a brief period was the proposed Speaker of the House for a state that never existed. There's not enough to write a real biography. Perhaps someday an historian will write a study about him ~~but right now, I can't see the point of this article existing. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)~~ Chris Troutman (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- I think you are all being too negative. I do not know about the subject, but I gather we have RS on him. Alright, the state was not actually created, but its shadow legislature apparently existed and met. Sure, it is only a stub, but WP has lots of stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now has sources. As per the article, "He was a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives (then called the House of Commons) in 1783 and 1784." This satisfies WP:NPOL#1. The article further states, "Cage took a central role in the [Franklin] movement, and was appointed treasurer and elected speaker of the lower house of the first assembly of the provisional state, serving from August 1784–June 1785." This also satisfies WP:NPOL#1. Wikipedia's role for our readers is to provide reliably sourced information as is available. Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:59, 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. Sandstein 10:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Cohen (lawyer)[edit]

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

Reviewing the article. I think it Fails policy WP:BIO. Its reads like a CV. Named to Thomson Reuters’ Super Lawyers each year since 2007. Could be notable? scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a resume. There's no indication of notability. I don't see that the fellowship in American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel or the marketing "Superlawyers" convey any notability, for example. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisions coming. Thank you all for your feedback. I would like to improve this page to focus on the subject’s notability, and will do so as soon as possible. I am fairly new to Wikipedia article creation and editing – many thanks in advance. RayKHessel 22:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Revised per commentary on AfD entry. I hope these revisions adequately address the concerns raised above. If there is anything more I can do to remove this article from deletion consideration, please let me know. Thank you. RayKHessel 21:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayKHessel (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largest claim to notability seems to be running the 178th-largest law firm in the United States (from Goldberg Segalla), otherwise an unremarkable career by encyclopedic standards. At most, merge into Goldberg Segalla but even then I'm not sure it's worthwhile. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:07, 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) 09:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xheni Çuni[edit]

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

Student photographer who fails WP:CREATIVE.

Several dead references but Kultplus works and translation of block of text states:

Also participating in this evening will be Jenny Guy, student of the Art Academy of Düsseldorf which a few weeks ago presented its works in a major exhibition in Düsseldorf. In the evening she will be presented with some pictures that motivated mainly men.

This was published on 2016-03-15. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing new seems to appear in Google (which is not itself authoritative, but I don't think we're missing anything big). 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:12, 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 redirect to Baaghi (2016 film). (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Fails notability. Draft was declined thrice at AfC earlier this year for notability concerns. See Draft:Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: According to the deletion log, this article has been speedied four times this year already. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect-I hardly find him passing WP:ACTOR.Redirect to Baaghi (2016 film). Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: not enough for a stand alone article, IMO, but a redirect seems like a reasonable solution. The redirect page could then potentially be protected to stop it from being constantly recreated without appropriate oversight (i.e. an unprotect request). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 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) 09:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dialpad[edit]

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

This specific product is not notable on its own. The references and material in the article only refer to usual announcements about funding and product launches. A search of online sources about it doesn't yield much to establish notability either. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- all the references given lead to no reliable sources to support notability of the subject. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources and this article has none of that. A search online doesn't yield much to save this article too. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "minor-tech-startup" spam, aka WP:TOOSOON, and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No specific coverage from reliable, secondary sources - fails the WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG from the sources I could find online. Xaxing (talk) 07:18, 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Himansu Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable person due to lack of indepth coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although in definite need of a rewrite, there are sources that demonstrate independent notability under WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:57, 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 00:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megaventory[edit]

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

no evidence that it is yet in regular production. The 2016 review says its major product is still in beta. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 review has a correction in its first comment stating it is no longer in BETA. Following your comment here, I have reached out to the review author to update the post in order to reflect that Megaventory is in full production mode (bear in mind the review post was initially put together in 2014).

Also, note that the product is not only in production but also in notable ranking - as is reflected in the relevant industry metric which is the GetRank. Megaventory is currently #17 in a global market of dozens of similar solutions and it has 30+ reviews in GetRank from an equal number of LinkedIn-authenticated users. This link to getapp.com was in the initial version of the Megaventory article and was rejected by a previous reviewer but I'd be glad to include the link again if you feel it adds to the newsworthiness of the Megaventory article.

Let me know if you have any other concerns you see in the article which can be addressed in the meantime and until the 2016 review article is updated with regards to the BETA mention. Thank you for taking the time to offer feedback which can be used to improve the article. Dathanasiadis (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely advertising with WP:NOT applying, that's all we need. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the WP:NOT is in reference to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion and in particular (5) - Advertising, marketing or public relations. All content and corresponding references in the article are verifiable and from notable, third party sources - earlier feedback from other Wikipedia users has ensured this. Indicatively, the references include partnerships with a national ISP (COSMOTE), a multinational tech vendor (NEC), a national app marketplace (Maestrano), an independent review site which has taken the time to write a 3500-word unsolicited review (Merchant Maverick) and others. Please indicate if there are specific concerns with any of the included sources and associated content.

Dathanasiadis (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- being one of 20 finalists in a non-notable competitions for startups strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company / product to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another start-up with nothing remarkable to be on Wikipedia. Xaxing (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Being #17 among 200+ companies in their market seems notable: https://www.getapp.com/operations-management-software/inventory-management/#getrank Attagb (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:31, 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. Mkdw ^talk 07:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CarDekho[edit]

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

No real coverage of this run of the mill website, same as last time around. The citations consist of blogs and weak "news" orgs that "write" articles that are mere paraphrases of announcements and press releases. No real reporting, If the subject weren't touting these "events", nobody would know that they happened because they don't matter outside of this company's tiny fishbowl. They are using Wikipedia for PR. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 14:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible notability for parent corporation does not transfer to subsidiary, and the sources available for subsidiary are apparent repackaged PR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason Is You[edit]

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

Non-notable single. Sources in the article are unreliable, and no reliable ones could be found with a web search. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fansites may not be an RS, but do you really contest that it didn't chart on any of the 4 major charts listed? Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The source for the chart is [2], a primary source. The article could be redirected to Nina Gerhard if and when that article gets created, but right now it only exists on the German Wikipedia. Until an English version of the German article is created, deletion is appropriate. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguably more likely to be searched for in reference to the Hoobastank song The Reason. KaisaL (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song definitely made #2 in the Belgian chart, as confirmed [1990s-The-Reason-Is-You here], a reliable site for chart positions. (A second single by her also reached #17.) I would therefore keep this, although prioritise also creating her actual article. It's odd to have a page for a song but not the artist, but the deletion criteria for that only really covers situations where the artist hasn't got an article for notability purposes. This article is a good start for this single, so I'd be against removing it. A short article for Nina Gerhard would be the ideal solution here. KaisaL (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created an article at Nina Gerhard, which while brief should eliminate this problem. KaisaL (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I nearly closed as such as there's enough to keep here. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shown notability in charting, end of story as far as I'm concerned. GauchoDude (talk) 18:33, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inger (programming language)[edit]

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

This is a programming language designed as a teaching example in a textbook, and Google searches do not support the language meeting WP:GNG on its own. Page contains no references. Dgpop (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability independent of the textbook in which it was used as an example.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are hundreds of computer languages created every year. This one does not show the key independent use or notability that would be required to make it notable.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Otherworld[edit]

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

Despite an extensive search for sources, I simply failed to find enough significant independent reliable coverage for this film. Most of what I could find are press releases, movie profiles, promotional material, and even false positives. Apparently this film was screened at a film festival which makes me hesitant to nominate this for deletion, but coverage (including reviews) is sorely lacking; the film apparently doesn't even have a Rotten Tomatoes page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. Also uses IMDb as a source which bumps into WP:RS/IMDB. If it ever gains larger notability then the article can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 01:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and no indication that WP:NFILM applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a press release that was distributed, such as [3] at WTVM, but there's little independent coverage. There's an entry in AllMovie's database but no review. From the IMDb entry, it was recently released, so maybe it will get enough reviews to satisfy our inclusion criteria later. It could be userfied or moved to draft space if the creator wants, but it's so short that I'm not sure there's much point in doing so without a request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons stated above. lbmarshall (talk) 12:47, 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) 09:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard top 10 Alternative singles in 2016[edit]

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

While anyone can compile such lists by looking at past charts or back issues of Billboard in print or online, the topic of top ten alternative or modern rock songs is not one receiving significant discussion in independent sources, failing notability requirements for stand-alone lists. These may also qualify as "an indiscriminate collection of information" per WP:IINFO; otherwise, this may as well be expanded to include top 20 or top 40 chart hits. The list of Billboard number-one alternative hits would seem to be sufficient. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and I agree that it also falls foul of WP:IINFO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would actually find these articles useful if they weren't so blatantly incomplete. It's a bit IAR of me, but I would suggest that if these were actually well-written and complete, I would likely vote a different way, just because I do find this information to be encyclopedic. However, in their current form, there is simply no value. KaisaL (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Essinger[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. There seems to be very little coverage in mainstream sources; I can find only a few Swedish language mentions, and nothing that would show notability. As for her career, it seems she has had one somewhat popular song ("Bang, Bang"), but it does not seem to have charted or received any awards; as such, it does not seem that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 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. The one "keep" does not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion. Sandstein 09:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur family of Xanth[edit]

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

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Much like my response in the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin family of Xanth, this is just a lot of unsourced fancruft on some minor fictional characters. And, much like that article, I don't think that it should be used as a redirect, as I don't believe the term "Centaur Family of Xanth" was a term used before this article, and the only results coming from searching that phrase only come from mirrors and reprints of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters in this family tree have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every fictional family tree on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a family tree which spans dozens of novels should be kept. Keeping track of the relationships in the Xanth series is easier with family trees. LA (T) @ 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not Wikipedia's job to keep track of fictional family trees without reliable sources backing up why the information presented within has notability outside of the fictional universe they exist in. Without them, they are nothing more than WP:CRUFT and belong on Wikias, not Wikipedia. So, unless there are reliable sources backing up why this entire family is notable enough to sustain an article, there is no policy-based argument for keeping it. And no, not every fictional family tree needs to be deleted, just the ones that have no sources that cause it to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a notable concept. It is not mentioned in-depth as a family by reliable sources. We don't have non-notable family articles like this for real people, let alone imaginary ones.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:59, 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 merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Sandstein 09:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater mummy[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Minor D&D monster that doesn't have enough notability to sustain an article. It first appeared in 2nd AD&D, so that is the list it should be merged to. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Eclipses[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely minor fictional organization. The articles doesn't even try to make a claim of notability, as even it admits the group was only ever even mentioned in two primary articles. Looking around online, I can find no mention of this group at all outside of mirrors of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities#Other deities. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure that there's much worth merging (there's already a mention of the group at the target article, and that seems sufficient) but if people would prefer a merge/redirect, I suppose that's not a problem. I don't think it's really necessary, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and storm: Seriously? The creator of this grotesquely NN article ought to get a troutslap (that is, if he hadn't been an ephemeral editor with only eight articlespace edits over a decade ago). Speaking as a one-time published RPG writer, do I get to have Wikipedia articles not merely for the one-off articles I wrote, but for individual concepts within those articles? Of course not; that's absurd. Ravenswing 13:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:34, 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 redirect to DNA bank as alternate spelling. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Bank[edit]

