Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 December	5 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was snow close/speedy delete as non-notable spam attempt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese food cover[edit]

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

Article is an advert, and topic is not notable. User appears to be creating various similar articles of a promotional nature and linking to the same product page on Facebook. Parkywiki (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page provides more laughs and giggles than actual encyclopedic content. Raymie (t • c) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Looking for gNews, I found this. No reliable sources to support notability. Looks like the author of the Wikipedia artilce is trying to create their own promotion via various media. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to delete the lot as snow close/speedy deletion as spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close/speedy delete as non-notable, spam attempt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese sauce bottle[edit]

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

Article is an advert, and topic is not notable. User appears to be creating various similar articles of a promotional nature and linking to the same product page on Facebook. Parkywiki (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly written like an advertisement. A non-notable object that doesn't require a page. Omega625 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Looking for gNews, I found this. No reliable sources to support notability. Looks like the author of the Wikipedia artilce is trying to create their own promotion via various media. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close/speedy delete as non-notable spam attempt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese rice pudding cup[edit]

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

Article is an advert, and topic is not notable. User appears to be creating various similar articles of a promotional nature and linking to the same product page on Facebook. Parkywiki (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no reliable sources supporting the existence, much less the notability, of this item. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow close/speedy delete as non-notable spam attempt. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese mosquito coil holder[edit]

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

Article is an advert, and topic is not notable. There is already an article on Mosquito coil. User appears to be creating various similar articles of a promotional nature. Parkywiki (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merely an ill-written ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, clear advertisement, no meaningful distinction from mosquito coil. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - they are badly written advertisements in Engrish. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad sameie[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. I could not locate reliable sources sufficient enough to meet GNG guidelines. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. I forgot the status of the Belgian second division changed recently. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gillekens[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Occult, Hermetic and Alchemical Sigils[edit]

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

Book with no independent reliable sources and no indication of any other notability. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Walter Pagel reference is an independent reliable sources. There is also another review by RP Multhauf in Speculum; Volume 58 Issue 01 page 261-262; so I think this passes notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BOOKCRIT - Meets criteria 1 of WP:BOOKCRIT since it has been the subject of at least 3 independent non-trivial published works. Two reviews in The British Journal for the History of Science and one in Speculum. -- Taketa (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Olivier[edit]

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

There's only one Sidney, who should be moved here. A hatnote to Sydney would take care of the baron. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would have been better handled via WP:RM, but now that we're here, the move makes sense. St Anselm (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sydney Olivier, 1st Baron Olivier is erroneously called Sidney in this source. St Anselm (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move cricketer here use hatnotes to differentiate similar names. Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary dab page, move cricketer to base name; add hatnote to point to baron. PamD 11:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Clear consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Just another fictional D&D deity that uses the same handful of primary, in-universe sources and has nothing demonstrating any widespread notability. Like the others that have come up on AFD, they should be either be redirected or merged to the appropriate lists. In this particular case, a merge is more appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Clear consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerzit[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. A mention of him looks like it would be appropriate in a few places, but the character does not seem to have independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. A minor fictional character that has no real-world importance and no non-primary sources. When even the current article refers to him as a "minor" demon lord and that "little is known" about his background, its a pretty clear case of it being a element of fiction not noteworthy enough to sustain its own article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is snow merge a thing? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography of a stray dog[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for films. PROD removed by article creator. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Fails WP:FILM.Nothing notable about the film.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Name of the account of Article creator is same as the director of the film.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Nom. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 19:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1727 (number)[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:NUMBER, as neither of the 2 sources in the article is reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My usual criterion for checking WP:NUMBER is whether the number in question appears early (say, the first half dozen entries) in two or more unrelated sequences of OEIS that are labeled as "nice". It is one of the smallest integers n such that 2^n=7 (mod n) (sequence A033981 in the OEIS) but that one's not nice. It's also early in other boring sequences, A199877 and A034196, and later in some nice ones, but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is no 1729 for cultural purposes. Therefore the only possible claim to WP:NUMBER is #1, three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer. None of the properties listed in the article are "interesting" in my view, so not even close. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far, the page is entirely redundant with the automatic tools linked in it, and neither of the sources is actually a source about 1727 in particular. (I like that kind of scripts, and think Wikipedia might benefit from having its own, but that's neither here nor there for this AfD). Furthermore, this seems to be a fairly boring number. Not even one so extremely boring that it becomes remarkable for it. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aiplex Software[edit]

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

Clear and blatant advertising with nothing here but what the company would advertise about itself, and naturally that's what other sources I found are saying, and quite blatantly at it, therefore also considering we know articles and subjects of this nature are going to have blatant paid advertising, there's simply nothing else to consider, simply see the history for the multiple company-involved accounts (especially Airplexsoftwarebangalore and Aiplex12). There's literally nothing else to suggest anything else especially beyond this blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It seems to be difficult to find current information--tey don't seem to have updated their web site since 2012, But there are two substantial references: 1. ' "10 Facts Everyone Should Know About Anonymous" 'Collective Evolution October 22, 2016 [1] (a site I am not familiar with) contains in a long well-written article 2 good paragraphs of how this firm used Anonymous's techniques. The section starts "This Indian company worked on behalf of the record industry and the movie industry. They launched attacks to sink websites that provided copyrighted content, like The Pirate Bay...." and "Rival 'fakes' website & e-mail ID of anti-piracy firm, lures away clients Deccan Herald Nov 16, 2016, DHNS [2],( a not very reliable source), but a good article awhich makes clear that this is the principal company at least in India,. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:MILL company with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent justification of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Light2021 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Datta Kondiba Mirkute[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG and non-notable person. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:BIO. There is some very weak interview sourcing but no notability or news to be found at this point. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not properly sourced. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Social & Economic Studies (ISES)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable NGO, fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing this as keep due to consensus amongst the participants. I feel that a third re-list would not generate further discussion. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Swazi Sun Hotel[edit]

