Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 27 December 29 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Hindu since Hindoo is an alternate spelling. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindoo[edit]

Hindoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant to Hindoo (disambiguation), which lists the exact same text as its first sentence, and thus should be moved over the redirect. Pppery 23:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless someone demonstrates the potential for a separate article, I think it's best to merge with Hindu, and leave a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page. I don't think the dab page should be moved to the primary title, as at present it receives only about a third as many pageviews as Hindoo. – Uanfala (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The merge there is fine with me. I was suggesting moving as the outcome that changed things the least. Pppery 23:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Samsung Galaxy. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016)[edit]

Samsung Galaxy J3 (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable outside of a few blog reviews. The information in this article could be summarized in the Samsung Galaxy article. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:NOTCATALOG. - MrX 23:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Samsung Galaxy. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy J1 Mini[edit]

Samsung Galaxy J1 Mini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable outside of a few blog reviews. The information in this article could be summarized in the Samsung Galaxy article. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:NOTCATALOG. - MrX 23:28, 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 redirect to Samsung Galaxy. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime[edit]

Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be notable outside of a few blog reviews. The content is very similar to Samsung Galaxy J1 Mini. Fails WP:PRODUCT. - MrX 23:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC) *Speedy delete and salt This article was created and deleted back and forth so many times, so therefore WP:G4 is applied. Also, it fails WP:GNG. Nickag989talk 21:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Camaclang[edit]

Michelle Camaclang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

after removing all the self-serving, dead, blog and PROMO references and their unsupported claims, what's left is completely lacking in notability sirlanz 22:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Malone[edit]

Heaven Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His notability seems to be restricted to the Chicago area, so he's not notable beyond a regional level. The only non-Chicago event seems to be his DJing for the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, which can sound impressive until you realise it's not that Cannes but in fact a summit for the advertising industry. KaisaL (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 23:16, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Lives Ministry[edit]

Changing Lives Ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online ministry where only claim of notability and significance is having famous guest pastors. Virtually no significant, independent coverage. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes having famous guest pastors is quite a significant thing. Most ministries and even churches are not able to acquire any guest speakers. Also, CLM has staff in ten countries around the world. That is very notable. Also, they work with a school that has about 4,000 students. Also, they've worked with Knox Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, Gordon College, and Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary who all have their own Wiki pages. I think that any student run ministry that even has colleges and important pastors working with them on such a scale should be quite notable. Usually students will never work with famous organizations without being extremely high quality and special. AllihaveisChrist (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - @AllihaveisChrist: has CLM had significant coverage from independent, reliable sources? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes, it does. A lot of the relationships with speakers are not "advertised" majorly by others. That really is not the thing to do for ministries. They are also non-profit so they don't advertise at all. Also, they are part of a school, so everything is advertised within the school not outside. Outsiders obviously cannot go to school chapels. It is still significant again because it is one of the only run student organizations to work with a school and other colleges, etc. But, here is one reference of a major seminary mentioning our name: https://www.knoxseminary.edu/dr-sam-lamerson-preaches-changing-lives-ministry/ They also attached a real audio youtube recording of him speaking. There's more evidence. Thanks for your consideration. AllihaveisChrist (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment @AllihaveisChrist: Coverage by independent, reliable sources is not contingent on CLM advertising - coverage happens naturally based on notability. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes, outside sources won't cover CLM due to it be specifically for a school. What happens in the school stays in the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllihaveisChrist (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (A7) - Completely fails all relevant notability guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The references are sufficient to show that the ministry exists, but they do not show that it is notable in WP terms. It feels like ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KAP03 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of online real estate databases[edit]

List of online real estate databases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #7, #9, and # 12. It also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 which states "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." This is because it the article is a list about a product type without context. KAP03 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the context is that these are online real estate databases. The list doesn't have additional fields that would further contextualize but I don't see that as a reason to delete. This master list would seem to complement the eponymous category Category:Online real estate databases, per WP:CLN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add more details or make it a category. Carrot official (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually read WP:CLN, which I linked to directly above your comment? Because it doesn't seem like you have. And it answers your question. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KAP03: Since you have only been editing here for a little over month, you may not be aware that WP:LISTCRUFT is not a guideline but merely an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Isn't there another area of wikipedia that you can work in to develop editing skills? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
  • Keep. Categories and lists complement eac other -- categories populate automatically; lists can five a few word of context. They have different purposes. For me, if I want to check all the articles in a category I use the category; if I want some idea ofwhat the important articles in a categoru are likely to be, and its a field where I might not recognize all the names, I use a list, DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid list article, aiding in navigation, all links are blue. You should never try to erase a list article just because you prefer a category better. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, we're not running out of space. Dream Focus 15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Online real estate databases. North America1000 00:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the nominator may misunderstand what "context" means in WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it doesn't mean the list has to contain a paragraph's worth of information about each individual entry; it means the topic has to have some context for why an encyclopedia should care about it. (For example, if I created a list of employees at my local grocery store, that would fail NOTDIRECTORY — but a list of notable things is not an automatic NOTDIRECTORY fail just because it's a list.) And as other commenters have noted, lists are not automatically deemed redundant with categories either — because they organize the content in different ways, they serve different purposes. The list can, for example, be improved with a bit more of the nominator's type of context, such as being converted into a table with geographic information and references, whereas a category cannot. There certainly are some cases where a list isn't actually warranted, but I'm not seeing a compelling argument being made why this would be one of them. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Emmatty[edit]

Tom Emmatty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's sources are iffy, being the usual Subcontinent covert advertising, IMDb, or listings. Article is almost more about his (presently in production) film than the man himself. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails the notability, as the film which is mentioned is not yet completed its production. JackTracker (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His first film is not even out yet. I doubt 1 film will make him notable, but with none he clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Movie unreleased and therefore fails WP:FILM guidelines. I would however request the nominator to forego the racist tone while nominating in the future. A search does yield many results about the director, but that is immaterial. And covert subcontinental advertising is a figment of the nominator's imagination or the product of his unawareness about the strong English language press in the subcontinent which also reports Page 3 news as much as their western counterparts. Jupitus Smart 09:03, 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dionysis Boukouvalas[edit]

Dionysis Boukouvalas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable, virtually no dedicated third-party sources. I also note that a user named "Dionisis1979" (matches name and birth year of subject) created and has edited the page extensively, so some major COI concerns as well. GlassCobra 20:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. The arguments for keeping are weak but two !votes just aren't enough to get an article deleted against opposition. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of consumer brain–computer interfaces[edit]

Comparison of consumer brain–computer interfaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page (it is not an encyclopedia article) is one big bucket of WP:OR, with unsourced or an OR assembly of content sourced to company product websites. There is only one independent source in the whole mess. It has been cleaned up some but see how it was. Even now it is basically a bunch of competing advertisements, and it remains a spam magnet. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I Googled "home EEG machine" and this came up. If I had a hard copy encyclopedia I would want some kind of article on EEG machines a consumer can use.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia =/= Consumer reports. We can only have articles where there are multiple, independent reliable sources. This article is 100% WP:OR sourced to company websites. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a consmuer report. An article stating home use is now possible due to inexpensive technology and how many are sold. Maybe a subsection of the main EEG article.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On track for deletion, but one last check that there are no redemptive qualities worth merging anywhere czar 19:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 19:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and possibly merge - this is a very useful and well referenced page. Perhaps it should be merged into a different page, such as Brain–computer interface (although this page is already quite long), but it should not be deleted. Danski14(talk) 18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote does not respond to the policy-violations upon which this whole article is built. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Age of Worms. It's up to editors whether to merge anything from the history.  Sandstein  19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Lake (Greyhawk)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diamond Lake (Greyhawk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Flanaess. Another location in the Greyhawk setting that has no real-world significance, and no non-primary sources discussing it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Age of Worms. My understanding (gleaned mostly in the last ten minutes) is that this is not really a particularly notable location within the game world (note the absence of a mention of Diamond Lake or the Cairn Hills on the already-lengthy Flanaess), but that it does have some minimal significance as the starting point of the Age of Worms adventure path. In any case, there is no way that this warrants an article of its own. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge if absolutely necessary. Where are the independent sources? Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 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  19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touv[edit]

Touv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very minor fictional sub-group of a race. No secondary sources, and only very brief mentions in primary sources. That single paragraph description currently in the article (which should probably be removed for copyright violation purposes) is about the extent of the information on the topic in existence. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should not be merged to Flanaess, as Flanaess is part of the large continent Oerik, while the Touv inhabit the smaller continent of Hepmonaland. I do not see anywhere for this content to be merged, and that's probably the right answer, as this subject is very minor, even within the world of Greyhawk (which is, of course, just one setting in D&D). Josh Milburn (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per J Milburn's comment. The Flanaess does not appear to be the best target for merging and/or redirecting this article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Bink of Xanth[edit]

Family of Bink of Xanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Much like the other Xanth-related articles that have come up on AFD, this article is just a massive amount of Cruft on a bunch of minor fictional characters, with no claim to notability and no sources. And, like the other articles, it should be deleted rather than redirected, as the name of the article "Family of Bink of Xanth" seems to have been created by this article. The only places where this phrase is used are mirrors of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:47, 28 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) @ 19:56, 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) 20:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really just the one summary article for Xanth should do, or a main article and a character list, and I'm not sure this adds anything important. Artw (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The character list is currently in the thousands. Dividing the characters by familial relationships seems to be a good choice. LA (T) @ 19:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a thing. The concept of the family was made up by the one who wrote the article. It should be deleted.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you please explain how the concept of this fictional family was made up? The relationships were taken from the novels in the series. LA (T) @ 19:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The concept of a connected 'family', while it can be logically extrapolated from the books, is not mentioned in independent reliable sources and as such is not notable or worthy of an article.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I do not find LA's arguments for keeping the article, in the apparent absence of any decent third party sources, compelling. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Humfrey of Xanth[edit]

Family of Humfrey of Xanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Much like the other Xanth-related articles that have come up on AFD, this article is just a massive amount of Cruft on a bunch of minor fictional characters, with no claim to notability and no sources. And, like the other articles, it should be deleted rather than redirected, as the name of the article "Family of Humfrey of Xanth" seems to have been created by this article. The only places where this phrase is used are mirrors of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:45, 28 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, and the patriarch of this family has been in every novel of the Xanth series. 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) @ 19:55, 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) 20:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. 2600:100F:B020:6870:5408:1605:FE77:B8E7 (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family of Bink of Xanth and here. I wouldn't be opposed to it being trimmed and merged with a larger character list if someone was so inclined. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 30 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 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KJIVA bibliography[edit]

KJIVA bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single reliable source. Part of a walled garden around KJIVA. Does not meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A user is spamming hoax articles surrounding a musician who has no reliable sources or notability. This page is just one of several. The subject has already been through two deletions and this one is another: KJIVA. The subject has created an article for a book, magazine and record label; none of which present any reliable independent sources and are apparently created for self-notoriety. Instead of helping the discussion, sockpuppet accounts are being used to disrupt the AfD process. All articles pertaining to the subject are up for deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KJIVA discography[edit]

KJIVA discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single reliable source. Part of a walled garden around KJIVA. Does not meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A user is spamming hoax articles surrounding a musician who has no reliable sources or notability. This page is just one of several. The subject has already been through two deletions and this one is another: KJIVA. The subject has created an article for a book, magazine and record label; none of which present any reliable independent sources and are apparently created for self-notoriety. Instead of helping the discussion, sockpuppet accounts are being used to disrupt the AfD process. All articles pertaining to the subject are up for deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 18:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real Wealth Network[edit]

Real Wealth Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Covered in sources but doesn't have WP:CORPDEPTH as of now.