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

topic already exists at DNA bank. Can't delete per WP:A10 because it was not recently deleted. I would suggest a merge, but the article is so short that it contains little meaningful information. Icebob99 (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DNA bank as an alternate spelling, or delete. As an article, it is wholly redundant with DNA bank. --Mark viking (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DNA bank. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The no.1 Shoal of China Vacation Area resort[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE as the whole article is written as a travel guide for a beach. -KAP03 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Seems to be just a local beach. Searching on the name turns up nothing, the address cannot be found, and the coords were completely wrong, miles inland. But I pulled an address, 广东省茂名市茂港区海滨二路, from one of the sources and it finds a coastal location where there is this: China No.1 Beach Danshuiyu, 中国第一滩. Just a local beach in Dianbai District, nothing special, not notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On fixing the coords I noticed the Chinese name is in the article, which would have saved me some time if I had noticed it earlier. The English is full of errors and poor writing; if you want to find sources best to search on the Chinese name, or on "China No.1 Beach Danshuiyu" which turns up a few things.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly overwritten in a peacock style, there are no sources that proves this place is notable. It seems to be a local, ordinary beach. It's certainly no Bali or Boracay. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scugnizzo[edit]

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

Much more of a definition than an article; would be more at home on Wiktionary. Okamialvis (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT#DICT -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. There's not enough here to be worth a merge. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:22, 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 merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Sandstein 09:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Living Wall (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements for fictional characters. Okamialvis (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the main article. Without notability being established, this had no need to exist. TTN (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. The only non-primary source available is the single "top ten" style list already present in the article. Its a very trivial mention, and as a singular source, is not enough to establish notability. 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.45.226 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 03:25, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Lundberg[edit]

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

non notable author: Two books, one in 6 libraries, the other in only 2. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:AUTHOR. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. A writer gets a Wikipedia article when he's the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to pass our inclusion and sourcing rules — but Lundberg is the author, not the subject, of both of the references here, and even in a ProQuest search all I can find is six glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things. That's not the depth of RS coverage that it takes, and people do not get to self-publish their own "referencing" about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Outtakes[edit]

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

PROD removed by author stating that the album is notable. Still fails NALBUM and GNG as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Roberts (author)[edit]

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

non notable author -- a few self-published books with trivial reviews. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Okamialvis (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, he's not significantly substantiated with the needed substance and there's nothing convincing in what the article conveys as information, therefore this is all too trivial. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for prime time. His books all appear self-published and there don't appear to be sufficient sources in the article or available elsewhere to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 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. Sandstein 10:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devi (2017 film)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:FUTURE and WP:TOOSOON by being about a unreleased movie. It also fails WP:GNG because there is only one source verifying its existence. KAP03 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of GNG pass Spiderone 19:20, 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. The one "keep" does not address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 10:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sibusiso Mashiloane[edit]

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

Looks as case of WP:TOSOON. Recent (2014) musical graduate with no significant coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there's some non-English sources I'm missing. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Hi there I'm listening why do you want to delete the article instead of helping improving it?... I just posted it now and still working on it Bobbyshabangu _talk 19:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bobbyshabangu, it doesn't appear, at least from what I could find, that there was sustained coverage of the individual in reliable sources. If it appears that the article is likely to be deleted, and you would like extended time to continue to work on it, you may want to request it be moved to a draft rather than being deleted. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspecta[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Harrias because the creator (User:Yousef.Alipour, WP:SPA) contested it at talk; unfortunately I cannot credit Harrias with good judgement, as the creator's argument at Talk:Inspecta show total lack of understanding of the notability guidelines I clearly linked in my PROD ("Inspecta has already have pages in two other languages... The company is growing fast and it's good to let other know about in the international language... You can easily find information about almost any company in wiki with even less than 100 employee" - those are textbook examples from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Now we have to waste our time with this here. Sigh. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. PS. Ping User:Anarchyte who suggested speedy deletion before my prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidelines do not require the objection to be a good one, merely that it exists. Read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators before insulting people's judgement. Harrias ^talk 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That notwithstanding, this article does not meet the notability requirements in my opinion, and cursory Google searches don't throw up anything that suggests otherwise. Harrias ^talk 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as quite clearly A7 material and the obvious intents of a PR web listing, hence delete by our policies alone. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 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. Sandstein 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Austro-Hungarian Society[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:J31ox (creator, WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like spam. PS. Ping User:Superbeecat who nominated it for speedy before my prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a business listing and there's absolutely no established independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's pure online promotion and not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Three are occasional exceptions, but undergraduate societies are generally NN. I see no exception here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like a non notable student club to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:43, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Prill[edit]

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

Unreferenced, autobiography has "appeared" on three shows no evidence to such suggest they meet WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced BLP fails WP:V, WP:BLP. As written, little indication the subject would pas WP:CREATIVE anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekol Logistics[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " Iteɪ was deprodded by User:Mean as custard with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as complete advertising and there's all the signs: Multiple single-focused accounts, advertising information and the sheer fact there's blatancy of keeping that. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable or advert, also remains too unsourced.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:54, 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) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lee Jepsen[edit]

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

Jepsen was Miss Nebraska. That is her only semi-notable accomplishment, and that alone is not enough to demonstrate notability. The statements about her performance at Miss America probably do not rise to adding to her notability, and they are entirely unsourced. The only source on the article at present does not even related to her at all, it is a directory that shows that her borther was a semi-accomplished athletie in Nebraska. My search for sources showed up a picture in the John F. Kennedy papers of her giving a baton to a presidential aid to give to Caroline Kennedy. This article is an example of why we should not keep articles on minor people who have one thing that brings them close to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I recall we had a discussion about writing up some sort of [Wikipedia:Notability (beauty pageants participants)]], and I found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Notability_guideline from last year. I agree with the final comment there (Winners of Miss State or Miss State USA are not automatically notable), and I support deletion as this fails GNG. However, I'll also point out that we accept some other professions, like sportspeople, and call them notable even if they fail GNG, but have participated in sport events that IMHO are no more significant that such regional beauty pageants. Such double standards should be discussed further, at project-wide level, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This is almost unsourced as the citation doesn't mention Jepsen at all (there is a broken inline URL citation to missnebraska.org) and mention of her brother is borderline OR (how do we know they are siblings). With a better citation about the pageant, I think it is BLP1E, and is better deleted or as a redirect to Miss Nebraska (the relevant info is already on that page so no merge is necessary). @Johnpacklambert:, can I ask what you mean by, "This article is an example of why we should not keep articles on minor people who have one thing that brings them close to notability."? I'm very interested in "minor people" and am curious if you could elaborate. Feel free to reply on my talk page, if that would be more appropriate. Thank you, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing stands out about this pageant winner & reads like a tribute page. RE: other areas: I'd say that's the problem with various SNGs that get pushed through by people passionate on the topic. Luckily, in the area of pageant contestants the consensus has evolved to the point that it reflects the ability (or inability) to build NPOV articles on the subjects. A state-level pageant win alone is almost never enough to sustain a BIO article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Nebraska. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Howell[edit]

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

While this looks like a well sourced article, it is exactly the type of article the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Beauty Pageants talk page RfC has determined we do not need. All Howell has done so far is win Miss Nebraska. This in an d of itself is not enough to establish her notability. None of the sources are either outside of local sources covering her competition, some of them when she was still in high school in extremely local coverage, press releases, passing mentions or the like. Nothing moves beyond her lone blip of being Miss Nebraska, and any information related to this can be included on the Miss Nebraska page. There is no reason to keep this article at present. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- routine coverage and trivia. Nothing stands out about this pageant contestant, thus delete per prior outcomes. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Was looking at talk page on Wikiproject Beauty Contests and there didn't seem to be any consensus yet on deleting state champions. In my mind, if this is the subject's only achievement/misdeed, and the subject receives only local media coverage, they fail the test for notability. Rogermx (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: Point towards Miss Nebraska. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I question WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY as to why this shouldn't be a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 18:38, 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty20 Construction Cloud[edit]

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

Declined CSD. Completely unsourced article, Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure why this is being considered for deletion. Twenty20 Constructioni Cloud is a viable construction software solution much like Procore or Timberline by Sage. Both of which have Wiki pages. Other than the fact that this is a newer software solution, the information is still relevant, accurate and although possibly has some advertising undertones, it is the true history of this product. There were no links to the website or product pages. No offers and no contact information. I am happy to make modifications if recommended. Any suggestions are appreciated

Brant.wadsworth (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Brant.wadsworth[reply]

comment just because a competitor has an article doesn't mean that any other business in that line meets criteria. Notability is based on the subject of the article, not necessarily the business they are in. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, promo fluff. I also agree with Dialectric about the possibility of an SPA. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:39, 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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzie Ziegler[edit]

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

This article was created by socks. The original article, Mackenzie Ziegler, which also involved sock puppetry, was created two years ago. It was speedied a few times and then deleted per a discussion, recreated yet again and speedied. I then salted it. There have been updates to the article because of the passing years. This is a procedural nomination. I express no view on whether the subject is sufficiently notable but dump it back in the community's lap for yet another discussion. For anyone searching for significant coverage in reliable sources, you'd be better off usiing Mackenzie as the first name rather than Kenzie. Kenzie was used only to avoid the salting.Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that Mackenzie Ziegler is now notable. She has 5.8 million Instagram followers and significant other social media; she was a main character on a successful reality TV show for several years; she has acted on scripted TV shows; she has released some popular songs/videos; she has modeled for some major advertising campaigns; and she has attracted a considerable amount of press. More than 3,000 Google "News" sources refer to her. *However*, the article is incorrectly named: It should be Mackenzie, not Kenzie. All WP:Reliable sources and nearly all "news" sources refer to this subject as "Mackenzie", and she uses "Mackenzie" or "Mack Z" professionally. See: Mackenzie Ziegler references vs. Kenzie Ziegler references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, Mackenzie Ziegler has become sufficiently notable to warrant keeping the article, using the name Mackenzie Ziegler as the title. Somambulant1 (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this person has attracted a lot of press, performed regularly on television for six years and has a very large social media following. Also, the name of the article should be moved to her more frequently used name, "Mackenzie Ziegler". Jack1956 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Mackenzie Ziegler. She meets notability guidelines. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I had typed a long !vote with sources then the browser died. :( There are sources from the International Business Times, 'Daily Telegraph (Australia), Teen Vogue, news organisations (TV and print) in Pittsburg, and The Today Show, some not in the article, and I am convinced that Mackenzie Ziegler is notable under WP policy. Article should be moved immediately – I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments at his talk page and do not see a good reason to delay moving the article to the correct title, though the potential for BLP harm is low. The article has referencing issues and is so-tagged for too many SPS, but that is a reason to edit, not delete. No views on previous versions or salting, but I am confident that there will be an article on Ziegler soon, even if this one is deleted as the trend of ongoing coverage is clear. I have seen sources speculating about dating which will only increase as she continues through her teen years so strong BLP warnings may be needed and ongoing monitoring of content, but these are not reasons to delete either. EdChem (talk) 22:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil D. Jahraus[edit]