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

No proof this hotel is notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added ~~two~~ three references regarding its history as well as the regional and economic importance. These sources were easily available and I hope the nominator will follow WP:BEFORE next time. I would expect that an article on a "major entertainment complex" in a Western country that lacked inline citations would be expanded, not nominated for deletion. We should be aware of Wikipedia's systematic bias.--TM 18:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LexisNexis search reveals a few hits but NewsBank which has more African content has over 600 hits (when "golf" is excluded, there are 200). Took me a while to get through all of those, and the vast majority are marginal mentions, but notability is clear: for example, this is where the current king's coronation was announced to the press, it was a key integrated resort during Apartheid (as opposed to the notorious 'ain't gonna play Sun City' about its cousin hotel), and this is the hotel where international organizations and conferences meet at when they are in the country. Keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Education crisis[edit]

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

A personal opinion on the "global education crisis" that violates the What_Wikipedia_is_not#ESSAY policy and has no sources. The topic may be notable, altough it appears to be a new idea (see for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/up-for-school-/the-global-education-cris_b_11448372.html), but the article would need to be completely rewritten to make it encyclopedic. Mduvekot (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrecoverable essay.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Superchunk22 (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pubali Sanyal[edit]

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

Non notable. Failure to cite reliable source to prove notability. WP:TOOSOON Mar11 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of a WP:GNG pass Spiderone 10:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antiblavers[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 04:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails at both WP:GNG and WP:WEB Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Tsoi[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. no inherent notability in any of the roles held. Zero gnews hits except his own company. LibStar (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per several source searches, the subject does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Peroor[edit]

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

No reliable secondary sources added and Seems trivial. →SeniorStar (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a village (third tire of revenue division in the state) of Kottayam District. Article have serious problems with the way it is written and there aren't any sources. Still it would be harsh to delete it without giving a chance to improve the article by finding sources. A maintenance tag for multiple issues would be my choice. It passes WP:GNG...Rameshnta909 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, confirmed here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a legally recognized municipality, the subject plainly passes WP:GEOLAND standards. I've added the census ref (thanks 86.17.222.157) and tagged for cleanup. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the others. It is a recognized population center. Per WP:GEOLAND and WP:5PILLARS. Villages aren't trivial. --Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others and it also passes WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. --Bagas Chrisara (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination →SeniorStar (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Enemy Of My Enemy (TV Series)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Sources are self-published. Cahk (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best this is WP:TOOSOON, as I can't find anything to show that this series is notable enough for an article. From what I can gather, this is someone's project that they're going to release to YouTube. The reason I'm mentioning this is that this would explain why there's no coverage - indie projects rarely gain coverage (before or after release), especially ones released direct to the Internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl. I couldn't find anything either and it seems like it's a YouTube series, or something along those lines. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 02:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagoras Award[edit]

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

A non-notable award from Bulgaria. All of the information comes from either Facebook or the Bulgarian government website. Prod removed by author. Bradv 05:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This award seems to attract quite a bit of news coverage. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep: There is also an Italian one [3]. Neither seems quite notable enough for the English wikipedia. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability or otherwise of the local Italian award of this name has no bearing on that of the national Bulgarian award, which, as I said above, has received loads of press coverage. The notability guidelines of the English Wikipedia do not depend in any way on the country with which a subject is associated or the language in which sources are available. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing a massive google search at people is hardly ideal (WP:GHITS). Some of the results farther down pertain to an Australian tennis competition, for pity's sake (Роджър Федерер потвърди участието си на Australian Open). Out of the first four results, the first seems to be about about a guy being awarded the French "Palmes Académiques" (it's mentionned in passing that he has the Pythagoras too), and the fourth is about schoolkids having a math competition and being divided into three teams, called "Archimedes"," Euclid " and "Pythagoras". Only the second and third hits are about the award / a guy being given it. Another random entry is about something else, and the Pythagoras is mentioned in passing among the guy's accomplishments. It would be muuuuch better if you could find *one* good source rather than many bad ones. (Preferably in English, or at the very least with a translation provided, per WP:NOENG). — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I have found more references to this in English sources. Switching to Weak keep. Weak because the notability still appears low, and the current shape of the article is terrible, so it might be better off if rewritten from scratch. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I was "throwing a massive google search" at people. Four of the first five sources found by my Google News search (note "Google News" rather than a web search for which 99% of results will be unreliable) have coverage of this award, as do most of the rest. Look at the vast majority of those results that are on target rather than the few false positives. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Mention in passing" is not "coverage", so 3 out of 5 (admittedly, a mention is an indirect indicator of notability). It gets better going further down, though. All in all, it appears that the sample of hits I looked at in more detail earlier was quite unlucky (2 out of 6, with two egregiously off-topic). The award is clearly not world-renowned, and it's only 8 years old, but it seems notable enough in Bulgaria, and that is sufficient for inclusion here. (Though again, the article in its current state needs a lot of work, but that's not in itself an argument for deletion). — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article a little bit, so that it looks like a readable correctly formatted stub (we definitely don't need a long list of winners, unless they are notable). I'm not terribly interested in the subject however, so I don't plan on going farther. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Gamall Wednesday Ida for doing the work that I didn't have the time or inclination to do. I am far from fluent in Bulgarian but my knowledge of Russian, and so the Cyrillic alphabet, was enough to see that there were plenty of news sources covering this award. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