The CEO seems to be more notable than her company. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 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 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current sources are not really RS and my own search can't find sufficient breadth of RS to support article DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of significant coverage in WP:RS. Only short and passing mentions in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 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  19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China Rehabilitation Research Center[edit]

China Rehabilitation Research Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The PROD still applies because this is in fact a business and a business listing at that, showing it clealy only existed for this and none of this convinces a better article especially when WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a state-funded hospital and research centre, not a business. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply no sources to suggest it meets WP:GNG. It may very well meet standard that under the correct (although currently missing) Chinese name, but that coverage would doubtfully add to en:Wikipedia. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 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. czar 18:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Scowley[edit]

Stacey Scowley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BLP that on the face of it (one stated reference?...and the article has been tagged since 2013?) fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and especially WP:ENT. Appearances in TV commercials dating from over 10 years ago and asserted appearances in various TV shows (as an uncredited non-speaking character? as an actor with a bit part? as the lead? - readers do not know) do not make an actress notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It is possible that Miss Scowley might be notable enough for a Wikipedia article because of her appearances this season as "Carol-Joan" on Fresh Off the Boat but I am uncertain as to this character's credit-status on the show (guest-star/co-star/"with so&so") and I think the notability issue is something that should be hashed out in an AFD discussion. Shearonink (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete. She is funny - www.scowley.com/stand-up/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.99.2 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete acting in a few commercials does not make one notable enough to warrant an article.Grammarphile (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:59, 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 delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Holmes (designer)[edit]

Jack Holmes (designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet notability guideline for people. Okamialvis (talk) 17:59, 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 Redirect to Autism therapies#Music per WP:SNOW - going by the nom's and the first !voter's comments, neither seems to oppose redirection. The redirect may still be retargeted (for instance to Music_therapy#Children_with_autism), or recreated as a suitable spinoff later on. (non-admin closure) TigraanClick here to contact me 18:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autism and music[edit]

Autism and music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though I think the subject itself may be notable, the current article is a completely unsourced theory and seems like original research or an essay. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Naxal Records[edit]

United Naxal Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: No sign of notability, along with other articles created by KJIVA or those close to the subject. No reliable independent sources listed. Does not meet the guideline for record labels or music. The references only lists "free press releases" and user-generated music profiles. Most of the references are links to iTunes and Amazon mp3 music as it looks like an advertisement for financial gain that's being passed off as 'reliable sources'. Also, there are a lot of dead links, including the MusicBrainz authority control link. In my opinion, the subject has created several articles spamming Wikipedia with no sources. Speedy Deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply a business listing with the usual named mentions and few pieces of information, no substance at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up in-depth coverage necessary to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 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. No legit keep !votes, seems like. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder: The Gangster Rhymes[edit]

Murder: The Gangster Rhymes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and Salt: It appears that this article, along with KJIVA, his apparent "magazine" Lifoti, and "record label" United_Naxal_Records have NO reliable independent sources at all, not one. There is nothing but "free press release" articles, iTunes & Amazon store links, and user-generated music profiles. As to how these articles got approved: I don't know. But it looks like this user has been spamming Wikipedia with hoax articles. Not one reliable source exists for this musician, and in addition, none exists with a simple Google search either. See the following other three articles, as they are all up for deletion as well. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ligard39, Nominating articles for deletion because there are no reliable sources, does not constitute a ban or block of a user on Wikipedia. Nobody here is exploiting Wikipedia. In fact, the reason for tagging this article for deletion is because no reliable sources exists, which is the golden rule. Having a book on Amazon store or Ebay does not make it worthy enough for article space. Also, the subject who wrote it has no notability either or news coverage, even though notability isn't inherited anyway. I will be tagging more investigators to look into this matter further. And by the strong reaction you initiated, it's pretty obvious that there is a conflict of interest between you and the subject. Scorpion293 (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Goodreads and amazon.com don't do it for me. And while it passes BKTS and BOOKSTORE, that just means that we can verify that it exists. What it doesn't pass is WP:BKCRIT or WP:GNG, and that is all that counts. Calling for a block for the nom is nonsense, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi User:DocWatson42, this subject only has Goodreads and Amazon store links of a book, is that enough for its own article space? Also, may I add that the subject, KJIVA, is up for deletion as there is no notability found; although I'm quite aware notability is not inherited. Would love the input of an admin. Thanks! Scorpion293 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Scorpion293: <sheepish> Unfortunately, despite my Admin's Barnstar, I'm not an admin and don't know where I would readily find one. </sheepish> I also don't generally weigh in on whether an article is worthy or not, as I'm not a good judge of that. (I can say that the KJIVA article is pretty messy and needs some copy editing and reformatting of the layout.)—DocWatson42 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The previous round of AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjiva, was infested with sockpuppets. I see we already have spa contributions again... —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this book has been passed WP:BKCRIT please check point 4. please review this links of scholar library [1], [2] & if this book is deleted means there is partiality with this book because same type of book still exist in wikipedia check this The Rose That Grew from Concrete (poetry collection)Jerrysoko (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above sockpuppet continues to disrupt the AfD process. The user has been placed in a list of suspicious sockpuppet accounts tied to Kjiva and KJIVA. The user page will be reported to an admin for permanent deletion if it continues to disrupt and spam. Scorpion293 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. WP:BKCRIT point 4:  Please cite specific educational or curricular materials evincing the instructional courses to which you refer. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me n Mah Beat[edit]

Me n Mah Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: It appears that this article, along with KJIVA, his apparent "magazine" Lifoti, and "record label" United_Naxal_Records have NO reliable independent sources at all, not one. There is nothing but "free press release" articles, iTunes & Amazon store links, and user-generated music profiles. As to how these articles got approved: I don't know. But it looks like this user has been spamming Wikipedia with hoax articles. Not one reliable source exists for this musician, and in addition, none exists with a simple Google search either. See the following other three articles, as they are all up for deletion as well. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a single reliable source. Part of a walled garden around KJIVA. Does not meet WP:GNG or any SNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Owners' Action League[edit]

Gun Owners' Action League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization is of local interest only. See outcomes for similar groups at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Citizens Defense League and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grass Roots North Carolina. To the extent that it is notable, it is as the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association of which there are about 50. The news reporting referencing this group that I've seen simply quotes their views but doesn't talk about the group itself. The entry at Goal (disambiguation) has most of the information already. Felsic2 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article itself is useless for notability. Coverage I found in searches appeared to be local. Mostly consisting of brief quotes from organization spokespeople. Several mentions of a FOI request. Not enough depth of coverage for WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Situs.com[edit]

Situs.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet the notability guidelines for companies. Okamialvis (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - @Okamialvis: Lots of references on the web, including Reuters, Wall-street Journal etc. (Search Search). Please search with different keywords before nominating an article for deletion.- Mar11 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the copy is strongly promotional and belongs on the company web site. Wikipedia is not an office directory. Likewise, I'm only seeing self-promotion as far as the sources go. Being a subsidiary of another non-notable entity strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article. Also, some time since the nomination the AfD template has been removed from the article diff, which is against policy. So COI editing is very likely. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the one Keep vote simply suggests "There's sourcing" but it's vague in what we should actually accept and what are the specific concerns here, and I'll specify them: It's advertising sourced by only announcements, that's not substance at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cut to a minimum - After reviewing the article and the sources, I will vote to keep the article. The company has enough coverage in independent secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Stone Point Capital is also a notable company. Not having an article in Wikipedia does not mean that the company is non notable. However the article should be copy-edited to remove the promotional materials. I have removed an entire section describing their services. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 04:56, 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. No objections either here or at the previous AfD. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhode Island Highlanders Pipe Band[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rhode Island Highlanders Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lower graded pipe band with no particular claim to notability - can't find any sources to establish notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Any redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Suit[edit]

Trump Suit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After some investigation, I believe this article should be deleted and redirected to Trump (card games). This article copies heavily from Spades. I doubt that this game passes the notability test and may have been invented by the main editor whose other articles on card games, Yarborough (poker) and King's Court were also deleted for lack of notability. A google search of "nil swapping", the most unique phrase in this game, comes up empty. Countakeshi (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is just an unsourced WP:GAMEGUIDE. Looking for sources, while I'm finding plenty of hits off the phrase "trump suit", they are all referring to the concept of Trump (card games), and none of them are referring to a specific game with this name. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After nearly two weeks, it is time to close discussion. This article will be redirected to Trump (card games).--Countakeshi (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of New Sciences[edit]

Journal of New Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artidle PRODded with reason " Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Journal website lists a fake impact factor (Global Impact Factor) and a few fake indexing services (apart from the non-selective Google Scholar). Only point of interest is that it is included on Jeffrey Beall's list of "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access journals". Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason stated. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed Bollywood videos on YouTube[edit]

List of most viewed Bollywood videos on YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because the subject is not notable (see WP:N). The list is also WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #11, #12, #4, #5 and #7. KAP03 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need a list of which YouTube videos were the most popular from every nation for some reason? We could also just have a long article listing every YouTube video that ever got a hundred million views or more, but then people would use bots to get their numbers up, and probably do that already in many cases. Dream Focus 17:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listing YouTibe videos this specificically is never notable. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be kept because Bollywood is a different Film industry and it is one of the biggest film industry in the world (Next to Hollywood). So a list of videos which are most popular in Bollywood should be there. Db135 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Db135 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ogle[edit]