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

I could only locate obituary articles while searching for sources. Article does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only finding obits and a couple of press releases announcing purchase of small newspapers. Not meeting WP:NOTE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:48, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers born in Yugoslavia who played for other national teams[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions 1,2,3,6, and 7 and fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. KAP03 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:22, 27 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 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless strong evidence is brought forward that footballers playing for a country other than the one that they were born in is an inherently notable topic, this will fail LISTN. Some of these players didn't even have the option to play for Yugoslavia as it had ceased to exist by the time they started their careers. Spiderone 17:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The list title was initially focused on the list of players born in the territory of what was once Yugoslavia but someone changed and simplified the title some time ago. The focus is players which were born on that territory regardless of being at time of Yugoslavia, or after. The case it to demonstrate the large number of players born there which contibuted, or still play, in other national teams outside that territory. FkpCascais (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notabile Grammarphile (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It is me who created the article and I have been updating it. I was personally contacted in the past by sports journalists who said the list was unique and very usefull for them. I see all this sort of lists are nominated for deletion and seems they will be deleted by the tendency of the votes to this moment. Because of diverse reasons, the players left the territory of what was once a united country named Yugoslavia and accepted to represent other countries. This way they are all listed here along the countries they represent and the mention of the exact birthplace. It is possible to analise it in several was, it is possible to see tendencies, etc. This list is, as far as I know, unique on the internet. I think Wikipedia will loose a list which had some value and interess on behalve of football analists and journalists. FkpCascais (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with you keeping your own list on a different Wiki-based website. At the moment, I'm not seeing any valid reason to keep this list on Wikipedia; the arguments given are just WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. I understand why some might find the list interesting but I just don't think that there can be a precedent for these sorts of lists to exist. Spiderone 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully understand, no problem whatsoever. In my personal view (admting I am an football statistics enthusiast) I find these lists usefull football-related information, but if the community decides otherwise, I fully understand. Cheers, FkpCascais (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per other delete comments above. However, I think that this is a cool project and that the article's creator should keep a record of it somewhere.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:49, 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. No salting, as it's not been deleted previously. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleshan syndrome[edit]

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

Hoax. No Google Books or Google Scholar results for this "syndrome", also no Google results I could find other than Wikipedia mirrors and this apparent medical exam where it is listed as a possible (and almost certainly wrong) answer to a question. Everymorning (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt, nice catch! In addition to the "nothings" above, nothing in pubmed, nothing in Psycnet. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Completely anecdotal and unscientific. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Citobun (talk) 12:25, 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) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnoentomology (journal)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator after adding a statement to the article that the journal will be added in the "Czech Natural Bibliography", a minor non-selective database. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG and NJOURNAL. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, sorry. Needs more indexing and uptake before it can have an article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Not listed in any selective databases, and no impact factor - fails NJOURNALS. No coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Also, this journal has only produced one issue (as far as I can tell - Volume 1), and since it opened its doors only very recently, in 2016, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON for garnering any notablity per NJOURNALS or GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 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 speedy deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jithin Lal K[edit]

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

There is no indication of importance, no references and the only links used are the subject's facebook page. Poorly written and formatted. HeyJude70 (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible CSD A7: An unreferenced biography bristling with peacockery (sample: "Born on the same day as Jesus Christ, the kid was a prodigy from childhood itself and teachers assured his parents, he will become a man whose name will be written in golden letters in history."). At core, an undergraduate student who has created some course syllabus apps. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes due to inexperience of author please pardon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay Sivaprasad (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable computer developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have gone for a CSD. Just some developer promoting himself. Jupitus Smart 09:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Started CSD. The article is tagged for speedy deletion under G11. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Supranational[edit]

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

Totally unsourced article about a brand new beauty pageant for men, previously deleted at AfD as Mister Supranational 2016 (the male counterpart to equally non-notable Miss Supranational, an article that has been deleted multiple times, and recreated almost as many times). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is not sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article clears A7 (organized event with no assertion of notability), it doesn't do it by much. An initial search brings up Times of India coverage for the 2016 pageant, but TOI reports on almost every pageant. Not much to work with. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's owned by the same people as Miss Supranational I decided to send it to AfD instead of tagging it for speedy deletion, in order to have the non-notability of the pageant properly established. Which in my experience makes it easier to get recreations of the article, of which there no doubt will be quite a few (see Miss Supranational), deleted. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that, so delete. Further searching for reliable source coverage gets only photos with brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article did not meet WP:GNG and WP:EVENT.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 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. There are many things which may be non-neutral about this article, starting with the title, but it is not clear from the discussion that these problems warrant deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Whereas such an article can in principle exist, the current one, created by a user without previous contribution and full of POV language (part of which I removed) is a good example of WP:NOT. It is based on just one document - a statement of the Verkhovna Rada from 2014 (Ref.3) which just contains a (short) list of localitis not under Ukrainian control, and the rest is POV and original research. Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014. Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine), which in turn was nothing but a POV content fork of material already existing in other articles. I nominated this article for speedy deletion as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD (i.e. CSD G4), but the speedy was declined with the claim that the new article differed substantially from the previous one. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which other articles is this material already existing? Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ymblanter (09:22, 27 December 2016) said: "It is based on just one document - a statement of the Verkhovna Rada from 2014 (Ref.3) which just contains a (short) list of localitis not under Ukrainian control, and the rest is POV and original research. Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014." My reply is that you did not go throuh the article if you state something like this. Crimea is considered Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia (While Donetsk and Luhansk regions are considered uncontrolled). Here is a reference indicated in article which you nominated for deletion without reason: UN Resolution A/RES/68/262. So it is not based on Ukrainian Government document only as you stated. Furthermore, you mentioned that "Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014". Please note that main law has several extensions which I will introduce later, however it cannot be a reason for deletion, main law and UN resolution should be enough for a start (new article). If you have subjective opinion (1.you have been the first one to urgently nominate my article for deletion and 2. for some reason 'did not see other references' to blame article in being low-quality)

Second point you mentioned is "Whereas such an article can in principle exist, the current one, created by a user without previous contribution and full of POV language (part of which I removed) is a good example of WP:NOT".

- I do not agree with this statement. Can you please show me at least one article where those tables are presented? If United Nations reports are considered " original research" as you stated, than it is your subjective opinion.

Dear Thomas.W , if you will check edit history, you will see that article was checked by several experienced users and none of them nominated it for deletion. What is more, your request for fast deletion was denied. Please take it into account when reverting edits of other wikipedians without obvious reason. Thank you. Yours, Жовтневе багаття — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Жовтневе багаття: You seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works: it's an encyclopaedia, not a blog, other editors making minor changes to an article but not nominating it for deletion does not mean that they endorse the article and it's content, the speedy deletion being declined does not mean it was approved in any way, it only means that it wasn't sufficiently similar to the previous version to be speedied as WP:CSD G4, and article creators can not request that their creations be protected to prevent others from editing it, as you requested for this article... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to user space (Wikipedia:Userfication). The current page is not an article, it is a list. In its current form, it is not ready to be seen by the public. But the material may be worth keeping because it has potential to be useful at some point — it just needs more work, or more time. If the material were moved to Жовтневе багаття's user space, he/she would have the freedom to experiment with different ways of improving the list. One obvious improvement would be to put in Wikilinks to all the place names that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. Bearing in mind that the native language in most of these places is Russian (not Ukrainian), it would be sensible to have both the Russian and Ukrainian spelling of each place. (One of the objectionable POV pushes of both Ukrainian and Russian fascists is the view that everyone whose native language is Russian is Russian; many people from Eastern, Central and Southern Ukraine object to this POV.) Another possible improvement would be to give the month and year, each locality started and stopped being occupied/uncontrolled; some localities have been liberated, and some have not; these would all need referencing to sources. I think this list has the potential to be something worth keeping; it just needs a lot of work, and userfication seems a plausible route.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Why move to user space? It's nothing but a POV content fork, duplicating other articles, including all of ATO zone, and is also totally outdated, being based on data from November 2014. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Point taken about the part that was cut-and-pasted from the article on ATO zone; I have deleted that part. You asked why move to user space - see post of 13:07, 27 December 2016.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I noticed that you deleted the part of the article that was copied directly from ATO zone, but that doesn't help much, since what's left of the article is nothing but a totally outdated, and far less user friendly, version of the status map in War in Donbass (which was last updated in January 2016). So even what's left of this article is nothing but a POV content fork of other articles (with the POV part of it being the name of the article: "Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine", as opposed to the more neutral "War in Donbass"...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: you can argue that the remainder is a content fork of File:Map of the war in Donbass.svg, but I do not see what else it is a content fork of. If it is moved to user-space, then its creator can work on it. As a list it has potential. But it needs a lot of work. Doing this work would be good for the user: teaching him/her how to present information is a useful, neutral POV manner. If the user were successful,the list could then be moved back into article-space. If the user were unsuccessful, then he/she might still have learned something. Either way, it is a gain for Wikipedia; we might get a good list article, and we would help self-educate a new user.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should all lists be moved to user spaces? Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a POV fork. It is a list; see for example, List of states and territories of the United States. Do you consider that to be a POV fork of United States?-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content fork, because it contains only content that is already covered in better context in the other article, and it is POV because the title includes the Ukrainian government's preferred formulation "temporarily occupied", which we shouldn't use here per WP:CRYSTAL because none of us knows whether this occupation will turn out to be temporary. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If occupation is not temporary, this is not an occupation? Very interesting logic. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENTISM. Articles like these, written by partisans, shouldn't exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. because:

1. Original content which is not presented in any other article. Ymblanter and Thomas.W claim that it is copy. Please present an article where not just occupied region is in general described, but a where list with exact names of towns and villages is presented. If you cannot do that, then please, Thomas W., stop writing all the same things for many times under each comment of Toddy1. Everyone has already understood that it is 'fork' as you said. Stop this harassment.

2. Strong references (Two United Nations resolution and Law of Gov. of Ukraine). Ymblanter, you mentioned that it has only Gov. ref., no it is not true. do not mislead other Wiki users.

86.17.222.157, please show me (as per your claim) "content that is already covered in better context in the other article".

User Chris Troutman said: "Articles like these, written by partisans, shouldn't exist.". - here: unreasonable "vote", with offense to author.

3. User Ymblanter is using previous article deletion precedent as a "reason" to remove this article as well, even despite it is a good database with significant improvements.

4. it was check by other experienced wiki users and for some reason none of them has critisised author, content as well none of then applied for its deletion. They only updated article and fixed some errors which means they in general has nothing oppose this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.28.165.149 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reasons for deletion were presented. For those claiming that it is a copy of content in article ATO zone, please note that both tables are added to both articles by me. I have tried to delete table called List of landmarks bordering with ATO zone and to move it to ATO zone article (check edit log of that article, table which you claim is copied in my other article (occupied territories) is added by me, I did not copy anything, both are my original content which was never on Wikipedia before), but when I was trying to delete this table from Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present), some users without explanation reverted my useful changes because in system it looked like huge deletion of information. Please stop to blame me in copypasting, first check who is an author and then it minus one more "argument" you used for deletion of this article. Жовтневе багаття — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user voted three times, two times as himself and once as IP--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please note that proposal for deletion is not calculated solely by number of votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.92.129.158 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article deals with the (temporary) status of the territories as envisaged by the Ukrainian law. Its existence is both justified and needed.--Kober^Talk 15:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to simply be a recreation of the previously AfD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was closed just weeks ago. I see no reason to rehash this. I've requested a speedy deletion as recreated material. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, this is not exactly recreation, otherwise I would have speedy deleted it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One (actually, more) of the arguments there:

"Weak delete. If the phrase "temporarily occupied territories" carries any legal connotation within Ukraine, the article could be kept with extensive editing to remove POV bias.See Free area of the Republic of China for a possible analogous case. Absent this, however, the article should be deleted. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)"

For start, this issue is amended in a current article. Then, how much time should pass until we will be able to see the list of occupied territories of Ukraine? Constantinehuk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a useful list, with the potential to provide links to useful pages on individual territories. Claims of POV appear unjustified, as it is an objective list of actual places which have recently changed hands. These facts are not in dispute. It would also be hard to argue that the situation isn't volatile, or that those territories' futures are in any way certain. A list demarcating the regions of volatility is a good and useful resource for an encyclopedia to have. We should keep it, and add to it. TTK (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list of territories which recently changed hands. This is a list of territories which in 2014 were considered by the Verkhovna Rada as "occupied by terrorists". Things changed a lot since 2014, and even then the list was not particularly reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What things changed? Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ymblanter, your claims has nothing constructive. please do not disinform other wiki users and check article itself before saying "occupied by terrorists". This citation is not from my article or anywhere else, please stop adding your POV as something that is included to my article material. --Жовтневе багаття (talk)