What about the evidence, consisting of hundreds of news sources, discussed above is not enough? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too minor. Not a major prize. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Once again you have not addressed the available sources, which are what determine notability. And why do you dismiss a national Bulgarian prize as "too minor". Would you do the same about an equivalent national prize in, say, Ireland or New Zealand, which have much smaller populations than Bulgaria? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of links in English: [4], [5], and an auto-translated one [6]. There are plenty of the same type to be found. This is an official prize by the Bulgarian government, the ceremony for which involves the Deputy Prime Minister of Bulgaria (for instance Daniela Bobeva and Meglena Kuneva at two ceremonies I've read about) and the Minister of Education and Science (eg Todor Tanev), and it is deemed worth making announcements about by non-Bulgarian universities when one of their members gets it. It's clearly not the Nobel, Fields or Turing, but it's a serious thing nonetheless. A serious national award from a European state in good standing should definitely be included here. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 00:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ministry of Education and Science (Bulgaria). Looking at the above conversation, I don't see any sources that establish notability as they are all just passing mentions of the award. Those would be good enough to mention on individual BLP's that someone got the award, but the award itself doesn't appear to have standalone notability. If this was notable for an award, there should be sources delving into the history of the award, why it was established, etc. Maybe in the future that will happen since it was only founded in 2009, but not yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and no need to redirect. There is no article on it in the Bulgarian WP, tho they have several articles on people that mention they won the prize. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources listed above which are enough to show this meets WP:N. This award seems fairly well known (or at least folks winning it seem to be commonly reported) Hobit (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishvapreet Kaur[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect: I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. The actor has only played supporting roles in couple of Indian tv shows which are not enough for a stand alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER...Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) AllyD (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Südwesterößenmaßstäbergehund[edit]

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

A hoax. A Google Search and a Bing search reveal 0 results for this word or its English translation other than this Wikipedia page. The two reference links are 404s. The other reference is a book that can't be accessed, but is unlikely to contain anything about this since no result at all can be found online. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G3) - This is a blatant hoax. The author clearly hopes, by using a German language "word" on the English language Wikipedia, to trick people into thinking this is an actual breed. A few minutes of reading through the ZERO Google results combined with a bit of critical thinking (the Hyena isn't a Canid so wouldn't be able to cross-breed with any type of dog!) should make it obvious. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - After performing a reverse image search on the photograph in the article and the thumbnail of the video in the article, I have found that both are copyright violations of images of Bracco Italiano dogs, the image is from Buzzfeed and the video from a site called "Funnydog" - I've removed them from the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged them for deletion on Commons. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 09:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selfiefeet[edit]

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

This is so trivial it borders on nonsense Also the external link demonstrates it is advertizing.Mark^Dask 06:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. I'm closing this because it has been speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furqan Shayk[edit]

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

not a notable internet celebrity. GreenCricket (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of YouTubers? --Saqib (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying a WP:G4 speedy deletion. I see no need to repeat last year's unanimous Afd deletion discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giant (Clash of Clans)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also goes to all other articles in Category:Clash of Clans troops. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multinom also includes:

Delete; they all fail WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:Notability. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:GNG Reliable secondary sources with significant coverage for each of these do not exist. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ViperSnake151: See WP:MULTIAFD steps IV and V. I think the other pages needs to be tagged {{subst:afd1|Giant (Clash of Clans)}}, and the articles listed here. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all once they are all listed here. — Gestrid (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful article→SeniorStar (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main clash of clans page Seasider91 (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:GNG, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE. Each topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is a not a gameguide. Trivial things like units in a video game are not significant enough for independent articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:GAMECRUFT failing WP:GNG with exclusively primary sources. Redirects are pointless as the main article has no extra information. A list of classes would not have enough properly sourced content to warrant a split from main article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None meet the GNG, nor are they particularly good search terms for redirects Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and close this AfD. This is a clear case of gamecruft, unnecessary for Wikipedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all + the category, cruft and not very well written. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, plus the category, for all of the myriad reasons presented already. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After this AfD closes in a couple of days, I suggest the category be speedy-deleted under WP:G6. In my opinion, it would certainly qualify as uncontroversial maintenance, and I don't see anything there disqualifying it from G6. Nominating it for CfD would be a waste of editor time, in my opinion. It is, of course, the closer's call on what to do about it. — Gestrid (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. These articles are simply game cruft. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuflix[edit]