Emily Ogle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed. This is a college athlete who does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. While I understand that the world of women's soccer is somewhat different than the general soccer guidelines, we don't generally view college players as notable unless they're Olympians. agtx 16:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it is true that Ogle does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:NCOLLATH, she does meet WP:GNG with the article on FIFA.com specifically about her. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one in-depth article is not enough for GNG. GiantSnowman 18:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Beyond the FIFA article (which given that it is about the U20 world cup is arguably a primary source anyway) I really cant find anything of substance in third party sources. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Fenix Down's comment. Not notable yet. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's What I'm Talking About EP[edit]

That's What I'm Talking About EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Searches don't turn up anything beyond download and lyrics sites, youtube videos, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:08, 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  19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Germanic origin not preserved in German[edit]

List of English words of Germanic origin not preserved in German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #4, #5, and #12. It also should be deleted because it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY definition 6 which states "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories." This is because the article is a unnecessary cross category. The article also fails WP:GNG because there is no "significant coverage" of this subject. It finally fails WP:NOR because it is original research for which no sources exist. KAP03 (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence that this is notable enough for a stand-alone list Spiderone 19:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find this list very instructive and also flawless after having followed several internal links from the words in this list to Wiktionary. The data given there seem to constitute the source of the information given in the list. So in my eyes, there is no original research involved here, but existing knowledge is presented in a new, more concise and explicit form which seems to be a central element of any encyclopedic work. A relevant objection against this list might be the issue of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". However, this list fits very well into the scope of articles like English lexicology and lexicography, History of English (including the respective categories) and also into the scope of the category English Etymology. Yes, several improvements can and should be done with this list which might be more usefull when including Proto-Germanc roots of the terms it includes. However, this article is pretty new and thus should have the chance of improvement (and enlargement) rather than being deleted.GermanyCalling (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this is a new account whose only other edit was to add a link to the article to another page. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GermanyCalling: you have used several arguments that we should avoid during deletion discussions; see WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NEWARTICLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 19:34, 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 deleted. by GB Fan - ref A7. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 11:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Michael Rowen[edit]

Dylan Michael Rowen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod deleted by IP 2601:585:102:4ef6:19af:bf92:a6b1:60d2 (talk · contribs).

Non-notable actor (previously deleted under Dylan Rowen) whose claim to fame is an award that was recently established and appearances in Dolly Parton's Coat of Many Colors. Fails WP:NACTOR. Also currently unsourced - only link is to iMDb - as in the general website. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Additionally a search for the name and the award only points to IMDB and Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kishi Bashi. Album is way below on the chart to be notable.(Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonderlust[edit]

Sonderlust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable album, may only be worthy for inclusion on the creator's page - Kishi Bashi. Nördic Nightfury 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There's no point in deleting articles like this; they end up recreated as redirects by people who notice that they don't have an article created for them. It definitely could do with third-party sources (reviews) establishing some sort of notability outside of charting in the lower ranks of the Billboard 200. I merely created the redirect; perhaps the user Sharp math (who created the content), or another user, may like to add more. Ss112 14:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Komboni[edit]

Komboni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a term which may benefit being transcluded to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Nördic Nightfury 14:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 14:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Poor sources and NOTADICTIONARY. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as written isn't very good and has some excessively close paraphrasing from one of the sources. However, a brief search shows several more academic sources that could be used to re-write this article. This is basically Zambia's equivalent to Brazil's Favelas, and there is a unique history behind these neighborhoods and how they formed. There is definitely potential here. Maybe I'll get around to working on it in the next few days, but even if I don't, the article being poorly written is not a valid deletion rational. Meanwhile, here are some sources that can/should be used to improve it.[1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ Myers, Garth (24 February 2016). Urban Environments in Africa: A Critical Analysis of Environmental Politics. Policy Press. pp. 69–73. ISBN 9781447322924. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
  2. ^ Ranger, Terence (1985). Peasant Consciousness and Guerilla War in Zimbabwe: A Comparative Study. University of California Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 9780520055551. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
  3. ^ Loeb, Carolyn; Luescher, Andreas (9 March 2016). The Design of Frontier Spaces: Control and Ambiguity. Routledge. pp. 49–51. ISBN 9781317036074. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
  4. ^ Mususa, Patience (22 June 2010). "'Getting by': life on the Copperbelt after the privatisation of the Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines". Social Dynamics A journal of African studies. 36 (2): 380–394. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
  5. ^ Gough, Katherine (2 March 2016). Young Entrepreneurs in Sub-Saharan Africa. Routledge. pp. 67–79. ISBN 9781317548379. Retrieved 28 December 2016.
~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:ONUnicorn. --doncram 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep or Redirect to Slum#Etymology and nomenclature and add to the list of words meaning 'Slum' because of NOTADICTIONARY. The ability to find sources that use the Zambian word for Slum seems a poor reason for a separate article. Although there are articles about the slums of various places. Usually the slums of individual cities. Gab4gab (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it doesn't seem to have anything near the distinct notability of, say, Favela. I'd say redirect per Gab4gab. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have entirely rewritten the article using the sources I mentioned above (except one that wasn't relevant and the journal article that I am working on getting access to) and a few other sources. It is no longer a dicdef. I would encourage Gab4gab and Shawn in Montreal to take a look at the revised article and reconsider their delete !votes in light of the revisions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm ready to change my vote to keep given the re-write. I'd prefer a English language title such as 'Zambian slums', but that's just me. Gab4gab (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Late to the party, but with the added sources I find this notable for inclusion. GauchoDude (talk) 23:06, 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 Speedy Keep as the nomination has no valid basis for deletion other than "non-notable, thousands of them" and we have a long established history of acceptance in villages (regardless of anything in "size and information"). NAC SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hojjatabad, Bashagard[edit]

Hojjatabad, Bashagard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tiny, <100-population Iranian village articles. Non-notable. Skynorth talk2me! 13:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There are thousands of them, all seem to have been created by User:Carlossuarez46, and around 2013.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:58, 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) 15:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Service Quality and Monitoring of Private Residential Care Homes For the Elderly[edit]

Service Quality and Monitoring of Private Residential Care Homes For the Elderly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to identify what the article is truly about, written like an essay and I'm not sure what, if any notability there is. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:57, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belén Rodríguez[edit]

Belén Rodríguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is poorly written, obviously by editor(s) who don't have a sufficient command of the English language. I have tried to improve the lead. Nevertheless, this article is nowhere near readiness for WP:MAINSPACE. Every section, if not every sentence, contains grammatical errors rendering it virtually unreadable. See the TALK page. Furthermore, the information included does not seem to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Its current state seems to be no more than a badly translated fan page.

A previous WP:PROD request has been deleted by an unregistered user, as was the Talk page entry discussing it. The article seems to be held hostage by unregistered users who revert attempts at improving it, nor have they participated in discussion on the TALK page. In accordance with policy, I have escalated the deletion request to (AfD). Please read through the article and leave your feedback whether this article should remain on MAINSPACE. Veritycheck (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Veritycheck (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion the subject is clearly notable, and issues such as grammar can be fixed by editing, including if necessary removing large parts of the content. If there are problems with the behaviour of some editors then the ways to deal with them are blocking and/or page protection, not deletion of an article about an obviously notable topic. And, for the record, I am not the editor who removed the talk page section. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veritycheck (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Per nom"... as in you agree with yourself? Your deletion nomination is considered your !vote. Please do not reiterate it with bolded del. votes below, as explained at WP:DISCUSSAFD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable. After 4 years of absence, this user returns in Wikipedia to vandalize this subject. This user is crazy? And who deleted (see history) for many times the User talk:Veritycheck because this user wants to hide, in obvious violation of the rules, many alerts written against him by many administrators? Naturally the User:Veritycheck! This user is clearly only a troll and I ask a permanent block against User:Veritycheck. --151.67.75.151 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let's take discussions of behaviour elsewhere, and focus here on whether this article should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote "Keep. The subject is clearly notable" and now I write that Belen Rodriguez is the most important under-35 television host in Italy. It's very incredibile that an user want delete this subject because she hosted some of the most important TV programs in Italy.--151.67.75.151 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no argument that the subject is notable. That is not the problem here. It is that the entire article is not written in a level of English sufficient for a page on Wikipedia. I also have strong doubts as to whether the bulk of the information included is noteworthy. Concerning your personal accusations against me, I ask you to provide sources that illustrate poor conduct on my part. Veritycheck (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source demonstrates your bad behavior: please, you cannot delete your alerts administrators write in your personal user page, ok? You wrote "I have no argument that the subject is notable. That is not the problem here" but you want delete this subject. Ehm... if a subject is badly written, you cannot delete: you must wrote. But if you don't know the subject, you can't delete information and their professional sources (you deleted some articles of Corriere della Sera, one of the most important newspaper in Italy and your deletion is not a good choice for Wikipedia).--151.67.75.151 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As your source shows, those deletes were to my UserTalk page which I am entitled to make. Furthermore, I have never edited articles for Corriere della Sera. If you wish to make further personal attacks on me, take it to my TALK page. Let's leave this discussion to whether the artcle should be deleted or not. Veritycheck (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are very incredible! Here you deleted, for example, an "archive version of an old article" (if you don't pay, you can not read. But you can use the archive for reading) of Corriere della Sera: you deleted From 2004 to December 2008,<ref>[http://archive.is/hwRu]</ref> Rodríguez was a and plaese note that you deleted this "archived version" of a Corriere's article. This is one example of your crazy deletions. Bye! --151.67.75.151 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why you deleted many alerts written against you by many administrators in your personal talk? I really struggled to try to restore them. The current rules of Wikipedia did NOT permit your deletions. I ask officially a permanent block against this user. You are "incorrect", not the sentences in Belen Rodriguez's page. I ask an official CU investigation against this user and VerityCheck because I am not idiot, you are the same user with the same behaviors and the same ideas (see Wikipedia:The duck test) and anyway... if the page is poorly written (which is not true), then you must correct and write (NOT delete) the page because the subject is enciclopedic.--151.67.75.151 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 151.67.75.151, your off-topic posts here are counter-productive and disruptive to this discussion. If you have any issue with people's behaviour elsewhere then this is not the place to discuss them. The article should obviously be kept, but you are not helping to get that result by deflecting this discussion on to irrelevant issues. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is NOT a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Your comment is NOT valid. My comment is this: "Rodriguez is the most important under-35 television host in Italy because she hosted some of the most important TV programs in Italy". Your comment is...?--151.67.75.151 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is clearly notable. Belen Rodriguez is the most important under-35 television host in Italy. She hosted some of the most important TV programs in Italy. If a page is "badly written", you MUST rewrite, NOT delete, because the page is clearly enciclopedic (and Rodriguez's page is clearly enciclopedic); this is my last comment for this discussion: goodbye. --151.67.75.151 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is pretty clear. The article needs copyediting, trimming and better referencing, not deletion. PKT(alk) 01:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the article can be broadly trimmed, even to a stub level if necessary, but its subject is clearly notable in the Italian show business.--Pampuco (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7-day Summary[edit]

Although at this time there is not a clear consensus on whether the article should be deleted or not, I have summarised the feedback of those who have participated in this AfD so far:

  • 3 editors suggest the article should be deleted on the grounds of the poor level of English used.
  • 4 editors suggest it should not be deleted, with 3 of them adding that the article could be (broadly) trimmed or reduced to a stub.