Speedy Delete WP:G4 - As per nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very useful list. Please do not refer to its creator background - no ad hominem needed. If you have examples of his "POV language" please provide them. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good and sustainable article. Deletion of previous article cannot be reason to delete this one. database recognized by united nations is good contribution to encyclopedia. Well done - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.97.50.159 (talk • contribs)

Note to closing admin: The numerous IP's here all geolocate to the same place (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China), so I suspect there's socking going on here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see one such attempt - right here. Would you mind showing the others? Constantinehuk (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14.28.165.149 and 113.92.129.158 also geolocate to Shenzhen, but I am many thousands of kilometres/miles away in Watford, England. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

113.92.129.158 is not pro-creator. I am in continental Europe too. I am taking the liberty to clarify some mess here then. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that 113.92.129.158 was pro-creator, but simply that someone commented here from that IP address, as there were also comments from editors identified by two other IP addresses from Shenzhen. It would be helpful if one or more of those editors could clarify whether it was simply a coincidence that they are in the same city or whether two or three of those comments were from the same person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of significant article update on Jan 01, 2017[edit]

Since some users in this AfD discussion make irritative claims to discredit article information (usually with weak or even without justified reasons), I would like to ask to you to go through it first and only afterwards make any statements. Please do not mislead other Wiki users with fake information which you claim is included in article. Thank you. --Жовтневе багаття (talk

Thank you for linking territories to their pages. This is exactly what I was hoping for. TTK (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this has appearance of being a government publication that is likewise cited to primary sources. It's unclear what encyclopedic value this list provides. As noted above, these territories are addressed in another article, so delete as unnecessary content fork. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article, similar to articles about accupied territories of Moldova, Japan or Georgia. I do not see any reasons for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.4.246 (talk) 13:12, 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AJAI VASUDEV[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E: Recreation of a deleted article Ajai Vasudev under different title. I failed to find any evidence to support his part as an associate director in Proprietors: Kammath & Kammath and Pokkiri Raja and I also can't find anything about his upcoming film Chunkzz so I suggest Delete or Redirect to Rajadhiraja or draftify as it was earlier and wait until his second film is released. GSS (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm in agreement with GSS-1987 (talk · contribs). I think he may be just on the cusp of meeting notability but currently does not satisfy it. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Delete - still not notable; delete per nom. It appears that the user has been trying to recreate this article at least five times now in the last five days! Spiderone 19:17, 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 speedy keep. This AfD seems to have been filed in error - the filing editor is arguing in favour of keeping, not deletion. There were a couple of !votes for speedy deletion, but I have declined the speedy deletion request for the reasons I gave in my comment below. If deletion is still desired, please open a new deletion discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Conservative Party for Reform[edit]

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

New Conservative Party for Reform is a registered parliamentary group and a de facto political party with 30 seats in National Assembly. It will be a de jure party in 30 days. I think that this article is obviously notable. 조국 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE per CSD A7 Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and per WP:CRYSTALBALL Wikipedia is not a crystal ball to predict future. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, It is a parliamentary group in South Korea. WP:CRYSTALBALL is not applicable.조국 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every South Korean registered parliamentary group is notable. 조국 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've declined the request for speedy deletion. This party is in the news now, and from a brief inspection appears to be a major new party, not some fringe thing. Given how tumultuous South Korean politics has been over the last few weeks, this should probably not be surprising. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Lillemets[edit]

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

Doesn't conform to WP:BIO. Reads like an advert in current form. Devopam (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL #1. The article is pretty neutral, but deletion generally isn't the right way to address issues with tone in short articles on notable subjects. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a member the Swedish parliament and therefore clearly meets our notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article on an elected parliamentarian, referenced to the Riksdag website. Meets criterion 1 of WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, and this reads, and read when nominated, nothing at all like an advert. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an MEP, plus the additional material available in her Swedish language article ready to be added here. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 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 delete as obviously invented, pure vandalism/blatant hoax. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hopkins-WashU Meme War of 2016[edit]

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

Nothing notable. CSD would apply, but anons keep reverting that. Two facebook groups went to war and then that makes it important Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 06:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under any of G2, G3, A11. Block. Robert McClenon (talk)
Delete Non-notable edit war which seems to have spilled over to this Wikipedia article. Jim1138 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Internet activity with no independent sources provided. WP:CSD#A11 appears to apply here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Jacobs[edit]

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

For a BLP this does not seem to suitably demonstrate notability. One ref is a blog, and the other is about a relationship that is not clearly notable. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy weights in sports[edit]

Sure, the page needs some better footnotes, but this attorney is representing some huge athletes in some rather big-time cases in terms of sports eligibility. Folks need to be able to locate specialists and cutting this page give far too much power to the powerful. It seems like a prudent and notable page for Wikipedia and extra references, requested, have been called for directly. Rauterkus (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not sure what this is in reference to but Wikipedia isn't a business directory so I'm not sure how not deleting this so people can "find a specialist" is a relevant reason to contest deletion? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Keep Most of the sources linked in the article are about the athletes he represented rather than Jones himself, but the article subject does pass WP:GNG on coverage in WP:RS alone. USA Today profiled him back in 2006[4] and The Times of San Diego also profiled him last February [5]. Multiple, sustained coverage about he article subject in independent sources establishes notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Eggishorn above. GauchoDude (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would very rarely say to keep an article of this general nature about an attorney that does not show objective criteria of notability , and is based only on a listing of cases, but I think this is an exception--I think it could be the basis for a viable article. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weegie[edit]

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

Was speedied, then turned into a redirect (which is probably what it should be), but the redirect kept getting reverted. Now de-prodded without rationale. Non-notable. At best a possible addition to Wiktionary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete, per WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dictionary definition of slang term, not a notable concept, inadequately sourced. No potential for a useful article. Jellyman (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While clearly a term in common use in Glasgow and beyond, there isn't the substance of an encyclopaedic article here. Attempts to leave this entry as a redirect haven't worked. WP:NAD applies and there is already a wiktionary entry for this term, so transwiki wouldn't work either. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nicely summarised by User:Jellyman above. A poorly sourced article, hanging a lot on a brief mention relating to a former Hibs manager, and I too am not seeing a basis for a sustainable article. Already sufficiently covered in a line at List_of_British_regional_nicknames#E_-_G. AllyD (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article forms the seed of something that could be great with a little work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.78.35 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the subsequent edit on the article's page, are the only two contributions to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a good article, I like it, let it stay! 31.177.99.1 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the subsequent edit on the article's page, are the only two contributions to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should remain and see if it can be improved. 47.60.241.14 (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the subsequent edit on the article's page, are the only two contributions to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a good article with lots of potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.157.60 (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only contribution to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its important that people can use wiki as a source for info, without weegie article it it would be major omission, YES YES Onel5969 settle the hell down this is my first edit to wiki also, as a weegie 47.60.195.75 (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another one. This is the only contribution to Wikipedia by this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep and expand. 77.208.42.168 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By now no one probably really needs to check IPs contributions. TimothyJosephWood 13:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated Comment - To save confusion I've moved Onels replies down and indented them as it made the !votes seem as if they were all by Onel, Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:53, 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 03:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary entry. TimothyJosephWood 13:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Delete This is not a notable, encyclopaedic topic. It merits at most a dictionary entry. Mcewan (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to believe this is up for deletion, Article needs some work, but by its nature is encyclopedic content. 73.229.6.222 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is at best a dictionary entry rather than a topic for an encyclopedia and notability has not been shown. Dunarc (talk) 16:37, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation Move games[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. The list is a fancruft shopping catalog for PS3 Move games, and is redundant of other PS3 game lists like List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc and List of PlayStation 3 disc games released for download. If shoppers need to find out if a game supports Move, they can check Category:PlayStation Move-compatible games or consult the retailer. The list also serves as another console war fan article with its Exclusive marketing column. Odie5533 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOTCATALOG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I've been cleaning up the parent article PlayStation Move in case something like this was proposed. I don't believe it needs its own article. It can either be added as a yes/no column on the main List of PlayStation 3 games list, or merged back into the PlayStation Move article. I have no preference really. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the nom kindly points out, there is already a category, so by WP:CLT, there is no real reason to delete. I don't see the conflict with other lists, either, and it's probably too big to merge into the main article. ansh 666 20:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much data to put in the main article. If List of PlayStation 3 games released on disc and other relevant lists linked to at Lists of PlayStation 3 games were to have a column added for this there, then this link would no longer be necessary. Dream Focus 08:49, 15 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 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This data is good for history of PS3 Move gaming and also good lookout for game collectors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrdy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 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 03:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - This can easily be converted into a simple list within PlayStation Move, like the one at PlayStation Mouse, or converted to a yes/no column on List of PlayStation 3 games as Sergecross73 suggested. The other information on the list is completely redundant to List of PlayStation 3 games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:01, 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rouge (rapper)[edit]

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

there seem not to be enough independent in-depth coverage on the subject to pass WP:GNG. No reliable source could be provided about the peak positions of the songs she released, majority of them being download links. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Stubify References in WP:RS are passing or very short, but enough to prove existence, profession, and place of birth/background. Just slips over the bar of WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are passing mentions which isn't enough to prove notability.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:52, 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 18:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as our policies WP:NOT instead apply given the fact none of this amounts to genuine substance and the nomination shows and concurs this, a fact of WP:GNG perhaps applying is a guideline, not policy, therefore can not be superseded in place of policy. SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zelooperz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The three sources cited in the article are all primary source interviews. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not individually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Signifgant coverage in OC Weekly and i-D. Review of his Help mixtape in HipHopDX. Reviews of his Bothic album in HipHopDX and Pitchfork. Hang googles (talk) 05:30, 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 03:05, 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. I guess that given the conspicuous lack of interest in this topic there's nothing to stop anybody from going ahead with the proposed merger, though. Sandstein 08:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FRG-7700[edit]

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

Non-notable electronic product. Not enough references or coverage to justify its own article.afd Mikeblas (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 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 18:01, 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 03:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a member of a family of "Foxtrot Tango" radio receivers that together probably rise to notability but individually probably do not. E.g., Yaesu FT-7(B) is a member of the family with a materially similar page. Whatever the result of this discussion is should probably apply to the rest of the items listed at Yaesu_(brand)#Amateur_radio_transceivers_.28HF.29. One option would be to merge into a new article for the FT series as a whole.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:48, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wintergatan (album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM criteria Domdeparis (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 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 04:48, 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 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - per indicative sources that provides that the album was released. Will be improving the article if it is kept.BabbaQ (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That the album was indeed released (both on LP and CD) is confirmed here by Svensk mediedatabas, i.e. the national media database run by the Swedish Royal/National library. /FredrikT (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment there is no doubt that the album has been released I am just questioning its notability and from the article and what I could find on the web it does not meet the criteria in WP:NALBUM I would suggest that if anyone has any info that could improve the article and prove its notability it would be better to do it now before the debate is closed. Domdeparis (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 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. Consensus herein is that the topic is notable and for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jeff Whittington[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the last AfD was almost 3 years ago with no consensus. whilst the murder is unfortunate, I don't see how it meets WP:VICTIM or WP:EVENT LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to sites and trade publications, this murder has been included in various scholarly publications. Books: here, Dissertations/thesis: here, and here. Articles: here, here. Additionally, it is in a university course here. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pretty trivial mentions, although they might add up to enough. Specially as they are pretty decent sources. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Leaning keep~~-- is there any reason to think that a consensus has changed to delete? No reason has been given by the nominator other than that three years has passed (and why does that matter?). Looks like it meets WP:GNG to me, and per Caballero certainly has more than passing coverage in news sources; being the subject of at least some scholarly research makes me pretty confident that the subject is notable. The fact there was play based on the murder does add weight as well. -- Shudde ^talk 09:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per this source [6] (which would have taken the nominator a minute to find on google). Published this year and discussing the crime and it's aftermath. Establishes that there is continuing coverage. -- Shudde ^talk 09:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Shudde's source is part of a series on murdered children run by the stuff website, it combined with the other coverage is enough to push this into WP:GNG territory and show some lasting impact. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable. J 947 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 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 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the persuasive sources brought by User:Caballero1967, I ran a news archives search, coming up not only with coverage of the event, trial, appeals by thee convicted murderers, and so forth, but with additional coverage, including coverage in The Dominion Post (Wellington) that includes, for example, coverage of a play about the event [7] (Stage take on teenager's killing: [2 Edition] CARDY, Tom. Dominion Post [Wellington, New Zealand] 27 Mar 2007). Certainly, this death attained national notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Khouri[edit]