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

No indication of WP:GNG. WP:SPA making solely promotional pages. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. ~~Yes, this seems to be a very suspect PR-only account.~~ A Google News search for the company name reveals no reliable sources whatsoever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oh I see, it's a WP:Walled garden for Sergio Masís-Obando. The SPA is spamming for him or is him.~~ Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Google News queries justify reliability. There are multiple articles online that teach businesses how to make into Google News. Like many things online it's 'hackable'. Second, this is not spam for Sergio Masís-Obando, nor is this him. The article introduces popular academic incubators, and as such this article discusses one of said ventures incubated. Andresramon (talk) 05:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Also, I don't think this is a Walled garden. I fail to understand how the pages fail to link to relevant items outside of the article itself. Andresramon (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Regardless, the two Sergio Masís-Obando-related articles simply aren't notable from what I can see -- but the other two articles you've created today seem to be. I apologize if I had misjudged you -- a new account appearing and instantly creating articles on non-notable businesspeople is a highly suspect and common activity. So long as you go carefully with article creation and measure every one against the standard of WP:ORG before you create it, you'll be fine. happy editing, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks, @Shawn in Montreal:--and no worries. Coming from your side of things, it makes sense that I would be a suspect. In regard to the nomination of this article, I'd like to counter that this does meet notability. From wiki: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. If we look carefully at the cited sources, in this case these are the 'reliable sources' that noticed the 'organization or product' we will find that this includes three separate academic institutions (respected and world famous, no less) and additional articles in which Shuflix is squarely the focus of the news pieces (a parameter you suggested in my talk page to look out for). I do think that it may be viable to expand this article in the future and make the article more attractive. Andresramon (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon[reply]
Delete as clear advertising part of an advertising campaign so policy WP:NOT applies alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others - fails GNG and pure advertising. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not everything that a student does at Harvard or Yale or even Princeton is necessarily notable, despite the claims above of the editor. In fact, this remarkably trivial random event-recommendation service is an excellent example. No valid sources for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Microwave popcorn#Safety issues. MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microwave Popcorn Bag[edit]

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

Hopelessly non-neutral essay (result of class project) masquerading as encyclopedic article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Microwave popcorn#Safety issues. Definitely not neutral, but has sourced content that the popcorn article lacks and therefore is useful (though need to make sure not to give undue weight to this perspective). Appable (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Since this was a school assignment, perhaps it should be moved back to sandbox, or just have the AFD delayed. But if we just treat this as a new article, it is really original research. Perhaps it could be transwikied to Wikiversity. But on this encyclopedia parts can be merged to perfluorocarbons. Most of the content would be also undue or original research for Microwave popcorn. Unless someone has actually written about disposal hazards of Microwave Popcorn Bag, then the environmental aspects are all OR. The bag is probably a notable topic in itself, but this page hardly talks about it. PS the Chemistry Project is keeping an eye on this class's work, so even without this AFD it would have been merged/redirected somewhere anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Graeme Bartlett, chop it up and merge various bits to relevant articles, but take care not to unbalance the targets. As a whole this article is a synthesis of a variety of unrelated sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Most of it looks like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Looks like there are some WP:MEDRS sources in there though, so some of the content may be usable in various articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep but Move to Tea in Turkey. There is consensus below that "Turkish tea" is an infelicitous title but that a general article on tea drinking in Turkey which would use much of the content of the current article is possible. The preferred title seems to be "Tea in Turkey" but this AfD close is without prejudice to a move to another, appropriate title based on talk page consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish tea[edit]

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

Delete As nominator. --92slim (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Turkish tea; it's just black tea with added boiled water. Turkish tea is prepared the exact same way as Kazakh tea, Moroccan tea or Arabic tea. It's not equivalent to Turkish coffee, which has a specific preparation. 92slim (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's not clear to me why there needs to be a unique preparation for a food for there to be an article about it. Plenty of countries have notable traditions around tea; numerous articles exist about those. It's not clear to me why the Turkey article is uniquely worthy of deletion. Also, for the record, don't delete half of an article (much of it sourced) and then submit it for deletion. It's disingenuous. Rwenonah (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear cases of WP:OR ought to be deleted. Turkish tea refers to plain black tea with boiled water, and the preparation is exactly the same all over Africa and Asia. There is nothing particularly Turkish about it and neither it is known as Turkish anywhere in the world (see Samovar), unlike the Turkish coffee. As for the rest, where are those articles? If so, they could be also nominated for deletion or merger. As an example, English tea redirects to Black tea (because that's what it is). --92slim (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a clear case of WP:OR. There are plenty of sources on the page in question.

Please don't default to "English" to refer to Britain-wide characteristics; British tea rightly redirects to Tea in the United Kingdom. See also Russian tea culture or Indian tea culture.
I don't understand this obsession with a unique preparation; Russian tea is similar to tea drunk in Central Asia and British-style tea is drunk everywhere, with neither uniquely known in that way, but articles still exist. What's important is that local tea culture is in some way distinct or seen as nationally important, which seems the case with Turkey. Rwenonah (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as Turkish tea. No one is talking about Tea culture, or Tea in Turkey. And no, there aren't any sources that refer to Turkish tea - only sources that point to irrelevant facts that don't match the article and citation tags for WP:OR. --92slim (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To report what I put on the talk page: here are some sources that i found by briefly googling the concept:
"Classic Turkish Cookery", by Ghillie Bassan, pg. 211

"The Art and Craft of Tea", by Joseph Wesly Uhl, pg. 110

"Tea and Tourism", by Lee Joliffe, pg. 36.

"Global Tea Breeding", pg. 313.