The only consensus there seems to be at the moment is that the subject is notable. Is that the only criteria required to be included in MAINSPACE? In my interpretation of Wiki policy, it is not.

Consider that the following represents a single sentence taken from the article in its current state. It is indicative of the level of English used throughout. I have removed citations to make it easier to read, if that is even possible.

In January 2015 definitely ended the professional relationship, which began ten years ago, between Belen Rodriguez and Milan fashion shows for John Richmond in favor of the Venezuelan model Mariana Rodríguez assisted by Paola Benegas (who ten years earlier had launched Belen in the world of fashion: this news caused a sensation at the Italian press for this reason, but also because of the alleged relationship, that in reality does not exist, between "the two Rodríguez" launched by the agency of Paola Benegas at Milan fashion shows of Richmond, that are Belen and Mariana).

As you can see, making this article legible will be quite a task and one that I am not ready to take on. It needs to be rewritten in its entirety. If no other editor here volunteers to copyedit, then I suggest they be bold and start trimming! As the nominator for this AfD, I will leave that job to others to avoid getting into edit warring with those editors who are content to see the article remain in its current form. I have brought it to your attention, and given my opinion. Veritycheck (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors: consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. The user Veritycheck is only a troll. This user "plays with the rules" (see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point) and I ask a permanent block against this user because the behaviors of Veritycheck are totally against the rules. The article of Belen Rodriguez is good and legible: it NOT needs to be rewritten, but it needs an expansion to include her television activities of the most recent years. The sources used in the article are prestigious: for example, I used many journalistic articles (or archived copies) of the Corriere della Sera, but Veritycheck deleted the sources. In this discussion, I asked why the user Veritycheck deleted the sources, but he NEVER replied and he vandalized the talk of Belen Rodriguez in violation of the rules (see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). Please note these two amazing coincidences: after 4 years of absence, the user Veritycheck returns in Wikipedia to vandalize the article of Belen Rodriguez and in this discussion three users (Veritycheck, Steam5 and 2001:569:70DD:7500:CC1B:7909:72FC:CB69) used the same arguments because they are the same user with the same behaviors and the same ideas (see Wikipedia:The duck test). I ask an official CU investigation and the elimination of all their arguments in this discussion. In conclusion, the other users declared themselves in favor of keeping of the Belen Rodriguez's actual article saying that is inadmissible play with the rules (if an user thinks that article is badly written, the user MUST re-write it, NOT delete an enciclopedic article). The two "IP 151" in this discussion are the same person, that is me (I have a Dynamic IP address); here Veritycheck call an other user to "vote" with him: this is NOT admissible (in the Italian edition of Wikipedia this behavior produces the user's permanent block and the deletion of the user's arguments in the AfD discussion). Many thanks for your attention: keep this article because the subject is enciclopedic and the article NOT needs to be re-written because is good and legible, it needs an expansion to include her television activities of the most recent years.--151.67.45.164 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here the user Veritycheck vandalize this discussion because he deleted this comment of the user-autopatroller Shawn in Montreal and this is NOT admissible for the rules of Wikipedia. I am the dynamic IP 151 and I officially ask a permanent block against the user Veritycheck because he can NOT delete a comment written by another user: only an user-administrator can do it and Veritycheck is NOT an administrator. --151.67.92.142 (talk) 22:06, 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nahal Soltani[edit]

Nahal Soltani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced (or nearly so) BLP - bringing here because I note that her Twitter page has 623,000 followers, so there may well be sources (especially non-English ones) out there. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete singer who does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any evidence to support, although certainly not saying it doesn't exist. Stands as delete unless changes and sources added. GauchoDude (talk) 23:03, 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. North America1000 23:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stunts Canada[edit]

Stunts Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD.

News searches find exactly seven sources, one of which is irrelevant, one of which is a blog, and two of which are official press releases. Open web searches don't fare much better, and find mostly social media, procedurally generated sources like ZoomInfo, and reposts of videos. Of the few sources found that seem to be genuenly reliable, like this one, most or all appear to be coincidental word usage, and trivial mention, as in here. TimothyJosephWood 13:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there are independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this organization. Peacock (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nomination. Insufficient independent secondary or reliable sources.Cyali (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I ran a ProQuest search to see if this perhaps had some older coverage that might not show up in a conventional Google search, but I didn't find much — mainly just glancing acknowledgements of its existence in coverage of individual stunt performers, and coincidental text matches in usages like "industry slump stunts Canada's economic growth". Something like this would certainly be eligible for an article if it could be sourced properly, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if good sourcing actually shows up, but it's not entitled to an exemption from having to be sourced properly just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Miller (writer)[edit]

Sharon Miller (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While accomplished, this writer simply does not rise to meet the criteria for notability. Was deprodded without improvement or rationale. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this page should remain on Wikipedia. This was for a class project and the assignment was to research marginalized groups in the entertainment industry and create an article. It had to be someone who was not already recognized on Wikipedia in any way, shape or form (which is very hard to do). I chose Sharon Miller because she is an important woman in the entertainment industry and while she may not be as accomplished as other female writers, her work deserves recognition. - user:Conorjokelly
moved comment from talk page to discussion. Onel5969 TT me 01:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete When one of 4 sources is the LinkedIn page for the subject (not a reliable source) another is a book not about the subject and another is a release from their employer we are not passing GNG. Beyond this, I have to admit that I think articles written as school assignments are a very bad idea. This article in no way passes inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 23:02, 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 Speedy delete as hoax, none of the sources mention this player, and the links have been doctored to appear as if they do.. GiantSnowman 17:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Rezaei[edit]

Danial Rezaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fake and a lie, Change resources Milad Farahani --Kasir talk 12:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of The Freedom Of Press[edit]

Statue of The Freedom Of Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed as "Created by a promotional account (now blocked). All coverage only related to the unveiling ceremony due to celebrities present but fails WP:GNG" and dePRODed as "unveiled by minister - sourcing from 4 different papers, including ToI. Not prod-worthy - try Afd if you want". Well, ministers in India do just that for a long period of their tenure and not everything notables do is notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 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 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Krivit[edit]

Steven Krivit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, specifically the external links sourced do not rise to the standards we would require for a Wikipedia biography. jps (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I didn't turn up much of anything myself. This is definitely in depth coverage, but the source appears to be a thinly veiled blog. I started randomly clicking through the EL's provided, and stopped at about half, when everything was either trivial mention, or did not mention the subject at all. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inadequate notability shown by this poorly written BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so apologies. I've cleaned up the external link format, if not OK let me know why not. I do think Notability is met, per WP:BIO, Biography, item 2: he's been active since 2000 in this field, and very well known there. If it should be moved to draft until correct, please let me know. Manitech (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a source for the contention that he's "well known" in whatever field you're claiming he's active in? jps (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please check current page (2017-01-02), I've started fleshing out the bio. Is this working towards notability?Manitech (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I appreciate your dedication, you still haven't really addressed the key issues which is that the person doesn't appear notable according to Wikipedia's standards. See WP:BIO. Evidence that he has a certain fame is important. Sources that discuss him as a person are necessary. jps (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Krivit and his publication New Energy Times are likely notable, but there need to be better sources. He recently published in Scientific American [3]. He was also editor-in-chief for the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia [4]. These qualify under the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. If not kept in mainspace, it should at least be allowed to mature in draft or user space so that good sources can be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a "guest blog". The second does not rise to WP:NAUTHOR standards. Sorry. jps (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no doubt that he's an important writer within the little niche he occupies, but the significance to the general public (and hence the independent sources) is just not there. - MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 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 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medical News Bulletin[edit]

Medical News Bulletin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources added; the significance of the published content is its leading role (at least in Canada) in raising awareness of and participation in clinical trials. Typically, only the weak sectors of society end up participating, and the aim here is to show that it's for everyone. Mintz l (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You have added 2 "secondary" sources. One is to clinicaltrialscanada.com, which according to their website is located at the very same address as the one listed for the Bulletin, strongly suggesting that this is not an independent source. I'm not sure how to describe the second "source", but an in-depth description of this bulletin it is not. If this is website really has a "leading role", surely better references are available. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There were quite a few hits on Google News, but all were from this blog, not about it. Can't see how it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcote Green Garden Centre[edit]

Woodcote Green Garden Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable garden centre. Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire per nom. Lets get rid of the snow this winter brings... Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 15:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, as business without strong claim of notability. The only claim in the article is that a large number of people shop here, which sounds impressive, but if there aren't independent reports about this place/business, that doesn't matter (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). I did find this, which appears to be an independent publication, but likewise appears to be a self-serving puff piece (PR "interview"?). DMacks (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks: I would take those figures with a pinch of salt, I live roughly two miles away from said garden centre, and can safely say, it cannot cope with ten million shoppers a year. 100k is more realistic, maybe. Snöggletög Nightfury Happy Christmas!! 16:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the followup. 10M is impressive, but we can only say it if there's a cite from an independent source. And if that number were true, there would certainly be lots of other in-depth independent reports about such a hugely-popular{{cn}} and highly-successful{{cn}} business. DMacks (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable business. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus - I know the majority are !delete votes but AfD appears to have been forgotten Nördic Nightfury 09:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 09:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Global Technologies[edit]