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

Promotional bio of advertising executive. Full of adjectives of praise, but no evidence for them, except inclusion on a number of lists. Merely being placed on these specialized lists is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable advertising executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as WP:NOT policy is violated here considering the article is blatantly being used as an advertising job listing, and such policy is not negotiable not should we make it so; any attempts at advertising are unacceptable and this is the case here. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete He is notable. "What a difference two decades make". Gulf Business. May 2016. p. 46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldDedWin (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do see that there is a tone issue in places, and that the author of the article didn't always select the best sources, but I am also seeing: 1) 19 articles in HighBeam, 2) 898 in Google news (realizing some of these are likely other Eli Khouris and/or unreliable sources), and 3) some books. It seems that in the Middle East he is considered influential and powerful by Forbes and Arabian Business. It may be that the subject has not been explored enough to draw out the information about what makes him influential and powerful - and there are plenty of sources to draw from.

If there is something that I am not understanding, though, about how this is detrimental to WP, that would be helpful to know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:29, 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 01:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been written more like a bio than an encyclopedia article. I'm copyediting for tone and formatting the citations to see how it seems after that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the article. Many of the sources were not reliable and secondary sources - some were bios or profiles posted that were likely originally written by Khouri or someone close to him / worked for him. There was what appears to be some original research and there was some failed verification. The article is now cited with secondary sources. Where I could not find sources, I moved text to the Article rewrite comments section on the talk page.

Comment ~~Keep~~ I don't know how we know why an article is created, but the editor is interested in this subject, based upon their contributions. The point is whether it meets WP:N, WP:GNG, and other key reasons in WP:DELREASONS. IMO, the subject of the article meets both, based upon his experience as an early leader of the media industry (one source called him a pioneer in the media industry in the Middle East region), particularly moving beyond print and television advertising campaigns to digital, social networking, based upon data. He is also a leader in equality of sexes among business executive positions, making it an award-winning best place to work, and in corporate social responsibility.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:39, 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 17:14, 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 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the subject meet the notability standard. Any issues regarding promotional language or "adjectives of praise" should be addressed by editing, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - There's no amounts of improvements to be made here since our policies against advertising allow this to be removed, and especially since improvements would actually mean restarting the article altogether, hence not any actual improvements. As it is, this AfD has been affected by SPA accounts as has the article's history itself so that alone violates policy, regardless of "But there's sourcing" or "But he exists". SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister I am not always sure where you are coming from—if you are basing your comments on the version when it was nominated or after a lot of edits have been made to the article, which in this case increased the article by 50%. Based on my experience here, I am a little confused about how this is purely an advertising article and beyond improvement - but do concede I may need to made edits for tone and am happy to do so.

Most importantly, and this may help me in the future if I am misunderstanding things, I thought that the issue was whether an article if viable or not, per guidelines and considering WP:SAVE. When I look at guidelines to cite for deletion debates, I don't see anything about the original author. Somewhat new to the AfD process, I wonder: Am I missing something?—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history and seeing how there was no other account involved except the author and how they only used the account for this one article and starting links to this said article, it's enough to show it was an advertising-only account, and quite likely chances of a paid advertisement (and thus enough for deletion); especially in the fact this article is entirely formatted as a personal PR listing. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline says that if it was started under those conditions, it must be deleted - and is beyond repair?

For the short run, I'll post a {{COI editnotice}} on the talk page and add a comment to the user's page - although based on what you say, they may not be back.—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught "this article is entirely formatted as a personal PR listing" - what do you mean?—CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it only focuses with what his own PR agents and even the subject himself would put at his own job listing and websites, and since this article itself cares to focus in specifying every single business fact of his. The policy allowing such PR removal is WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be coming pretty darn close to "beating a dead horse", but just a couple of final thoughts:

It seems to me that for Because it only focuses with what his own PR agents and even the subject himself would put at his own job listing and websites to be true, it would seem that all or most of the 24 secondary sources, mostly news sources, were churnalism. That may be true, I don't know. But I wonder how one would know that.
Regarding since this article itself cares to focus in specifying every single business fact of his - if that's true, that's more my fault than the original author. I didn't use all the sources that were out there, though, there are 798 news hits, perhaps 9 or so of 17 books published since 1984 that are applicable, 19 HighBeam hits, and other items on the internet that would qualify as reliable, SSs.
WP:NOT says that editors should avoid self-promotion and follow WP:COI guidelines, whether writing about themselves, a subject with a close connection, or a subject they are paid to write about. I don't see anywhere that articles should be deleted because they were started by a user with a close connection or conflict of interest.
In WP:PAID, WP:COI, and guidelines to cite for deletion debates — I don't see anything that says that the article that a COI contributor creates will be subject to deletion, solely because they created it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To specify, removal is supported by the part "What Wikipedia is not: A PR webhost or collection of company information, listings, etc." and since that's our policy for removing such PR listings, it's sufficient and we would even apply WP:IAR as needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 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. consensus after 3 relistings--a good example of why multiple relistings can sometimes be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.K. Sivagnanam[edit]

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

Non-notable social activist and politician. He is not even the chief of the organisation. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found this while patrolling & have helped a bit with the article, initial blurb looked like nothing but a quick Google search turned up a trove of links in both Indian & international media, as well as multiple references via Google books, for this individual, going back decades. I listed several on the article's Talk page & there are plenty more. JamesG5 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only the leaders of organisations are notable.Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable activist. Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything with a coverage of the person...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked multiple articles and a Google book source on the Talk page, and the link at the top of this page https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22U.K.+Sivagnanam%22&num=50 produces several more. JamesG5 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 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 01:28, 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 17:14, 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 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, not convinced. I went through the Google link James posted. There are several repeats of the same article quoting the subject about a meeting with Fidel Castro twenty years ago, and several other cites quoting the subject. As is well established, quotes from a subject cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In order to meet the GNG, as we all know, the subject needs to receive significant coverage that is about the subject. Nothing of the sort's been provided. Ravenswing 10:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; I agree with Ravenswing entirely Spiderone 18:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete - WP:POLITICIAN stresses on significant coverage in reliable sources for an independent article. Unfortunately coverage here is minimal. Other than "broken brick wall" and "meeting fidel castro" articles, I couldn't find articles on work done by this person. Even the book simply points out the incident of breaking the wall. Thus the article fails WP:GNG. vivek7de--tAlK 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:58, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Bagger[edit]

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

Too much WP:PRIMARY sources don't prove anything about the notability. There are some passing mention in news, though not confirmed whether all of them are about him. One news article mentions more about his glass bottles than him. Marvellous Spider-Man 09:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added valid references to this page. There is a lot more you can include in this article. Many pages link to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor 222 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 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 03:00, 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) 09:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Cantor[edit]

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

While maybe a city with 63,000 people would propel the mayor to notability in some cases, we need actual good sources. Here all the sources are just routine coverage of a local political candidate. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing indicating that the subject meets the GNG or any pertinent notability criteria; such coverage as there is is entirely local. WP:COMMONOUTCOMES needs a city to have at least significant regional importance to clear the bar, which West Hartford doesn't have. Ravenswing 00:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete West Hartford's mayor's office has definite regional significance, but nothing like the notability necessary for inclusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:23, 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 08:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niceties token[edit]

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

I don't think this was ever notable, and the website for the "movement" no longer works. Natureium (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:55, 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 02:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If I had managed to find another article to go along with the two already on the page, I would vote keep, albeit a weak one, on the grounds that the topic had sufficient reliable and significant coverage. However, I could only find one other article which was written by the founders, and doesn't help with notability ([8]). Maybe this information could be condensed into a blurb for the Fimo page, in a section for Related projects? The existing two sources look fine to use, even if one is currently dead. Yvarta (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing indicating that this terribly ephemeral subject meets the GNG or any pertinent notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Cleere[edit]

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

Single tertiary and weak secondary sourcing. Does not meet WP:BIO WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO in my opinion. Unable to locate additional sourcing beyond some indications of 2 co-authored professional journal articles that are paywalled. Please note that I had previously used WP:PROD for this article. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see somebody else's opinion on this, just to make sure that he is not notable enough to be deleted. If you can provide this, then I think that it should be deleted. Basically, I want a second opinion on this. RileyBugz (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed RileyBugz, and I also want to let you know that I am newly venturing into editing articles beyond content and into the realm of more administrative function. I have done a lot of looking at prior AfD discussions and formed my opinion based on that research. I'm looking forward to other input here very much. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional weak ~~delete~~ keep. He has a few nice cites on GS, I'm not sure how well cited ornithology is. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 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 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tought one. The entry is poorly done, no doubts. Still, Nigel Cleere seems a well-establised researcher and author on his particular area of expertise. See here,here, here, here. As the first link shows, his books and other publications, individual and in collabortion, have been well-reviewed, and are popular among general readership (here). But I can't find anything else. No CV, no award, no nomination. We might be missing something here. While science researchers could flourish outside of a university context, as he is attached to a research organization (British Ornithologists' Club), an individual like him must have won awards. But again, researchers unafiliated to universities are often at a disadvantage in regards to being exposed to the media. Those experienced with notability among scholars could certainly help here. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 06:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as what's listed here is in fact sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete. I'm sure he's a fine author, but I simply couldn't find reliable yet independent secondary sources on this person. Sro23 (talk) 00:09, 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 04:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He has co-authored several journal articles, such as this one, which places a bird in a new genus, but I am not sure if that makes him notable. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:38, 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 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep the article is inadequate. First,the book mentioned is a standard work, reprinted by Yale University Press as well as some specialized publishers. He is also one oworldCat records such as [9] have been accepted as the needed secondary sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGuinn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Not one secondary source is used in this article (as is required for Wikipedia biographies). The sources are a mixture of blog interviews, one-word mentions, and dead links. A few sources are not linked. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. This is the second (or third?) AfD for this biography. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, I am not finding anything to establish notability for this Patrick McGuinn.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to point out that secondary sources are used: Variety, South Florida Gay News, which is Florida's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender newspaper, and Sean Abley's book "Out in the Dark: Interviews with Gay Horror Filmmakers, Actors and Authors". Also, his films are permanently housed in notable archives (UCLA Film Archives, and the Frameline collection), which meets notability standards. It looks like these authoritative and important references for this particular subject were overlooked.Pclibuser (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list some of the secondary sources here, with links? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Let's start with the book, linked to snippets in Google Books. One of the films at the UCLA Archive. They have a total of 6 of his films currently in the film archive. Interview from The Wild. The Wild is an arts-focused magazine published bi-annually. South Florida Gay News review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pclibuser (talk • contribs) 23:06, 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 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thought I have is to remove the dead links from the references, as the secondary sources are present and notability is met with the archival holdings. These were the concerns brought forward, and I believe the article answers those concerns.Pclibuser (talk) 19:39, 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 02:21, 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 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing indicating that the subject meets the GNG or any pertinent notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here. Looking at GNG, and the secondary resources listed in the article -- suitable coverage is supplied, over a range of time, as well. Once again, the original claim for this AfD was the lack of credible resources, and I believe we have to review the references listed and used for this subject -- as they are all credible secondary sources, which meets GNG. Furthermore, the subject's work is also housed in institutional archives, which meets WP:AUTHOR criteria. As noted in GNG: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." -- And since we have coverage in independent sources for this subject, I feel that this discussion is being misled. Pclibuser (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I question WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. GauchoDude (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do appreciate how thorough this discussion is being with this article. But I think we need to review the facts, as the same arguments are being mentioned:

1. Secondary sources are supplied for the subject from a range of time (1998 - 2015). This fulfills WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY

2. Secondary sources include a book with a devoted chapter to the subject, and specialized websites deemed as authoritative and credible in relationship to the scope of this subject. As a reminder,WP:GNG notes that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." This article has 14 references.