So evidently reliable sources do believe that there is such a thing as Turkish tea. Do you have sources saying otherwise? If not, please stop asserting it doesn't exist. Rwenonah (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's about black tea, not the abstract concept you just invented called "Turkish tea". I'll repeat it again: no such thing as Turkish tea, English tea or British tea. Maybe it refers to Black tea in Turkey, or variaties and tea blends. 92slim (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) keep The nominator argues that No one is talking about Tea culture, or Tea in Turkey. However, the hatnote on the article explicitly says that the article is intended to be about "the general topic of tea in Turkey", and the article is in Category:Tea culture by country. They argue that There is no such thing as Turkish tea, but this is a) arguably false: there certainly is such thing as tea that comes from Turkey, tea that is consumed in Turkey, and tea that is prepared in the manner in which it is in Turkey (whether or not that manner is functionally distinguishable from that of nearby countries), and b) irrelevant: something doesn't have to exist to be notable, only be covered in reliable sources. Daleks don't exist, and yet we have an article on them. In fact, it seems as if "tea in Turkey" is notable: here and here appear to be two relevant articles, though unfortunately I do not have full access to either. The argument that the article would be better titled "Tea in Turkey" could be made, but that's no reason to delete the article in its entirety. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tea in Turkey is not the same as Turkish tea, so you're simply repeating the same mistake. There is no such thing as Turkish tea, only black tea. 92slim (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Tea in Turkey" and "Turkish tea" mean basically the same thing. Also, it is possible for tea to be distinct in ways other than the variety of tea it is ... national norms, cultural traditions, preparation, etc. are all also distinguishing factors. Rwenonah (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Turkish tea not only exists; it is notable. Andrew D. (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it similar to English tea? --92slim (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhat as both countries are big consumers and so there is a significant tea culture – see list of countries by tea consumption per capita. Andrew D. (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really is no such thing as "Turkish tea", either in its brewing process, its serving, or (beyond the mere fact if it being harvested from tea bushes grown in Turkey) in its type. It's done the same throughout the whole middle east and neighboring countries. Yes, the custom of drinking that quantity of tea might be particular to Turkey, and the shear number of tea shops that serve or deliver the stuff might be unique to Turkey, but that doesn't make the tea itself "Turkish tea" - and nobody ever calls it or markets it as 'Turkish tea", it is just tea (çay). Foodstuffs with national or regional names attached to them have to have some proper justification for that name attachment. An article titled "Tea drinking in Turkey" if there were sources to support it, could be possible. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Tiptoes suggestion, Turkish tea is just plain old black tea. The article is just original research. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A big part of the reason for that is because all of the sourced material in the article was removed without discussion by the same person who submitted it for deletion... Rwenonah (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted material was all off-topic padding. It was content dealing with commercial tea production in Turkey, content about tea drinking in Turkish society, and some stuff about "Turkish herbal teas" (which are actually a very recent innovation, inspired by European and American products, and as Turkish as a Coca-Cola clone can of Cola Turka is a "Turkish soft drink"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it's odd, but all of that sounds relevant to an article about tea in Turkey. It's especially odd you'd use an example of a Turkish product inspired by foreign influences which has an article to justify deleting a similar article. Rwenonah (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about tea in Turkey! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The hat note says, and I quote, "This article is about the general topic of tea in Turkey. For the specific tea variety, see Rize tea." Seems pretty clear and unequival to me. Rwenonah (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish tea is a type of tea is what is being specifically claimed in the first sentence of the lead, and the article is titled "Turkish tea" to match that specific claim - so it is NOT about general tea drinking in Turkey, the article is about a claimed-to-exist specific type of tea called "Turkish tea", a claim which however is not supported by reality or by sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the structure and scope of the lead paragraph is not appropriate to the content of the article. I think the best way forward is to rewrite the lead. Ibadibam (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tiptoethrutheminefield --Երևանցի ^talk 10:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claims that this topic is not notable are clearly false. Here's a list of sources to demonstrate this:
1. Tea and the Domestication of the Turkish State
2. Turkish Tea: A Flourishing Industry in Northeastern Turkey
3. World Atlas of Tea – "Turkish people have a unique method of Serving tea"
4. Essential Turkish Cuisine – "To make Turkish tea, one needs a çaydanlık..."
5. Chernobyl radioactivity in Turkish tea
6. Partial Purification And Characterization Of Polyphenoloxidase From Turkish Tea Leaf
7. For All the Tea in Turkey
8. Caffeine Content Investigation in the Turkish Black Teas

Andrew D. (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Turkish tea culture, which is the intended scope of this article to begin with. Don't delete, as there's clearly notable content here. Ibadibam (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support move.Rwenonah (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tea in Turkey (as per Tea in the United Kingdom) as a title would be more accurate for this option (or Tea drinking in Turkey if only the consumption side is going to be covered). There is nothing specifically culturally "Turkish" about any of it - the tea and its preparation is exactly the same in neighboring countries, and inside Turkey do Kurds, Laz, etc., not also drink tea? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is the tea consumption in neighboring countries not indelibly linked to centuries of proliferation of Turkish culture throughout the region under the Ottomans? Anyway, yes, I think tea in Turkey is fine. The typical organization, if you look at Category:Tea by country, is X tea for tea production and varieties, and X tea culture for tea drinking. Tea in Australia, Tea in the United Kingdom and Turkish tea are the exceptions to the norm. But then we've got unpaired articles like Argentine tea culture, which covers production, and Vietnamese tea, which covers tea culture. I'd say there's enough precedent for us to choose our preference from among Turkish tea, Turkish tea culture and tea in Turkey. Ibadibam (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were no centuries of tea drinking under the Ottomans! It is an creation of the 20th century, with no history or uniqueness substantial enough to justify a label "culture". I think if we are going to have an article about tea in Turkey it might as well cover the production of it in Turkey too.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the fact that promoting tea drinking was a mechanism by which Kemalist national identity was established in the 20th century makes it more notable - and more unique to Turkey. Rwenonah (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. Not that it bears on this discussion, but if tea has only reached widespread consumption in the last 100 years, then why do you suppose tea customs are so similar among Turks, Arabs, Azeris, Persians, etc.? Usually such similarities are rooted in deeper history. Ibadibam (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. but retitle to Tea in Turkey/' , which is the actual subject of the article. There is enough material for an article, and numerous analogous articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Jenkins[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable journalist. Searching for sources results in zero significant reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources are linked to him (his webpage, facebook page etc.). Beyond this he has not clearly held any full-time broadcast journalist positions. Even if he had, it would probably start out as local ones that would not make him notable. Very few 23-year-old broadcast journalists are notable, and Jenkins does not appear to be an exception to that truth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Test cricket series between New Zealand and the West Indies[edit]