Kobe Global Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically promotional. Apparent conflict of interest on the part of both editors who have made any significant contribution. Although there are some sources, Google searches do not seem to me to confirm notability. Deb (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. trivial awards; lack of independent substantial sources--and promotional purpose. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Corner[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Comedy Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No acceptable references. Notability seems improbable. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - fails WP:CLUB and WP:GNG. It's unreferenced, and the only mention of it I can find in WP:RS is on the university's website. WP:COI is also evident, and it's borderline spam. That can be fixed, but the notability issue would remain. I see that it was recreated immediately after the last deletion, by moving the lowercase redirect left behind, then filled right back in by an anonymous editor. Cute. Salt it, or it'll be back up in a week. Wikishovel (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:GNG, and the spin-off page Farce Side Comedy Hour probably should undergo afd as well for similar reasons. TiggerJay (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Gosh. Feel a little bit guilty for initially questioning their notability which has lead to this, because I am an inclusionist by nature but in this case SALT as well. Otherwise it will be like a boomerang. Like to wish all the cast though, past, present and future -my very heart felt best. However, just should not be on WP.--Aspro (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt I agree with all of the above Kiltpin (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spammy, longstanding COI issues from a single-purpose account. -- œ™ 07:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--there's no there there. A few hits maybe in some local publications, but that's it. BTW, don't see why we should SALT this; Wikishovel, I think we pay more attention to these recreations now. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kangna Sharma[edit]

Kangna Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Runner-up of a beauty pageant fails WP:NMODEL and the subject is notable only for one event which is not enough for a stand alone article at least WP:NOTYET also fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. GSS (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:10, 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. Clearly no consensus to delete, although participants seem fairly unanimous in judging that the article still needs to be cleaned up and refined. This discussion has established that the page doesn't represent a POV content fork, and as far as I can tell, nobody seriously disputes that the topic meets the GNG. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Snowflake[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Generation Snowflake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POV fork of the Millenials article and/or the Z generation article. The entire "usage" section is just a WP:COATRACK for pop-culture pseudosociology -- pretty much every ref there is by, or cites, some talking head who throws out some anecdotes and spins a story around them. This article could stay if it were about the term, "Generation Snowflake" like Slacker is about that term. Contrast with say Me generation which is sourced to solid sociology refs. This page in WP pretends to be an encyclopedia article but all it is, is abuse of WP to perpetuate what the talking heads are spinning. It isn't sociology but it pretends to be. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC) (amend to add Z Generation since people are confused or wikilawyering around the main point Jytdog (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • Question - Would you still want to delete if the talking head/anecdote/spin/pop culture stuff were eliminated and the more solid descriptive citations (e.g. Collins, Financial Times) retained? MaxBrowne (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the article that exists and that has been strenuously argued to keep in this form, with this focus, on the Talk page. this article is a POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose there were an article entitled Snowflake (pejorative) or similar - if it were in a format along the lines of "Snowflake is a slang term for....", "it may have originated from....", "it became popular in 2016 after....", "it was used by (well-known figure who promulgated the term) ....", "(credible public or academic figure) criticized the term....". All solidly sourced of course. Would such an article be acceptable to you? I think such an article would be OK, but I'm trying to understand your thinking on this. I personally don't like that the article is called Generation Snowflake, stereotyping a whole age group. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I can tell you is read WP:POV fork - this article fits that to a T. Whatever article you have in mind doesn't exist. Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed articles can be fixed. I agree that this article has a lot of weak sources that tend to advance a particular POV (i.e. the one being pushed by the astroturfers), and also a lot of non-notable trivia. My view is that it could be an acceptable article if that was eliminated. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TNT. I will not reply further. Vote to keep if you like; experienced editors will see this for the POV fork it is. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. See also Category:Pejorative terms for people. The term is not solely linked with Millenials, and is cited by some sources as being more related to Generation Z. Specious AfD in any case: the nominator stating "This article could stay if it were about the term, "Generation Snowflake" like Slacker is about that term" is the same as saying "This is a content dispute". Per policy at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#CONTENT, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum... Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it." Keri (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, articles that coulda been something are deleted all the time when they become POV forks. This is what TNT is for. Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TNT is an essay; Wikipedia:Deletion policy#CONTENT is policy. Keri (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only some who could be classified as Millennials based on age would fit into Generation Snowflake, and only some who could be described as Generation Snowflake would be classified as Millennials, so the coverage in the GS article could not be subsumed into the M article. And, as Keri points out, the nominator's case is fatally compromised by the admission that it's some (not even all) of the content that is being objected to, not the article's existence. So, merging with Millennials is not appropriate and there's no valid reason to delete, as notability has already been established. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
your !vote is as confused as the article is. it pretends to do sociology but there is not a single serious sociology source in it. The bulk of the article - almost all the WEIGHT - is the "usage" and that whole section is a COATRACK POV fork. It needs TNT. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the logical flaws in your deletion arguments adds clarity to this discussion, not confusion. The article reflects the available sources, but, again, we're drifting into a content discussion, which is for the talk page, and doesn't warrant a deletion nomination. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:POV fork. Read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion #75. The nomination is solid. You are confused. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC) (whoops, it is #5. Fixed Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I read POV fork before voting & commenting. Generation Snowflake can't be a POV fork of Millennials, for the reasons I gave in my first comments. Deletion reason #7 is reliable sources, which was dealt with emphatically in the first deletion nomination. EddieHugh (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:EddieHugh my bad it is #5. fixed. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the nomination has been changed. The argument is now that GS is a POV fork of Millennials, or Generation Z, or possibly both. This helps to reinforce the fact that GS is something new and that it cannot be squeezed into pre-existing categories or Wikipedia articles. EddieHugh (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep basically per Keri. Plainly notable, and I think it could be trimmed of the trivia. A rename may also be in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gut Use only serious sources. Get rid of all tabloid and tabloid-style opinion pieces, all anecdotal/spin pieces, all polemic pieces, all trivial pop culture stuff. Use opinion pieces only if referenced by reliable secondary sources to establish notability, otherwise treat the same as blog posts or tweets. There's some serious astroturfing going on around this particular narrative and wikipedia should not be indulging it. Second choice is Delete. Keep in present form is as unacceptable to me as it is to Jytdog. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and per result of recent previous AfD. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is really quite difficult to see why this proposal is being promoted at all. It is founded on/motivated by the false/misguided premise/assertion that the article is WP:POV fork of the Millenials article. The term (G--S--/S--G) has entered the language, and anyone wishing to have information about that should be able to find it in this standalone article, rather than be redirected to another where it is embedded, unhelpfully expanding that one. If the present version has faults of POV or overemphasis on, say Claire Fox, then let the article be revised, free from muddle with other issues in other articles. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... but... This article needs stripping down to remove all the uncited/unreferenced content and information from questionable sources. Incidentally (this is relevant because this AfD itself is part of it) there's clearly some sort of slow-motion edit war going on with this article and its talk page. "Drop The Stick" clearly means nothing to some people. You don't need an AfD discussion, a Request for Comment discussion or an AN/I report to settle every single tiny dispute with an article. My advice to the people currently fighting over this article's content is to step away from editing it for a while and let someone else have a crack at it. An AfD discussion is clearly not appropriate here - it's a content dispute that you're having. Don't throw your toys out of the pram. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided about keeping or deleting this article. But there should be more mention in the "Political correctness" section of the Millennials article. That could be a merge target if the outcome of this AFD is "Delete." The extreme right finds it convenient to throw this pejorative label at some millennials and dismiss, rather than address, their complaints about racism, sexism, bullying and bad political behavior. Edison (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG, and there is no POV fork here. It needs some sorting and some of the less reliable sources taking out (although most of the print media cited are solid and reliable). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I am anticipating that the closer will ignore !votes that just cite GNG and ignore the POV fork issue. Again, Content forking is a reason for deletion, and this is a blatant fork of Millenials. Even if somebody wants to say the "target" of "Generation Snowflake" is Generation Z, we again have an article about that generation. (Millenials seems more appropriate since so many of the anecdotes are about college kids, which are not Generation Z yet, but this is beside the point). Way too much of this article makes actual claims about whatever the generation is, based on garbage pseudo-sociological refs. This article needs TNT because it is a content fork. GNG has nothing to do with the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - With respect, GNG is not something that should be ignored when taking part in an Article for Deletion discussion. In fact, it's one of the only things that should be taken into account. Content disputes, edit wars, general disagreements between editors who seem incapable of stepping away from an article to let themselves cool down - these are not reasons for an article to be deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note a POV fork can absolutely meet GNG with boatloads of refs and still be deleted because it is a POV Fork. That is why it is listed specifically as a reason for deletion and why I wrote the note above. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not a content fork of Millennials. Many millennials are not in the snowflake generation, and Generation Z people are. It's clearly notable, whether as a definition as generational, or as a term used. This clearly passes guidelines for inclusion 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gut or Delete The term could be an ephemeral neologism, but the term is used in certain groups and the use of the term is meaningful in both what it means and who is using the term. Its use is bubbling on the cusp of notoriety but it still may be ephemeral, hence gut or delete. I also agree it is not a fork of Millennials because largely the sources point to a few specific use of the term. Not all examples are of young people. The term is describing their behavior. "Generation snowflake" is merely a the way conservatives can label young "snowflakes." The term largely targets people who protest to "conservative" political speech and policy. A NPOV entry would balance explanation of the descriptive use of the term, with its political significance. I think the article needs an entire rewrite with greater emphasis on preserving NPOV. 2601:282:502:4B63:518D:4640:222:E976 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — 2601:282:502:4B63:518D:4640:222:E976 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: Based on IP location info this post was most likely written by MHP Huck and should not be dismissed as the view of a SPA. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. MHP Huck (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...An editor who has made few edits outside this topic. Keri (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who hasn't ever found something this ridiculous on the site, you mean. Keri is deeply POV and not credible given their collective actions. Most of the articles I'd add too require complete overhauls and I don't have time for that. Most relate to under appreciated economists. MHP Huck (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, as the only result in Google Books is I Find This Offensive!". If this were a serious concept, I'd expect it to be covered by psychologists or other social science scholars. Right now the article is filled with trivia based on pop culture-like sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid reason. There is no requirement for the sources to be books. The article has an abundance of reliable sources, principally from the broadsheet press. EddieHugh (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eddie; this is a neologism, "a relatively new or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language [...] often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event." See for example Category:Neologisms, Category:Words coined in the 2000s and Category:Words coined in the 2010s. Keri (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pile-on begins. Whether or not it is a valid reason to delete I'm not sure but the majority of these 'reliable sources' are the result of Claire Fox plugging her book, with a bit of pop culture crap thrown in. My feeling is the article could be OK if it is decrapified, but I'd rather see it deleted than kept in present form. Edit: wikipedia should not be doing Spiked/Insitute of Ideas propaganda for them. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In spite of the extensive rewriting, the article remains confusing--many of the refs seem to be about problems with the current generation and not specifically calling it Generation Snowflake. And article would be appropriate, but it would better be done by rewriting from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are all fairly explicit in their use of the neologism "Generation Snowflake". And using AfD and deletion to solve a content issue is rather extreme - particularly as this will circumvent whatever consensus currently exists and the outcomes of RfCs. Those issues and arguments will just be edit warred over and rehashed once again. Deleting will not, and should not be used to, resolve a content dispute. Keri (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - to those in favour of deletion, would you still favour deletion if the article looked something like this? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a reasonable compromise, and not dissimilar to other articles about 21st century neologisms. Keri (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. I would also support a change of name to snowflake (neologism).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of suggested name changes, I like Wehwalt's suggestion of snowflake (neologism) better than snowflake (pejorative) as all usages do not appear strictly pejorative. Many of them are, but the earlier usages aren't, and with the use of this term quickly evolving, it's unclear that the future usage will be strictly pejorative. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion of content and titles is welcome, but the article's talk page is the place for that. Perhaps MaxBrowne could make his proposal there, with a rationale that clearly delineates what he thinks would qualify a source for inclusion or exclusion (his current sandbox suggestion contains plenty of sources that look like the opinion pieces I thought were the target of the "gut" concept, so clarification would be useful). EddieHugh (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not proposing my sandbox version as a final version, just saying it would be an improvement on the current article. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless it can be established that "generation snowflake" is a genuine sociological phenomenon rather than a meme being promoted by British and American libertarian organizations (or "think tanks") as part of a wider pro-corporate agenda. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one bite of the cherry at a time; will you strike your !vote above? Keri (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the article is not about a "sociological phenomenon" – it is about a neologism. They are not the same at all. Keri (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why must you reply to ever opinion that doesn't match your own? MaxBrowne (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Typical bad faith I've come to expect from you. Look up and see who else, and how many times, has replied to comments. Keri (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you stop maliciously reporting people for a single revert, or just for making edits you don't agree with, then come talk to me about bad faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt. All keep !votes are either socks or were conditional on the article being re-done from ground up. Such can be requested by legit editors at WP:DELREV if sufficient sources arise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KJIVA[edit]