3. Per WP:FILMMAKER, although not a requirement for notability, permanent holdings in a galleries/museums is an indicator of notability. UCLA, Frameline, and One Archives all hold this subject's works.

4. If there is still concern about the notability of this subject, per WP:FAILN, deletion is a last resort. Maybe there are other paths that should be taken instead of deletion.

I hope this helps to clarify and resolve the concerns about this particular article. Pclibuser (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To my understanding the LA Film Archive is not selective, and that a film is in its collection is no more significant than that it is in the Library of Congress. As far as I can tell from the website, they will accept any donation. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social exclusion in Canada[edit]

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

I am not yet prepared to accept that a subject such as this warrants a standalone article (any more than "the color blue in Canada" or "Stray dogs in Canada" or "Stray dogs in Canada in 2016" or "Stray dogs in August in Canada, 2016"). This could be converted into a redirect to Social exclusion, but the remaining redirect would be pretty pointless. KDS4444 (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I was surprised to see if we don't have a main article Racism in Canada (which is currently just a redirect to the Canada section of the North American article) despite the fact that we have a fairly well populated category, Category:Racism in Canada. With nomination statement that likens the topic to "Stray dogs in August in Canada, 2016," it seems to me the nominator is going out of his way to start this off with a needlessly confrontational approach. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Racism in North America#Canada~~ Delete This reads like a student's essay. The SPA that wrote this should have developed this content elsewhere but because Wikipedia has made "article" the unit of measure we have new editors with bright ideas writing standalone, often orphaned, articles. The content looks useful but I agree that the subject was poorly-thought. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The focus of this well-referenced article appears to be on the history of Canadian laws enacting and enforcing differential treatment of certain immigrant groups or first peoples. Wikipedia has many articles focused on the history of laws by specific country, e.g., History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States. Perhaps moving this to History of laws concerning social exclusion in Canada might be an improvement. Normal editing could follow. An alternative approach could be to merge portions of this article to History of immigration to Canada, History of Canadian nationality law and/or First Nations but my opinion is that the grouping topic of social exclusion is supported by the references. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Strictly speaking, social exclusion is not just racism — it also includes stigmatizing people on the basis of religion or sexuality or other "us vs. them" grounds. But the examples cited here do involve racism specifically, this does have some overtones of being an essay rather than a properly written or properly structured encyclopedia article, and I'm not seeing why we would need a standalone article about "social exclusion in Canada" as a merged supertopic, rather than addressing racism in our articles about racism, and homophobia in our articles about homophobia, and religion in our articles about religion — even our main article about social exclusion is just a very general overview of the concept which links to separate articles about the various subtypes, rather than being a comprehensive examination of every possible aspect. I'll agree with Shawn that the nominator misfired with the nomination statement, as this is hardly comparable to "stray dogs" or "the colour blue" — but what it is, is an excessively overbroad megamerger of several topics better addressed on their own in the appropriate more specific contexts. There is some legitimate content here amid the editorializing — but it belongs in other articles rather than at this title. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep but the content seems to be Ethnic exclusion in Canada: it has sections on Japanese, Chinese and First Nations, who are ethnic groups, not social ones. This is slightly different from overt racism. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 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 01:38, 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 02:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. A motley assortment of historical and contemporary policies and injustices with no justification for regarding them as a unified topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This qualifies for a WP:TNT. Unless sources actually mention all of them together, we should not string them into an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:19, 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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Kramer Bussel[edit]

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

There are not enough sources about Bussel to show that she is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - oh come on. She's a prominent and prolific sex author widely cited by her peers (look at the Google Scholar hits) satisfying WP:AUTHOR and have had features about her in reliable sources. [10][11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives states,

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.^[a]

Notes

^ A popular retort when asking for advice on the internet is "Search the Flaming Web" (STFW).^[1] However, not everything on the web is a reliable source that can be used to prove notability of a topic.

Citations

^ "STFW". Jargon File. Retrieved 21 August 2016.

Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using shading to give emphasis to your comments is certainly a violation of the spirit of WP:AFDFORMAT. Please don't do it again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've modifed the statement to put the attribution outside the quoted material. Unscintillating (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Scholar snippet from AD Ross - Sexuality & Culture, 2012 - Springer states that the topic is, "...a sex writer who is particularly concerned with the question of female masochism. According to Bussel, being submissive is actually..." Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "not enough sources" is not an adequate basis for deletion, absent any discussion of the depth and reliability of sources, just as a simple count of sources, with the same deficiency, is not an adequate basis for keeping an article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Redfearn[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and, more importantly, WP:BIO. There are a ton of local sources that discuss Redfearn (to be expected when you're the mayor) but I'm not seeing anything resembling significant national (or international) coverage. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local level politician with inadequate coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Directly elected mayor in the United Kingdom as such covered by notability as this is a high level elected position, and the posts are unique enough in the United Kingdom for the holders to be notable. This notability is the same as all members of the House of Commons, no matter how short their stay, they are notable under WP:Politician criterion 1, same applies here. Sport and politics (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with Sport and politics's attempt to stretch WP:POLITICIAN to suit her own interpretation of what she finds significant. The measure of whether an elected mayor meets WP:POLITICIAN is not the mere fact of being an elected mayor, but on the size and significance of the city/metro area involved. At nearly a quarter million people, I fancy North Tyneside meets that definition, however. Ravenswing 09:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ravenswing above. GauchoDude (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The population of her borough is 202,000. In the US, the cutoff for mayors is generally somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000. I however am not convinced the role has the same significance in the UK, which is why this is only a weak keep. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triple X Records[edit]