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

Fails WP:STATS, minimal context provided. Eight other similar articles were deleted last month. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Ianblair23 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per nominator WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS Ajf773 (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ian; and great work by Ian on all these NOTSTATS things. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree. This and similar lists are useful in showing in one place the results between two Test-playing nations. If WP is to claim to be encyclopedic, then this is the kind of list that could very much answer a reader's question, which is surely what an encyclopedia is about. This isn't "Stats": it's a list of events that have taken place, and involves the "when" and the "where" as well as the "what". Johnlp (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS because, quoting from that policy, "Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context". I would argue for "should" there to be replaced by "must" and in fact I'm going to propose that. This article provides no context at all apart from a very short intro which simply summarises the statistics. There is no mention at all of any people from either NZ or WI; no mention of relations between the teams; highlights, controversies, etc. If it had a decent amount of narrative that provided context, I would agree that it should be kept. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. WP:NOTSTATS is specifically against excessive use of statistics, but also actually states that where stats are appropriate then putting them in tables can help make them more accessible. I'd argue that this is what has been done here, but I'd also argue that this article (and its confreres) is factual information that lends itself to a tabular form, and barely qualifies as "stats" at all. As and when New Zealand next play West Indies, I might well want to know how many times they've played each other in the past and what the score between them is in terms of series. Where else am I meant to go to look apart from my friendly, all-inclusive Wikipedia? I don't mind if you want to add more information to this article about highlights, controversies etc. But these articles have a value. Johnlp (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are here to grow Wikipedia. If this article lacks context then it should get tagged. Deletion is not the only way. This article matches with article List of Ashes series in terms of stats but lacks context only. GreenCricket (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete England/NZ or NZ/WI series are not comparable to The Ashes for example as the coverage about them is limited mainly to players/results, rather than the history. If we keep these, then we'll end up with far too many of these stats articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry to return, but the nominator says that similar articles were deleted last month, but then cites articles that listed individual matches, not series as these do. I think lists of matches are overkill. But lists of series are different. Johnlp (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment. Hi Johnlp, OK yes sorry about that. You are right that what I linked to were lists of matches rather than series. But my argument remains that these fail WP:NOTSTATS. Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. MFriedman (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flackle[edit]

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

It exists, but I can't find any third-party sources to establish WP:GNG. Article has no references and was created by owner. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find sources either. He claims to have added a whole bunch, but when you look at them they are either primary sources or sources that don't add anything to the article (alexa ranking, etc). Definitely a concern on WP:COI, I made that evident in the talk page. Besides that I say we give him some time to build the page. It is in definite need of WP:NPOV though and lacks real objectivity. Semmendinger (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After review and some attempts at fixing up the page, there' just too much information that's not even relevant to the project, and too many edits that seem to promote advertising. Delete for now. In the future, if this app takes off and has some real news about it, the page may be re-written. Semmendinger (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. at best, not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Sources are all self-published or irrelevant Exemplo347 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam and typical "tech startup blurb". No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as it's clear this is only existing for advertising and it's been blatant about it, hence WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - Fails WP:GNG since there are no neutral significant sources. -- Taketa (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Iron[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A WP:PORNBIO pass is questionable, as the XRCO Award for "Unsung Swordsman" is a lower tier award, given that the "swordsman" is unsung.

The AfD in June ~~2015~~ 2016 closed as "keep" (which was a bit surprising to me) on the strength of the argument for the two Swordsman awards. The consensus at adult entertainment AfDs seems to have shifted since then, and much more scrutiny is given to sources (or lack thereof) vs a technical SNG pass. The AfD was not well attended, so perhaps a new discussion is warranted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no reliable sources from publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources means GNG is not passed. WP:GNG overrides the SNG which is also questionable in this case. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just looked at the first AfD (via the above link) and that AfD appears to have been just a few months ago (in 2016), NOT 2015 as the nominator stated; so I don’t know what “consensus at adult entertainment AfD could have shifted” in a few months. The first AfD was opened on 7 June 2016, closed on 15 June 2016 with all 3 new editors voting (in a 7 day period) "Keep." All 3 editors gave very good reasons for their "Keep" vote. These reasons still seem valid to me. There were no “Delete" votes for the first AfD (other than the nominator, Atlantic306). One of the editors of this second AfD (Atlantic306) voting for a “Delete" is the nominator in the first AfD. The other editor (86.17.222.157) voting for a Delete in this second AfD added some negative comments in the first AfD, but did not vote. The nominator of this second AfD states that "the first AfD was not well attended so perhaps a new discussion is warranted," but I would think that 3 editors voting (within a 7 day period; and all voting "Keep") would be considered "well attended." The 3 editors that voted "Keep" in the first AfD were as follows: User:Rebecca1990, User:Wikiuser20102011 and User:Guy1890. User: Zootsuit1941 Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I mistyped. I nominated this article with the knowledge that the prior AfD was 6 moths ago. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTE: I've again recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject of this article has "won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the XRCO Award for "Unsung Swordsman" twice.