KJIVA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete and blacklist: This article has no reliable independent sources showing the artist's impact in the music industry. I initiated a deep research background check and found NO reliable sources mentioning or talking about the subject. In fact, all I found was music profiles created by the artist or a subject close to the artist. As a result, this article needs to be deleted as it does not meet the guidelines for notable musicians. If subject is reading this, or someone close to the subject, read the following guidelines for notable musicians: Wikipedia:Notability_(music) Bottom line: This is a neatly written article, however, it's written on a subject that has NO notability or any reliable sources, he managed to hoax Wiki editors. There is also no evidence whatsoever that DJ Mustard collaborated with the subject. VEVO is not a reliable source as anyone can make an account and add whatever title in the videos. This is all a hoax, but a good one. —Scorpion293 | talk 20:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:ATS Please help us with this user who is hoaxing Wikipedia. Can you identify any reliable sources? Scorpion293 | talk 00:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if improved. Our guidelines are clear: whether the subject is notable is irrelevant if the article itself fails to establish notability. At present, this relies on press releases and trade websites; if GNG cannot be met, it should be deleted. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:ATS Thanks for your output! Scorpion293 (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Here we go again. This is the third time we nominate Kjiva for deletion because of no reliable sources, not one. And just like last time, there are sockpuppet accounts used to disrupt the AfD process, instead of providing a clean discussion. All his sockpuppet accounts are up for deletion, as those accounts have copied and pasted admin banstars from admin user pages, in order to deceive. Check his other sockpuppet account for more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rockwalla39 I think this article is worthy of speedy deletion. 'Scorpion293 | talk 06:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" Hi Ligard39, I have nothing against any musician. I'm trying to eliminate spam from Wikipedia, that is all I am doing. The articles created for the subject KJIVA has NO reliable sources, aside from store links. There isn't any news articles talking about the subject or brief mentions. I tagged all pages that have no sources listed in the references, as they should all be deleted. Also, having a book on Amazon does not mean the book should be worthy enough of article space. There isn't any news coverage of the book, let alone the subject. One word: Speedy deletion. Will tag more investigators to look into this further. Scorpion293 (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" Hi User:David_Eppstein, you deleted the following article Kjiva, is this the same subject you deleted? If so, what was the reason why the previous article was deleted? Also, can you please help with the investigation, as there are clearly no news coverage or reliable sources covering this subject. All there is are user profiles and store links. Thanks! Scorpion293 | talk 04:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: May I add that this article was deleted not too long ago for having no reliable sources. Additionally, if you were to look at the discussion, administrators crossed out sockpuppet accounts that tried to disrupt the AfD process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kjiva. Moreover, one of the users attempting to sway the AfD process, tied to the subject, is being nominated for deletion as the user tried to falsely add banstars and administrative logos in its userpage for deceptive reasons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rockwalla39 Just wanted to document this. Scorpion293 | talk 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi User:Adog104, can you please help out with this investigation? No news coverage or reliable sources listed in this article or others pertaining to the artist's material. Furthermore, the subject's article was already deleted twice before, and sockpuppet accounts were used to try and sway the AfD process: Kjiva. Thanks! Scorpion293 | talk 05:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 28. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is on the same subject as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjiva, which closed as "delete" last September after many of the "keep" comments there were found to have been from sockpuppets. The article was created again a week or so afterwards, and I deleted it per WP:CSD#G4 (speedy delete for re-creation of a deleted article) and protected it against repeated re-creation. It seems to have been re-created again, almost immediately, under the present title. However, the current article is significantly longer than the deleted ones, enough that I think G4 no longer applies. I have no personal opinion on the notability of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) In my opinion, I don't see coverage for this musician to pass WP:GNG, however I wish to not participate in this discussion. Adog104 Talk to me 06:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep per User:ATS BCD 09:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gear126 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Delete and salt. The article has a ridiculous 66 "references", many to things like MusicBrainz or CrunchBase. I have not gone through all 66, but perusal of a selection of them does not reveal anything substantial. There are several articles related to KJIVA, none of which seem to have any reliable sourcing. Their AfDs are mostly incorrectly formatted (and not properly transcluded), so I'll wait for the bot to fix them before !voting there. --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 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 snow delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killagators[edit]

Killagators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks as though a previous deletion tag was removed from the page. Per WP:NFILM the article should be deleted. The one source provided is suspect at best, and if at the very least one other source can't be found to support the claims being made, I don't think the page or the source pass WP:NFILM. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doubtful that this even exists. There is literally zero information about this anywhere except for one guy who swears he saw it somewhere once. The sequel's article will need to be axed as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Previously deleted in October 2016 and appears to be a clear copy and paste. Clearly non-notable. This looks like a high-school joke piece to me. |→ Spaully τ 12:00, 28 December 2016 (GMT)
  • Speedy Delete - It is very likely a hoax. Its only "source" is a completely unreliable "I totally saw this movie once, guys!" paragraph. If its not a hoax, then it is certainly not notable. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bongwarrior. Might even qualify for WP:CSD. Carrot official (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Beach (2015 film) (created by same author).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 02:24, 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 delete A7 by Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Raheed[edit]

Salman Raheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be WP:BLP1E. Google search comes up with social media, which do not give notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is no claim of notability and the reference is fake so this should just be speedied A7. Justeditingtoday (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 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 speedy keep. standard result DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Hill Christian School[edit]

Killian Hill Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, non notable school Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable schools providing high school education are usually considered notable. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see a reference and I am about to add another. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness to the nominator this had no references when nominated, although it was very easy to find sources via the search links above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - it's an actual degree awarding secondary school with a reliable third party reference. Nothing else is needed. John from Idegon (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep -very short article that needs serious expansion, but nevertheless a notable Grade 12 school with sources that prove its existece. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KAP03Talk • Contributions 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funic souffle[edit]

Funic souffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because of the article is basically a dictionary definition violating the policy,WP:NOTDIC. KAP03 (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this stub article, though short, is considerably more than a just dictionary definition. I don't see how WP:NOTDIC applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is simply a short encyclopedia article - nothing like a dictionary definition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a stub, and goes beyond definition. Advisable to let some expert work on it for expansion. Devopam (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stubby but valid. Funic souffle. Heh. :p -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not a dictionary definition. Lepricavark (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shazalee Ramlee[edit]

Shazalee Ramlee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 17:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Spiderone 12:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sufficient reason provided when PROD template was previously added. C679 14:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems clear that the topic lacks the in-depth coverage in reliable sources necessary to establish significance. Opinions that the topic is "interesting" and unsourced claims that it "influenced the election" just don't cut it. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Meme War[edit]

The Great Meme War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was likely going to be sent to AfD anyways so I might as well start it. It'd be nice to have an article on this, but as far as I'm concerned, it fails WP:NOTNEWS. The two sources in the article are just about the only sources about this entire thing; all other sources are from Reddit, some other non-notable blog, or a reliable source that mentions the meme war in passing. Alternatively, and if that article is kept pending the AfD, this could be merged into r/The Donald, since all sources puts the subreddit as the cause of this war. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joke article. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs)

@AlessandroTiandelli333: Please sign your comments, and when you neglect to, please don't revert other editors' attempts to add {{unsigned}}. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a joke if many major sources cover it, do you have a proper reason for deletion? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramaksoud2000: Please stop voting if you base your vote on intuition, have no knowledge of an article's topic and apparently haven't looked it up. It's not a joke. --Fixuture (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact a joke, and no reliable sources cover it. In addition to being a joke, it fails WP:GNG. In case you're having trouble identifying reliable sources, the Daily Pakistan article, “Daddy, what did you do in ‘The Great Meme War’?” Dank memes become part of history, is not a reliable source. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly, Ramaksoud2000? Be specific. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pepe may have helped Trump win the election, but an idea of a "meme war" is not encyclopedic, especially when the "best" source is this article by Mashable. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs)