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

There is one posted source, and it is a wiki. The article contains just a few sentences. Kellymoat (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This label was an important issuer of California punk, alternative, and hip-hop from the mid-1980s well into the 1990s. The page's list of noteworthy artists is extensive (and incomplete); the label clearly hurdles WP:MUSIC's definition of "one of the more important indie labels", as a label that was around for more than a few years and had a significant roster of artists. The label gets a large number of hits in Google Books for mentions in trade publications such as Billboard and CMJ. [12] A retrospective compilation released by the label was even reviewed by CMJ ([13]). Chubbles (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep really per Chubbles above. Keep on two counts: Notable record label per significant roster of notable artists, almost certainly meets GNG per Google Books search, I did not search newspapers, academic journals, or reliable online sources such as AllMusic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without a doubt. As a stub, there is not much there. I was able to find (and boldly add) a couple of good sources easily. There's more out there, particularly in Billboard. This article can definitely be improved and brought up to standards. That's what should happen, rather than deleting it. Missjastersgarden (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant label. No good reason has been put forward for deletion. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The way the discussion has gone after Cunard's sources is pretty split. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netlist Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept in 2011. I think our standards for notability of ompanies has increased--the present article is just a directory listing DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was notable back in 2011, is notable now in 2016. Will be notable in 2017, no matter if it is active, acquired, or defunct. Nominators attempt to selectively dismiss established notability guidelines is noted. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and I'll concur with the nomination we have certainly changed since 2011, especially with aspects of advertising and the damages of accepting or even considering accepting it now, thus as always, an AfD in 2011, especially about a company in which exists for advertising today, is unconvincing and suggesting we keep it for "hopeful improvements or later" is clearly WP:CRYSTAL and also then violating policy WP:NOT, therefore it's non-negotiable policy. When it's clear the 2011 comments themselves consisted of "Let's keep it" or "Sure, it's acceptable", that's self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This overuse of WP:NOT reminds one of the boy who cried wolf. SwisterTwister has misused WP:NOT so many times in the past, and this is yet another case of misuse, and disruption on their part. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A stopped clock is right twice per day, and this seems to be one of those occasions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per 1Wiki8. Hang googles (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang goggles Please, in your own words, show how this is a convincing article in the eyes of policy WP:NOT, since this is the policy the nomination has; also, there's the AfD guide WP:Clearly notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister Please, stop badgering people at AFD. It is disruptive. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company is notable, although article needs work. I also would suggest merge with HyperCloud Memory, which appears to just be a brand name used by that company. Perhaps not a very high-profile company since they design stuff deep in the bowels of computers, but should be able to dig up independent sources, and public company documents should be reliable. W Nowicki (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need to apply some kind of common sense to our coverage of companies rather than just go by whether some routine coverage of them happens to be available via Google. That common sense tells me that a company with "more than 110" (which strongly implies fewer than 120) employees and an annual revenue of $8 million is not notable. I would also suggest deleting HyperCloud Memory, which, as a product of such a small company, is even less notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not adhere to Wiki Standards. It is a public company, got news on search but wiki is not Public Listed company directory. So agree with DGG on this one. Light2021 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, Wikipedia is not a company directory, but that mostly makes me object to the undue emphasis on the most recent revenue as indicated in the infobox. These details quickly get out of date. The notability comes from the total amount of coverage over the whole life of the company, not just the most recent year. In particular, On a quick check I see that revenues were more like $150 million during 2006, and it had many more employees, for example before the recession. The coverage is more in trade press than popular media (which prefer the "two kids and an app" company). But there is enough coverage for notability. See EE Times, "The Register", etc. There are also patent lawsuits that got some coverage vs SanDisk and one in 2015 with Diablo, and others see [14] [15] etc. W Nowicki (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the articles objectively, there is not really much to salvage. So if I do not make the case for keep, a compromise would be to delete both this one and HyperCloud Memory and then develop a new one with some independent sources that gives a more historical context instead of just a snapshot litany of product acronyms. The company story is worth telling, but this article I agree is far from the minimum. W Nowicki (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sock vote stricken, AfD is mentioned in a current discussion, thus relisted Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
1. Morgan, Timothy Prickett. "Netlist goes virtual and dense with server memory". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Netlist, a publicly traded company based in Irvine, California that was founded in 2000 and that you have probably never heard of, will probably make a big splash at the SC09 supercomputing trade show next week. Netlist, which makes memory modules on an OEM basis for various companies, said Wednesday that in December it will roll out a virtualized, dense memory DDR3 module that will be able to trick servers into having more main memory than they are supposed to.
  ...
  Netlist got its start in 2000 doing custom printed circuit board design, and a "netlist," according to Paul Duran, director of business development at the company, is akin to a bill of materials for all of the connectivity on a PCB. A few years back, when dense rack and blade servers started going volume, Netlist became a specialist in making very low profile memory on an OEM basis for blade server makers. (The company does not disclose who its customers are, but they're probably the usual suspects.) The company also developed a memory packaging technology called Planar-X, which allows for two PCBs loaded with memory chips to be packaged together relatively inexpensively to share a single memory slot. This technique is cheaper and more reliable, according to Duran, than some of the dual-die packaging techniques memory module makers use to make dense memory cards out of low density and cheaper memory chips.
2. Morgan, Timothy Prickett (2010-03-23). "Netlist's HyperCloud memory gets Wall Street's blessing". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Right about now, server memory module maker Netlist is probably wishing that it hadn't already gone public. But if the enthusiasm in a new public offering by investors on Wall Street last Friday is any indication, Netlist may be onto something with its new HyperCloud DDR3 super-dense main memory for servers.
  ...
  Netlist is not particularly large or profitable at this point in its history, but it has what sounds like a good idea, and so the company hired Needham & Company to put together a public offering of three million of its shares to raise some cash to put HyperCloud memory into production and market it.
  ...
  Netlist has a market capitalization of $79.2m at time of writing. The real wonder is not why Netlist - which has a knack for choppy revenues and losses, as many startups do - was able to get money out of Wall Street. It is why one of the big server makers - Intel, or Advanced Micro Devices, all of which have a huge stake in server virtualization and will have to make up some revenue declines and margins if server virtualization eventually causes footprints to contract - hasn't snapped up Netlist already.
3. "Netlist raises $15.4M in common stock offering". Associated Press. 2010-03-19. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Netlist Inc. said it has raised about $15.4 million from a common stock offering of 4 million shares priced at $3.85 each.
  After commissions and other expenses, the offering will leave Netlist with $14.12 million in proceeds. The company will use that money for operations, including marketing, research and development, working capital and other general corporate purposes.
  ...
  Netlist makes memory subsystems for servers and high-performance computers and communications equipment.
4. Lansner, Jonathan (2006-09-10). "Three IPOs from O.C. seek niches". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Irvine's Netlist is trying to carve out a niche in this battleground by creating specialized memory packages for the likes of Dell and IBM and their high-end corporate computers.
  Since opening in 2000, Netlist has lost a total of $20 million cracking into the computing world after initially focusing on the telecommunications industry. Memory's high end is a crowded place, too. Netlist competes with, among others, O.C. shops SimpleTech and Viking.
  Netlist's gambit may be paying off, as the company is at least profitable in its most recent six-month period. And sales are up 80 percent.
5. Stewart, Colin (2007-06-01). "Netlist of Irvine faces stockholder lawsuitsas shares drop". Orange County Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Shareholders who bought Netlist's first public shares for $7 each in December are taking the company to court as the shares drop to nearly $3.
  The suits accuse the Irvine-based maker of computer memory equipment and its officers of violating federal securities laws by not revealing its vulnerability to a declining computer-memory market at the time of its initial public offering.
  ...
  In its IPO, 146-employee Netlist raised $39.5 million, net after $4.2 million in underwriting expenses, by selling 6.25 million shares at $7 each. The stock closed Thursday at $3.17.
6. Casacchia, Chris (2016-09-07). "Netlist in $15M Offering". Orange County Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Netlist Inc. will sell $15 million in common stock, the Irvine-based storage equipment maker said today. It plans to use proceeds to accelerate its patent monetization strategy, commercialize its HybriDIMM product line, and for general corporate purposes.
  ...
  The Business Journal in February reported that Netlist would receive $23 million from South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. and have access to thousands of patents from the world’s largest electronics company as part of a joint venture to co-develop a product combining Netlist’s HyperVault offering with Samsung’s DRAM and NAND memory technology.
7. Mellor, Chris (2015-11-19). "Samsung tosses lifeline to Netlist NVDIMMs". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-12-27. Retrieved 2016-12-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Flash DIMM technology developer Netlist has signed a five-year joint development deal with global memory leader Samsung to produce non-volatile DIMMs, giving it a lifeline from years of litigation hell against Diablo Technologies over memory channel storage IP.
  The basic concept is to put flash chips on DDR3 and 4 memory DIMMS, thus giving the flash memory channel access, which has lower latency than PCIe flash cards. Netlist and Diablo Technologies worked together on this and then separated, Diablo licensing the resulting Memory Channel Storage to SMART Storage.
  ...
  Business results for Netlist have been poor. Revenues for its third 2015 quarter were a slim $1.6m, compared to $4.8m a year go. There was a $5.4m net loss; it was $4.1m a year ago. Ho hum, you think, this company is really struggling.
  Step forward Sammy in white knight guise, with a gift of $8m cash from Samsung Electronics and a $15m investment in Netlist from Samsung Venture Investment Corporation. That $23m will come in very handy indeed. Netlist and Samsung intend to sample NVDIMM product to select customers in 2016.
8. Netlist is a publicly traded corporation. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
  https://www.zacks.com/stock/research/NLST/brokerage-reports ^WebCite lists several analyst reports about Netlist.
9. Morningstar, Inc. also has an analyst report under a paywall at http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/XNAS/NLST/quote.html.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Netlist to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size and role of the company, combined with the sources provided in the article and available elsewhere to be added all meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy states that any sources and the size is enough for a policy-based article? GNG is a guideline and is considered as such, but WP:NOT is not. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the sources listed by Cunard above are clearly sufficiently independent and reliable to establish notability.--greenrd (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is that an explicit policy-based vote? Simply "It's sourced" is not policy. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the coverage found by Cunard, this article covers a pending patent infringement lawsuit that suggests the company could be awarded USD$1B [[16]]. Not to violate WP:BALL, but the CURRENT media coverage of the suit puts them over the top in terms of notability. I do agree with W Nowicki to consider possibly redirecting the HyperCloud Memory article into this one, with an enhanced product section. Much of the info that User:DGG deleted can be restored if written properly and in a non-promotional way.Timtempleton (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1/a pending lawsuit that may never take place is in fact WP:CRYSTAL. These sorts of lawsuits are routine, and the possible high payout is rare--it it were to happen, it might be a reason for including in the article, or even including the article. But WP is not a Annual Report.

the items cited above are in my view routine notices, not substantial coverage. Brokerage reports are irrelevant, because they indiscriminately cover all public companies. And the product descriptions I removed would be inappropriate in any article, even as a bare list. WP is NOT A CATALOG. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis' The following shows the sources here are not in fact independent or substantial coverage:
"Netlist Inc. will sell $15 million in common stock, the Irvine-based storage equipment maker said today. It plans to use proceeds to accelerate....It plans to get funding...."
[Specific finances and numbers]....Step forward Sammy in white knight guise, with a gift of $8m cash from Samsung Electronics and a $15m investment in Netlist from Samsung Venture Investment Corporation. That $23m will come in very handy indeed. Netlist and Samsung intend to sample NVDIMM product to select customers in 2016"
"Flash DIMM technology developer Netlist has signed a five-year joint development deal with global memory leader Samsung to produce non-volatile DIMMs, giving it a lifeline"
"Irvine's Netlist is trying to carve out a niche in this battleground by creating specialized memory packages for the likes of Dell and IBM and their high-end corporate computers....Now here are their profits"
"Netlist Inc. said it has raised about $15.4 million from a common stock offering of 4 million shares priced at $3.85 each....Here are the financials and what they make...."
"Netlist, a publicly traded company based in Irvine, California that was founded in 2000 and that you have probably never heard of, will probably make a big splash at the SC09 supercomputing trade show next week....Here is what the company's business involves....Here are the company's services and what it offers"

Notice the sheer blatancy and consistency how it always focuses with exactly primary-company words, no meaningful and genuinely honored journalist would ever put that, and it's not surprising that then examining these finds a blatant number of "From the company", "The company says", "The company published today", etc. None of that is independent and explicitly was republished by local areas for local clients.

The Orange County Register is simply that, a localized and local-focused business column for everyday business activities, it's not independent since it's simply a local business journal, journals of which are blatantly known for republishing anything for companies.

When we start as an encyclopedia, we explicitly laid the basic policies and one of them was WP:NOT, a serious policy that showed we were not going to advertise and, regardless of whatever it involved, we were a free encyclopedia and accepting advertising damns it, and it shows we can't even form an NPOV encyclopedia. There hasn't been a single user who has substantially improved this in the 6+ years it has existed, only company SPAs have and that says enough there. Even notice how here shows the article's current sources themselves are literally nothing but sheer listings and notices. As DGG noted above, the sources and contents are all what you'd find a catalog, complete with the above list's "Here's the company pricing and finances". SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the above, the fact of "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies" is not a guaranteed and itself is not policy, so the sentence "It may be notable" is not in fact saying we will unmistakably accept it by sourcing alone. Never before have we as a competent encyclopedia acceptably said "Hey, who cares if it's unimprovable, let's keep it anyway!"

Comment to closer - One of the concerns in this AfD has been not only the unfortunate consistency in not actually analyzing the votes but not even then acknowledging the actual contents in the sources above as I have now, we cannot blindly say "It must be notable" without actually weighing the concerns at the same time, especially when it's the encyclopedia's fate in the balance here and accepting advertising, any costs of it, is damaging to us. Examining our general notability for companies, it explicitly shows that local expected coverage is not a policy for automatically giving the company notability, and the fact every single source shown above is a local business journal, which completely shows all the company's attention is local and only that. there's no national or otherwise major news publishers here, and the fact the article is full of it, it shows it. Simply consider the history here starting at December 7, and how advertising was explicitly removed until an SPA came and contributed, it shows we cannot tolerate any such company PR and once we've attempted improvements but they won't last, it shows this cannot be kept as such unchanging PR. We have a choice to either accept advertising and let it damage WP until we're a PRWeb or PRBusinessWire website, but we shouldn't because that's what the first pillar of Wikipedia was: An Encycloepdia. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the only thing the company has going for it is being WP:LISTED but at $8M of revenue it's so insignificant as to not register on the tech radar. The sources presented is very unconvincing, with The Register being known for pretty much publishing anything a tech company tells it, and The Orange County Register being routine local coverage. The article's content belongs on the company web site, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this article is a complete joke and has no place on wikipedia this is no educational article and it would not even be considered relevant or notable according to any of wikipedia’s rules Jonnymoon96 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable meme Seasider91 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic piece about an ephemeral meme. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the list of Internet memes or weak delete. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Note This is the 4th time this article has had to go through AfD... just how many times does an article have to be kept for another user to not put it up for deletion again? Also, it's a meme, and there's precedent for memes deserving their own article so I don't know how the deletion of this article could be justified off of the reasoning that "this article is a complete joke and has no place on wikipedia" Soulbust (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up a bit, added references, and tweaked the article's text so hopefully that helps. Soulbust (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent improvements. Artw (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Eeesh. Quite aside from that the nom's failed to articulate a valid deletion ground, a meme notorious enough not merely to be cited in reliable media sources, but parodied in reliable media sources meets the GNG by any sane measure. Ravenswing 00:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. The nominator failed to state a valid deletion ground. 2. This is the FOURTH nomination of this dimwitted article. We need a double jeopardy rule at WP:AFD. Barring an article turning out to be fraudulent or the AfD process having been sockpuppeted or meatpuppeted, repeat nominations for deletion start to sound like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Catch (TV series)#Cast and characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Vaughan[edit]