Sending an article to AfD less than 6 months after it's been Kept at a very recent AfD is at least mildly disruptive and likely indicative that the subject here just isn't liked by the nominator of this AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly normal, and not at all disruptive, for the suitability of a topic for Wikipedia to be reassessed after such a time, especially when the previous discussion was far from unanimous, and the nominator gave policy-based reasons for deletion without giving any indication of any like or dislike. You may disagree with those reasons, but you shouldn't try to read the nominator's mind and characterise them as "just isn't liked". And surely the word "unsung" in the name of this award equates pretty well to "unnotable" in Wikipedia-speak, because both indicate a lack of coverage in reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Porn is one of those subject areas where we have a tremendous problem with the active editors trying to create their own special exemptions from having to actually get the topics over WP:GNG — such as an excessive reliance on XBIZ (a user-generated industry PR trade blog) in lieu of actual reliable sourcing, or the notion that even though any other award in any other field of endeavour has to be sourced to media coverage about that award before winning or being nominated for it counts as a notability claim, porn should somehow get a special dispensation to use the award's own self-published website about itself as the source. (Never mind that the existence of reliable media coverage about an award is how we determine whether that award is notable enough to count as a notability claim — in the isolated standalone case of porn, we're supposed to accept that something is a notable award just because somebody asserts that it is, regardless of its sourceability or lack thereof.) I want to stress that I'm no prude — I'm as much an aficionado of porn as the next horny single guy — but at the Wikipedia level, porn does not get to make up its own special subject-specific exemptions from having to follow the same content rules as any other subject area. SNGs do not create exemptions from having to pass GNG on the sourcing, but serve merely to clarify the types of things that are accepted as notability claims — but the claim does still have to be sourceable to a GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage before the SNG is actually passed, and SNGs do not confer exemptions from RSability just because passage of an SNG has been claimed. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - XBIZ is not "a user-generated industry PR trade blog"...it is merely an adult film industry trade magazine that is certainly not "user-generated" by any means. The idea that any awarding organization cannot be used as a reliable source for who won (or was nominated for) one of its awards is an argument that has been dismissed out of hand here at AfD for many years now. The specific award ceremony in question here (the XRCO Awards) and its winners have been covered in the past by the likes of the LA Times and several books. Guy1890 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever said that an award's own self-published website about itself is untrustworthy for verification of who won its own awards. But what an award's own self-published website about itself cannot do is constitute evidence in and of itself that the award is notable enough to make the fact of winning it a valid notability claim in an article about a person. The latter most certainly does depend on the extent to which reliable sources which are independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself do or don't treat the winning of that award as news — the extent to which an award makes its winners wikinotable because they won it is a factor of the extent to which the media do or don't devote their time and resources to creating news content about "so-and-so wins XBIZ award".

By comparison, winning an Academy Award constitutes notability for a film industry worker because the media covers the Academy Awards as news, and winning a Giller Prize constitutes notability for a writer because the media covers the Gillers as news — yet lots of other film or literary awards (e.g. "Star Wars Fan Film Awards") also exist which don't get media coverage, and thus don't count as notability claims for their winners just because the award organization issued a press release or named the winners on its own website. If "the award is verifiable on the granting organization's own website" were all it took to hand an award "makes its winners encyclopedic" status, we would have to start keeping articles about winners of local "battle of the bands" competitions and high school poetry contests — the extent to which media treat the winning of that award as news is what defines the difference between an award that is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it and an award that is not.