@Yoshiman6464: Why wouldn't it be encyclopedic? Also it's called so by supporters who took part - it's not necessarily to be considered a "meme war" in general. --Fixuture (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixuture:Beause the so-called "Great Meme War" hasn't been reported by any reliable sources. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article covers a historical event and is well-sourced. It meets notability considering it influenced the outcome of a presidential election. 108.27.213.13 (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— 108.27.213.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You seem to be supporting the author quite a bit. Are you the author editing logged out? -- numbermaniac (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looked it up and its a United States IP, doesn't belong to me. Also if that was me I would have been editing at 5:40 in the morning, in the christmas holidays? Who do you think i am? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources on the article, passes WP:GNG. I will expand further today because there is more reliable sources. I would also like to point out there is some interest in an article like this, within less than a single day it has received Almost 700 unique visits(On the first of January 2017, it recived almost 8,000 clicks, 8x more than John Kanisch), which is massive, and within it's first day its almost ahead of popular politicians like John Kasich for daily views. This should definitely be considered in this discussion.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AlessandroTiandelli333, as it turns out, no, it shouldn't be considered at all, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with notability (see also WP:POPULARPAGE). TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be discounted per WP:JNN AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

If you continue to tag every single "delete" !vote with "should be discounted" you're going to be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard for interfering with an Articles for Deletion discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a joke, and simply is not notable enough. Memes did not influence the result of the election, and something as silly as people fighting each other with memes is not worthy of an article. -- numbermaniac (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk • contribs)

@Numbermaniac: It's not a joke. Even if online meme media wasn't part of the influence of the election (imo it's just a matter of extent) it's notable if there are enough reports on it etc. People did not fight each other with memes - people were using memes to (make it look like there was strong) support for a candidate from a specific generation of people online. Please do not vote based on intuition. --Fixuture (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If its not important why did DARPA bother to write a government report on it? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep notable enough, see: [5], [6], [7], [8] --Fixuture (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Among the sources you provided, sources #'s 1 and 3 appear to be more about r/The Donald than the Great Meme War; source #2 only mentions the war in passing, and thus cannot be used to determine notability. Only the fourth source appears to talk about the Great Meme War in detail, but one source is not enough "significant coverage" to qualify for WP:GNG. JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the fourth source, “Daddy, what did you do in ‘The Great Meme War’?” Dank memes become part of history, is not a reliable source. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Users using the rational that it should be deleted because it is a "joke" should be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, to quote the page: "The terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant." AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is even RS that this has "gone mainstream". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    No, that source only mentions the meme war in a trivial passing, and thus can't be used to determine notability. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't appear to in fact a joke, and even if it was that doesn't preclude notability in principle. As pointed out above, not encyclopedic means very little in way of argument. Also, whether it is in fact had a measurable impact on the election...it may actually be a false claim, but it can be a false claim and also be a notable topic.
So with those out of the way, discounting sources which have only trivial mention or otherwise are about a different subject all together, the current article seems to rest on The Epoch Times, which appears to be of questionable reliability, and The Daily Pakistan. The DP may be a reliable source, but even if it is, if you are relying on one of the top newspapers of Pakistan as a central source for an article on American politics, it's probably a good indication that the subject has not received sufficient coverage to be notable.
At this point, the sourcing provided is not enough to establish that the name of the article is not a neologism, much less that the subject itself is notable. I haven't found much else, and it doesn't look like anyone in this protracted discussion has either. TimothyJosephWood 16:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Delete this and I bring the GNAA back to life, this is a threat. incog (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Not a joke article. Homph (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC) — Homph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user has made no edits other than this and de-redding their user and talk pages. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject of this article does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. References provided do not meet the threshold for Wikipedia's Reliable Sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5 news sources is more than enough for WP:GNG, you have to give a reason why they are not reliable AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "have to" do anything. Head on over to WP:RS and have a read. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first writer. I honestly have not heard anyone else use this term, outside of certain alt-right circles on Reddit. I would, to be generous, file this a "new word/term,"WP:NEO used exclusively by a certain political subset.. To be honest, I think the main problem is embodied in the last sentence: "It is yet to be seen whether these tactics will work as well in Europe as they claim to have done in the United States" It is a persistent claim of the alt-right, made without any evidence, that their memes have been a major factor, if not the major factor, for President-elect Donald Trump's win in 2016. This article seems to be writteninn order to pump up their image.

Also, when one types up the term in google, all you get are Pro-Donald Trump Reddit discussion boards and marginal right-wing websites supporting PEOTUS Trump using the term,implying that it is a certain form of jargon on the radical right.

Again, to be generous, I would suggest that we modify this under an article detailing the alt-right, or under the section of r/thedonald on the Donald Trump's 2016 campaign page, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#.2Fr.2FThe_Donald_subreddit.) I have also taken the liberty to change the tone of the article to make it more neutral, as well as to make clear that this is a term used by few. For example, I have changed the first sentence from "The Great Meme War was an Internet campaign.." to "The Great Meme War is the term made in some internet circles to refer to memes made to support Donald Trump and sway the result of the United States presidential election of 2016."

I have a great deal of personal reservations about this article. But I would want more feedback before anything else is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousemenace (talk • contribs) 20:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that mousemenace (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

  • The article should be modified, but not removed. I'm a relative outsider in the Wikipedia community, but I believe we can all agree that the proliferation of insular social media clusters and their invented cultural symbols -- memes -- was a notable phenomenon. This ought to be categorized underneath a subsection of Internet culture, if you're not willing to associate it with the 2016 American Presidential election.24.40.80.245 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.40.80.245 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Keep An interesting footnote in history with multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydeio (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Boydeio (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Boydeio (talk · contribs) has made very few edits outside of the topic area, or at all, in fact. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be modified. This was indeed a major event in the political climate, and did in fact, have a lot of influence. However, its missing important information, such as raids against Hillary's instagram account and the accusations that CTR has been all over sites like 4chan. Maybe even Malik Obama can be brought up, as he discussed the great meme war before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novaklefki (talk • contribs) 05:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Novaklefki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note This is a discussion, not a vote. It doesn't matter how many Single Purpose Accounts say "Keep - this won the election" (which is just delusional) - all that matters are Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair there are also many delete votes that just say its a joke or not encyclopedic, which should also be discounted per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. At the moment I count more valid keep votes citing that it passes WP:GNG (Which i think it does) than valid delete votes. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're getting it. It's not the number of !votes that counts. It's the strength of the arguments that relate to policy that matter. I understand that you think the article passes the GNG - after all, you created the article in the first place - but repeating it ad nauseum has no more effect than saying it just once. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect) per Timothyjosephwood. A couple of short, borderline-reliable sources and passing mentions in some other sources are not enough to demonstrate the significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. At most, this could be redirected to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 or some other relevant article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject meets basic WP:GNG. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • :It's not really a joke if many major sources cover it Since there aren't many major sources covering, maybe it really is a joke. It certainly doesn't pass any reasonable reading of WP:GNG. So delete. --Calton | Talk 17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intouch Riddim[edit]

Intouch Riddim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable compilation on a minor label with no substantial sources to support notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even AllMusic has nothing more than a bare track listing. No other sources beyond social media. No references to demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 22:59, 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lipad sa 2017: The Kapuso New Year Countdown[edit]

Lipad sa 2017: The Kapuso New Year Countdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. A yearend countdown should not have its own article unless it is really notable. -WayKurat (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the non-notability using own article every year. per WP:N because only the evidence are events like election special and death of Dolphy are passed article in the year. Oripaypaykim (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Not notable enough to have it's own article. -Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 10:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. WP:FANCRUFT is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America1000 00:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barbie's friends and family[edit]

List of Barbie's friends and family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There doesn't seem to be another article listing/organizing Barbie-related dolls. However, delete the friends of friends sections. That's going too far. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of Time[edit]

Ghosts of Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has no claim to notability or references Grahame (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fifth Harmony#Lauren Jauregui. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Jauregui[edit]

Lauren Jauregui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No relevance aside from being a member of Fifth Harmony. Her solo song (where she's featured, not the lead) hasn't entered any relevant chart. Unlike Camila Cabello, Jauregui is still a member of the group and hasn't announced a solo career. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on Fifthed Harmony.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fifth Harmony. This seems a much more obvious outcome than deletion. --Michig (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fifth Harmony. Merging wouldn't be appropriate because the only other information in the discussed article is the infobox and discography. Consistency with similar sections would be needed so the information shouldn't be added to Fifth Harmony. - TheMagnificentist 04:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Dil Awan[edit]

Shah Dil Awan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed candidate for election to Pakistan National Assembly but otherwise no reliable source suggesting notability. agtx 19:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

River of Blood[edit]

River of Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Minor fictional event with no non-primary sources. Heck, there's barely any primary sources on it. Searching for it in the usual places brings up virtually nothing of note. Normally, I'd suggest a redirect to Greyhawk or some such, but this is such a minor, inconsequential thing, that I don't think even that is appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Rivers of Blood speech, which is likely what anyone searching for this is looking for. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan at the 2017 Asian Winter Games[edit]

Pakistan at the 2017 Asian Winter Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIR...Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator fails to realize that articles like these exist for a variety of continental sporting events. They are considered as notable by the relevant WP:MSE Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page is about the performance of a country in a future sports event. Doesn't make any sense to me. Shouldn't we at least wait for the event to be over...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair bit of hyperbole; there's a difference between an event three months away and an event three years away. I'm rather neutral about the page itself (easy enough to REFUND in Feb if it is deleted now) but there is plenty of precedent from various places (politics, sports, film) to have articles a short time before the actual event occurs. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are in favour of keeping the article..? As Sportsfan 1234 pointed out there are other pages similar to this as well...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To quote myself, I'm rather neutral about the page itself. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb to create these articles is when the media mention the team size (or athlete names) or when the Organizing Committee of the said games confirm the countries competing. In all of the countries cases for these games the latter has happened. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:55, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Baig Mirza[edit]