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

Prodded a few weeks ago~~, which was de-prodded with a WP:OSE rationale~~. Current citations are more about the casting of the role, rather than the character. Can't see how this fictional character passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was I who deprodded it, and the nominator has completely misunderstood my rationale. I said "added reference - removed prod tag since plenty more appear to exist". It should have been clear that I meant plenty more references exist, rather than plenty more articles like this one exist. St Anselm (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did indeed misconstrue your context, thinking you were speaking of other articles. My apologies. That being said, I also agree with you that plenty of other references exist, however, from those I researched, they were mostly about the production, the casting, etc. Many of them mention the character and her attributes, but they are not about the character. Again, my apologies for the confusion, will strike the above portion of my comment.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sadly, there is no notability guideline for fictional characters. But the rule of thumb for notability is that the character should receive a level of coverage that is well above average. Articles such as "How to be a great private investigator like Alice Vaughan on 'The Catch'" indicate that the subject has much more coverage than that of the average fictional character. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not correct. The WP:GNG is entirely applicable to fictional characters in any medium. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StAnselm. The fact that this character has been the subject of an editorial from a major third-party source (ABC News) suggests notability, if just barely. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak delete upon further review. I'm not convinced that this TV character is significant enough to merit her own article, and most of the information pertaining to her can be covered on the show's primary Wikipedia page. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I usually don't comment that much on stuff I've nominated, but StAnselm & Kurtis - you do realize that the ABC piece is a promo for the show, written by ABC Channel 7 for one of its programs? Just saying. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely not aware of that, and thank you for correcting me. In truth, I didn't spend a lot of time reviewing this nomination; being that I've seen StAnselm around, I figured that he would have a keen enough understanding of sourcing for me to trust his judgement without doing additional research. I'm not usually so lazy when it comes to AfD, but I have to confess: I was actually half-asleep at the time, all the while working on something else not pertaining to Wikipedia. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry if I deceived anyone. No - I hadn't made the ABC connection either. But I hadn't really thought the ABC link was worth putting in the article - I was relying more on articles like the New York Times one for notability. St Anselm (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again my apologies, StAnselm, I wasn't insinuating anyone wasn't AGF. I was merely pointing out that sometimes we look at a source and we think it's an article, when in reality it's PR (I know I've done it). The link you provide above is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of the available references on this subject. It's not really about the character, but about the actress, and the role in context of the overall production. These types of articles are common in today's 24/7 news cycle. I agree with you, however, on the need to come up with some sort of guidelines for fictional characters. This site is teeming with them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought it was mostly about the character. (And the interesting thing is that the character changed so dramatically.) I have just added a reference from Screener - again, it is ostensibly about the character more than the actress. St Anselm (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient independent, substantial, RS exist for this fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per Jclemens. The article is currently in pretty bad shape, but there are plenty of independent, substantial resources out there to improve this in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources relating the character (either in terms of the background/development of the character, interview with the actor, or reception of the character/actor's performance as the character):1,2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. I have found these after doing a quick Google search. I would understand if it is decided that this is not enough to support the character having a separate article from the show, but just wanted to show that I actually did research before putting up my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect to The_Catch_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters upon further review. There are sources out there for this article (such as the ones that I have provided above), but it is most likely not enough to sustain a separate article, much of the information can be put into the other articles about the show. he subject of this article could certainly gain enough notability in the future to warrant her own page, but for right now it is far too soon to determine that. I believe it would best to use a redirect so other users could possibly make something better of this in the future. And for the record, there are guidelines about notability for fictional characters, as they fall under WP:GNG. Maybe one day, there will be more specific guidelines written for this though. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it because it is of fictional importance. But we do need some guidelines for fictional characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.99.2 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article. The current state of the article shows no potential, and I honestly doubt the above claims that sources exist. The fact that nothing besides trivial promotional piece is the only "source" provided reinforces that. TTN (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the show. Since the main content of this article is an incomplete plot serving as a hook, there's no need for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to The Catch (TV series). While the character may weakly satisfy the GNG, the article fails to establish any real-world significance, and the content (almost entirely in-universe plot) doesn't justify a standalone article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth one more relist, I think, as discussion continues to today Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:39, 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. Sandstein 08:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assault Of M-OEE8[edit]

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

Lacks any WP:SECONDARY. Fails WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 11:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Lack of secondary coverage. No evidence that this has any widespread notability outside of the game community. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a secondary source and am currently in the process of looking for more. Furthermore, the notability of this article comes from the record number of people involved, which was also cited as valid notability for the article Bloodbath of B-R5RB, who's record was broken by this engagement. 1adog1 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Bloodbath article, I see lots of solid, independent, reliable sources, including Wired, PC Gamer, and Discovery News. I don't see any sources of that calibre here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source I added was from PC Gamer. Also note that both the Wired and Discovery News articles took several days to be released after that event concluded (11 and 3 days respectively). Until that point (and even now) the vast majority of sources were from theMittani.com, a site run by one of the most prominent players from the event. 1adog1 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1adog1 I would dirsct you to WP:ITSA, specifically point 3. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and I'll continue to search for more sources to add unless a decision is made to delete the article (just found one from Polygon actually). But if there is no more major coverage than what we've so far discussed then I acknowledge the article probably does not meet the notability guideines. 1adog1 (talk) 00:55, 22 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]

Strong delete - while it would seem to be important for the number of gamers involved, the problem is the lack of independent reliable references here.... the PC gamer article being the only one of note. I've done a few searches... not that much substantial stuff coming up IMHO. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As non, a further point I would like to add is that as feww as, I believe, failing the overriding WP:GNG, it fails the WP:WEBCRIT. To pass that, it needs: multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. One PC Gamer source, and that is all there is on the web, does not cut it with me. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only poked around with this for a little bit, but for those who say that there is a lack of sourcing, see the video game reliable sources custom Google search and search for "M-OEE8". The event goes by several names and appears to have had activity before the date mentioned in the article. At the very least, we should be looking at merging reliably sourced info back into the main article, not deletion. czar 08:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's gotten coverage in other RS since the AfD started. [17], [18], [19], [20]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that these sources, above, have in-depth coverage about the event in question and from RS outlets such as Der Standard, an Austrian daily newspaper, PC Games, a German magazine, Gameplanet, which is on the Video Game WikiProject's reliable source list, not primary sources. Some RS also currently exist in the article as well (e.g. Polygon, PC Gamer) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources identified above as well as PCGamer indicate that there is sig coverage for WP:GNG to be passed.Foreign language sources are allowed to contribute to GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was started just a few hours after the article's creation, and appears to have been further developed since the first couple "delete" votes. Some more comments are still needed to forge consensus I think. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire article is written "in-universe" and is difficult to comprehend, still lacks reliable sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Writing in-universe is a common problem with Eve related articles, so much detail goes into these battles that some knowledge of the game is almost always required to get a full understanding of what's going on (Just look at the mess that is the Eve Online main page). Nevertheless I'll add a couple of paragraphs to the background section to make it easier to understand. 1adog1 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youtube is not a reliable source. The only reliable sources in the article are pcgamer.com & polygon.com that basically reiterate the same details of the event, but Wikipedia isn't the news. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube would be a valid primary source in this case, given that the videos are direct recordings of the engagement (I'm aware that secondary sources are preferred but they do add a decent amount of information). Notability is currently in dispute, the current pro argument being that it is the largest single battle to ever occur within a video game. 1adog1 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All arguments aside, this is a simple Notability issue. Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources - that's what's missing. Primary sources do not suddenly become reliable just because there are a lot of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Oh for pity's sake. Where to start? WP:NOTNEWS? WP:EVENTCRITERIA? WP:COVERAGE? Why, yes, a few thousand players of this computer game participated in this extremely ephemeral event, covered exclusively in their own walled garden of websites. By way of compare and contrast, there was another recent event. It took place last Saturday, a football game between the New England Patriots and the New York Jets. Rather than a few thousand computer gamers, the announced attendance in Foxboro was over 66,000. The game was nationally broadcast on CBS, to a viewing audience of several million. The game received extensive coverage both before and after, and not from websites nowhere near the Alexa top ten thousand, but from major news sources such as the Boston Globe, New York Times, New York Post, ESPN and so on. (And not just a handful of cites; if I found fewer than a hundred cites from Pulitzer Prize-winning outlets, it'd only be because I stopped trying.) That game doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and were anyone to try to put one up, it'd be quickly AfDed. Ravenswing 00:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry it looks like I've completely misinterpreted what you were saying here, if you don't mind I'd like to wipe that and offer an actual rebuttal - While individual NFL games may not get their own Wikipedia pages, Superbowl games do. These are by no means the largest gatherings to ever occur, but they are significant within the scope of sports. This is a similar situation here. While 6,000 people may not be a lot in the grand scheme of things, in the scope of video games it is absolutely mind boggling that such a large scale event was even possible. This isn't just big for Eve, this is the largest known battle to ever occur inside ANY video game. 6,000 people, not just gathering, but participating, with tens of fleet commanders giving orders to groups of hundreds each, while also coordinating with each other to keep the battle going. The amount of organization that goes into a battle like this is on a similar scale to real military conflicts. With this in mind I'll take you back to your NFL analogy - There were four times more players participating in this one battle at one time than there are players in the entire NFL. THAT, is where the significance is. 1adog1 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happily, notability standards are not set based on what individual groups, hobbies or pastimes find notable or significant -- which altogether too often are self-serving -- but are subject to review across Wikipedia. Otherwise, you'd see articles for individual iterations of science fiction conventions, or perhaps for individual iterations of Pennsic, the largest annual battle in the Society for Creative Anachronism, which have average attendance over 10,000, both which are highly significant within those hobbies. That being said, if you can cite a video game battle that has had the international media coverage of a Superbowl, with hundreds of millions of TV viewers and tens of thousands of newspaper articles, you may count upon my support of that event meeting Wikipedia notability standards. Ravenswing 09:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not required "hundreds of millions of TV viewers and tens of thousands of newspaper articles" for an event to be significant. In fact, there are no set numbers or bare minimum number of people who need to care about a subject for it to be significant. I'll bite though and list a few gaming related articles already here. Citing the obvious one first, the Bloodbath of B-R5RB, which was directly succeeded by this battle for record number of players. Looking back at that article, it faced several issues related to notability, but ultimately went on to become a Good Article and even made the front page at one point. If Wikipedia required millions of onlookers for an event to be significant, we wouldn't have gaming articles like the Corrupted Blood incident, The International 2016, Capcom Cup 2016, Evo 2016, or SoCal Regionals 2016 (notice that all of these are articles for the individual year and not "all encompassing"). CZAR already mentioned that there are several more articles related to this event on sites meeting Wikipedia:VG/RS, and looking at the custom search he linked, there's more than enough there to establish "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guidelines. 1adog1 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not comparing like with like - if you compare this article to the articles you have provided as examples, there's one obvious difference. Significant Coverage in Independent, Reliable Sources. That should speak for itself really - there's simply no significant coverage on the level that the other articles have. That's not a problem you can overcome by going round in circles here - the usual reliable sources have chosen not to cover this subject and that's that. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the exact reason why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Normal journalism usually doesn't cover gaming related topics, so there is a standard set of reliable sources for gaming related content. Here's a few more sources from those that I have yet to add [21] [22] [23] and [24] (more related to the war as a whole but adds a decent amount of detail to what was going on). I'm no expert on the subject, but 6 reliable secondary sources along with several more primary sounds like decent coverage. 1adog1 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, you're talking in circles here. If you don't want this event to be compared to Superbowls, don't raise the comparison in the first place. The objections people are raising are less based around WP:VG's rather gigantic list of "reliable" sources -- something of an issue in of itself -- than other factors repeatedly raised above. Ravenswing 06:43, 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.

[2] A popular retort when asking for advice on the internet is "Search the Flaming Web" (STFW).^[1] However, not everything on the web is a reliable source that can be used to prove notability of a topic.

[1] "STFW". Jargon File. Retrieved 21 August 2016.

[a]

[1]