Shahid Baig Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just commanding a corps won't make him notable. Fails WP:GNG... Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a General but a Lt General. I don't think WP:SOLDIER covers Lt generals. There are many serving in the Army. I don't think we can have an article for all of them...Rameshnta909 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"General" is a generic term referring to all officers from brigadier-general up. WP:SOLDIER covers all general, flag and air officers, as it quite clearly states. It even covers brigadiers and commodores, who hold equivalent rank. He is easily senior enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable at this time as shown in this very short stub. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a general officer. They're all covered by WP:SOLDIER, even brigadier-generals! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp But WP:GNG applies right..? The officer should be covered in a secondary source other than the news of his appointment...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we make the assumption that such senior officers will be covered in sources. Remember that doesn't have to be online sources. We never delete articles on officers of this rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any sufficient coverage except the news about his appointment. Just being a general won't guarantee the notability. If that's the case we are opening a Pandora's box. There are hundreds of generals in Pakistan Army alone. Do you support an article for all of them..? -- Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may be hundreds of general officers in the Pakistan Army, but according to List of serving Generals of the Pakistan Army there are only 31 with the rank of lieutenant general or higher, such as the subject under discussion here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point too. There are about 31. Not all of them have the notability for a standalone article. – Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are opening no Pandora's Box, since we have already had the policy that all general officers are notable for years. We have thousands of articles on British and American general officers alone. Any particular reason that Pakistan should be an exception to that rule? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not an SNG, and is subordinate to WP:GNG. No secondary sources have been presented at this AfD that discuss the subject directly and in detail, thus the subject appears to be non-notable and the article should be deleted. A technical SOLDIER pass does not "absolve" an article from the requirement to cite RS to demonstrate notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only sources I can find relate to his appointment to Lt-Gen position. This information is adequately covered in this list. I agree with the above that WP:SOLDIER is subservient to WP:GNG, but SOLDIER itself sets a bar of "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources". At present I would consider this person to be non-notable by SOLDIER or more generally. |→ Spaully τ 11:48, 28 December 2016 (GMT)
  • Keep - Following the expansion by @Clarityfiend I feel the article provides evidence of notability that now meets SOLDIER. I clearly need to improve my searching! |→ Spaully τ  15:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Lieutenant general is a high rank, plus there are a few other bits about him: a previous posting,[9] his family,[10] receiving the Hilal-i-Imtiaz,[11][12] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the fact that the deleters do not claim fluency in Urdu, Pashtun, Punjabi or other languages of Pakistan makes me suspect that they have not identified all potential sources. However there are enough sources, and being at the level he is in the military is clearly enough to pass notability guidelines. Deleting this article would add to systemic bias. We would never even try to delete an article on an American with this level of military standing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Soldier at the minimum, also likely GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:12, 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen: Olaf's Quest[edit]

Frozen: Olaf's Quest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not reach GNG, 60% of the article is a write-down of a review, which also is the only source in the article. The other 40% are the three lead sentences, which are all unsourced. Lordtobi (✉) 14:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - I missed seeing that one, or I would have mentioned that one too. There's probably a good case for nowgamer too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. But really, it would be best covered in Frozen_(franchise)#Video_games just like the other Frozen game and split out summary style... Standard procedure for movie tie-in games, which tend to have pitiful games press coverage and are more important as a facet of the film/franchise than as independent entities. A handful of decent sources above, but everyone who has participated already knows that the majority of them are unreliable. The lack of full reviews should be the tell. Everything that needs to be said on this topic can fit adequately and within due weight in the parent section. Would have been worth redirecting before coming to AfD. czar 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same could literally be said about any game that has its own series/franchise article. The fact of the matter is, there's 4-5 third party sources that cover it in significant detail. That's all that's really required. It's also of note that it was made part of the Nintendo Selects line and and received coverage for that as well, which is noteworthy, as it represents meeting a sales milestone of sorts. (Not sure what it is exactly, but I believe we're usually talking hundreds of thousands or millions of copies sold here.) The lack of dedicated reviews (not a requirement to meet GNG anyways) is more representative of the game's demographic than its notability. (Why would your typical IGN/Eurogamer do a write up on this? The core video game demographic isn't going to buy this, and the core pre-teen Frozen demographic don't need a review to know they'll eat up this stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not Eurogamer/IGN, then why not even newspaper reviews or parents' publications? The point is that the release is minor. When a video game product has some news listings but not reviews, it's usually a sign that there isn't much to say it about it. No, reviews are not required for the GNG, but the GNG does not mean that articles need their own page (it's presumed notability). I don't see how this isn't best handled in its dedicated parent section, especially looking at the lack of information we'd have to write a full treatment of the topic. czar 07:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to address any of the points about sources or sales? Or are you sticking with this generic rambling WP:NOTNOTABLE violation? Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions 1/ about sources The review sources listed in an a earlier response are apparently mostly sites devoted specifically to reviewing Nintendo games. Do they review every commercial game released for Nintendo? Do the review every such game based on a commercial film or franchise?
2/about ratings I see an assertion in one or two of the references that the game is a bestseller . I see no specific numerical or other quantitative information. The mere assertion "best-seller" isa meaningless superlative. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, they don't review every game, or we'd never delete any Nintendo-platform articles, which is far from the case.
  2. Upon my spot checking, most Nintendo Selects are million sellers, but I can't find anything that says they necarrily have to be. But we do have third party sources verifying the game charting (unusual in this day and age for licensed properties on dedicated systems) and that it was an unexpected success. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article in its current form is very poor. The sources above establish its notability, but it may have to be re-written. Dimadick (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree that it needs a rewrite. But with the sources presented, it could definitely be expanded out of stub status. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original nom: Article does not establish notability and does not pass WP:GNG. Only a few proper sources, apart from reviews, could be found, failing WP:SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 21:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think usually the nominator does not also vote. --Odie5533 (talk)
    I wanted to re-iterate my statement as the discussion was relisted. Sorry if that was wrong. Lordtobi (✉) 10:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the bolded !vote. You're free to reiterate yourself, but the bolded "delete" would only belong in your nomination, if you feel the need to put it somewhere. Putting it down here makes it look like a person separate from the nominator has given an additional "delete" !vote. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also puzzled by your comment. Why does "only a few proper sources apart from reviews" somehow make it "failing SIGCOV"? We've got 5+ sources dedicated to the subject at least now - 2 reviews, (GameRevolution, NintendoLife) 2 articles written around its sales accomplishments (HardcoreGamer, NintendoLife), and the MCUK source. Desiring a merge is a subjective editorial call, but I'm having a hard time understanding your objective evaluation of the sourcing in particular here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McCharles[edit]

Steve McCharles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet any requirements of WP:NHOCKEY and much of the info on the subject appears to be wrong or at least unverifiable (as in there are lot of records kept on the old IHL and ECHL but no mention of McCharles). Only media (local-only) coverage I found was on his time as coach for a very low-end unsanctioned junior team , which just so happens to be the user name of the user who created this page. Yosemiter (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage in RS necessary for either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG missing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable hockey coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a junior hockey coach is not an automatic inclusion freebie per our inclusion standards for sports coaches, and as a player he played exclusively in leagues that don't confer automatic inclusion rights on every player but his article isn't claiming anything substantive enough to make him special. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Anderson[edit]

R. J. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of WP:ROUTINE sources that do not meet WP:GNG. No requirements met for WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Quite aside from the stats in the article vastly puffed up beyond reality, this is a NN player with an ephemeral career in the mid-minors and of no particular accomplishments. Doesn't meet NHOCKEY, no evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 04:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:15, 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 00:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Dow[edit]

Martin Dow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO. The only sources that seem to pop up are primary, and the one Bloomberg source links to nothing. When I searched for Martin Down on Bloomberg's website no matches came up. Unless reliable secondary sources can be found, I do not think this company is notable enough for its own WP page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As being G11-worthy; and as per above, what remains when the promo is removed is insufficiently notable to stand alone. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 06:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fight against spam sometimes goes too far. Here, we have an established pharmaceutical company with over 1000 employees, located in a major country armed with nuclear weapons, and covered in reliable sources such as this article that reports that French President Francois Hollande was attending the dedication of a factory owned by this company. On the other hand, articles about tech start-ups with a dozen employees clog our pages. We ought to get our priorities straight. Keep, expand and improve this article about this notable company, and delete the actual garbage instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while the "keep" arguments are weak, there do appear to be potentially more good sources in addition to the one about the price-fixing arrest. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Keeping pages like VaxGen, UrgentRx and GenVec, but not keeping Martin Dow would amount to systematic bias. Besides, enough sources have now been cited to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.165.192 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- has been a subject of government investigation, such as covered here link. Large, on-going business concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does the author have an affiliation with the company? I previously asked that question on my talk page after I had originally tagged the page for speedy deletion. I am aware that this question isn't directly relevant to whether to keep the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per more recent comments concerning notable controversies about company. (I note that I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion, but it was unsourced at the time.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulation (band)[edit]

Manipulation (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this a while back as failing WP:NMUSIC. It was deprodded by WP:SPA creator w/out a comment. Unless someone can find some sources to help demonstrate notability, I am afraid this band is not notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:01, 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. North America1000 22:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fru![edit]

Fru! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Not referenced. Rathfelder (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would suggest keep and merge with the artist's article, but there's hardly anything worth merging besides track listings. I find nearly nothing. Maybe that's because I'm searching in the Latin alphabet, and someone can come along to prove me wrong.
Also consider similar treatment for Na wylot and Polepione dźwięki. Both unsourced stubs that are little more than track listings. The latter claims to have been nominated for an award, and the artist's article claims it was nominated and won multiple, but all of this is currently unsourced. If information on the albums gets too cumbersome for the artist article, then the appropriate step would probably be a discography article, but that doesn't seem currently necessary, since they've only put out apparently two solo albums, and it's not clear how central a role they played in their collaborative works. TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: even on the Polish version of the article, where presumably editors are more familiar and sources more plentiful, the citations boil down to discogs and hiphopapedia. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Khairy Khedr[edit]

Sheikh Khairy Khedr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think the sources for this article reach the standards required for WP:ANYBIO. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 00:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While most search results are either social media or WP mirrors, coverage in Foreign Policy, et. al. is enough to establish WP:GNG notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the founder of a notable organization still involved in the area today, and someone whose life and death is covered by multiple independent reliable sources, the notability of the individual is not in doubt, even though published details and recognition are admittedly rather thin. MPS1992 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_December_28&oldid=1142623231"