What the award's own website about itself is good for is verifying things in case of conflict — for example, if two different sources are in conflict about which year a person won their award, then the award's own website is the ideal place to look for verification of which source was right and which source was wrong. But the award cannot self-publish itself into being notable enough to make its winners eligible for articles on the basis of having won it, if the winners can't actually be RSed over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations for one of the relevant award wins in this case here is cited from XBIZ (not from the awarding organization itself - XRCO), which is a reliable source that is both independent of the awarding organization and of the subject of this Wikipedia article here. The notability standard primarily in question here is PORNBIO ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award."), which has been intentionally modeled off of the ANYBIO standard ("has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). The standard here is basically whether or not the awarding organization itself is "well-known" within the adult film industry (XRCO certainly is) and whether or not the specific award category is "significant" (or basically a major award, which is also true in this case). The "Star Wars Fan Film Awards", local "battle of the bands" competitions, and high school poetry contests are obviously not well-known and significant awards. Also, arguments that basically boil down to that something just isn't encyclopedic, which is unfortunately what many anti-porn arguments basically boil down to in the end, aren't to be given any weight here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for whether an award win passes WP:ANYBIO is whether the person got over WP:GNG by garnering media coverage for the award win or not — "won an award" does not create or confer an exemption from having to source the winner over GNG. Like any other SNG, ANYBIO cannot be passed just by asserting that it's passed — it is passed only when reliable source coverage can be shown to properly support its passage. And while you're right that the Star Wards Fan Film Awards, local battle of the bands competitions and high school poetry contests are not well-known or significant awards, the lack of a GNG-passing volume of media coverage for those awards is what makes them not well-known or significant. We don't apply personal opinions to determine what's a significant award and what isn't — we measure the media coverage that does or doesn't exist about the award and its winners. If the award gets a GNG-passing volume of media coverage, then it's a significant and notability-conferring award regardless of whether any individual editor personally cares about it or not — and if it doesn't get a GNG-passing volume of coverage, then it's not a significant or notability-conferring award no matter how desperate an editor may be to create new GNG-dodging inclusion criteria in his pet subject area. Anybody can come along and assert that any award, even the battle of the bands competition or the Star Wars Fan Film, is "significant" enough to merit an ANYBIO pass — the depth of media coverage that does or doesn't exist about the award is how we determine whether that assertion is right or wrong. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the lack of a GNG-passing volume of media coverage for those awards is what makes them not well-known or significant"...no, that's what makes those awards non-notable. There's been a longstanding difference at AfD between a notable award (or award ceremony - one that simply might have a Wikipedia article written about it) and whether or not those awards are "well-known and significant", which is a higher standard than just being notable. I'm sorry, but these are longstanding guidelines that shouldn't have to be explained to anyone whose spent any significant amount of time at AfD in this (or really any other) subject area. "Anybody can come along and assert that any award, even the battle of the bands competition or the Star Wars Fan Film, is 'significant' enough to merit an ANYBIO pass"...no, they really can't. AfDs like this run on consensus, and one is never going to get consensus for those kind of claims. Guy1890 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anybody most certainly can come along and simply assert that any award in existence is "significant" enough to merit an ANYBIO pass — for someone who staked so much of this comment on what should or shouldn't have to be "explained to anyone who's spent any significant amount of time at AFD", you sure don't seem all that aware that AFD routinely sees "votes" on the order of "Keep because he won the [Star Wars Fan Film Award/North Palookaville Battle of the Bands/Jackson Collegiate High School Poetry Contest/Employee of the Month at Arby's] and therefore passes ANYBIO". It is an argument that can be attempted for any award that exists at all, and actually has been tried for many more awards than we actually accept as "notability because award" passes — whether we take the claim seriously or not is determined by whether or not reliable sources can be shown which prove that the award is really as significant and noteworthy as the claimant asserts that it is. And, conversely, it is entirely possible for someone else to argue that even a highly notable award like the Giller Prize or the Prix Goncourt is not a well-known or significant award because they've never personally heard of it before — yes, it's a stupid and ethnocentric argument, but it's one that can be, and actually has been, seen in real AFD discussions too. So in both cases, the determining factor is not the mere assertion of whether an award is "well-known and significant" or not — it's "can the depth of reliable source coverage be located to demonstrate how well-known and significant the award really is or isn't?" Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Subject fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Whether an award is sufficiently well-known and significant to indicate presumptive notability depends both on the awarding organization and the award category. The standard is a proxy for whether award recipients are likely to have generated enough independent reliable coverage to satisfy GNG requirements. An award as an "unsung" performer is premised on the idea that the subject has been inadequately covered, a point reinforced in the case by the absence of reliable sourcing. A Gbooks search turns up only one passing mention; a GNews search turns up only an isolated quote (aside from a castlist or three). Even if the award were enough to technically pass the SNG, that would be overridden by the lack of the independent reliable sourcing needed to sustain a BLP. And most XBIZ coverage, whatever the subject, is client-generated, not independent; XBIZ is a component of a PR business, AdNet Media, and extensively publishes/republishes its client's press releases/PR copy, sometimes with minor touchups. There is some independent journalism in its magazine, but not much, and it is difficult to identify that relatively small share of its output. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a hoax. After several searches I find absolutely no references or Google hits for the article subject or his supposed nickname "Woodfire Warhol." Also absolutely no hits for the 1967 book A Fire Burns Within My Soul: Art in the Conservative Midwest or the "popular children's television program" Can I Have Another? with Johnny Badger, both mentioned in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Bishop[edit]

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

The topic is not sourced enough to merit an article on its own. A general search for sources does not bring up anything very convincing. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This feels suspiciously like a hoax. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single user (who has worked on nothing else), no cites, nothing on Google - I have to concur with J Milburn. Artw (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerän Sanders[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a radio personality, "referenced" only to her staff profile on the website of her own employer and not to any of the reliable source coverage about her that it takes to pass WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. And furthermore, while the article is reworded sufficiently to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues, it adds nothing of substance besides being a straight rephrasing of the staff profile. As always, this is not how a radio personality gets a Wikipedia article -- she gets one by being the subject of coverage in media other than her own paycheque provider, not just by having a profile on her own employer's website. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero hits in Google news search, regular g-search not pulling up independent, reliable sources showing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepdent references to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adesh Katariya[edit]

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

Fails the GNG and NACADEMIC. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – all the sources are documents uploaded to scribd by the article subject. As far as I can find, no academic work has ever cited them. This is the sixth time this article has been created with similar content, in addition to one time as Adesh Gurjar. Kanguole 02:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, wow, this doesn't happen often, absolutely zero library holdings on Worldcat - adesh katariya, books appear to all be selfpublished/print on demand, not necessarily a problem in itself, but have been unable to find any WP:RS, googlesearch brings up twitter, facebook, blogs etc, nothing useable, looks like a case of WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Is this BLP a hoax? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Deleteas a quick search on Google produced nothing significant. Thelmz (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as clearly not acceptable for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF and the sheer number of deletions is enough in that alone. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indicarider (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) moved from talkpage[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torion Sellers[edit]

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

Apart from the fact that the page is almost entirely unsourced, the page is written in such a way to clearly promote the subject. Statements such as "Inspired by the solid work ethic and artistic integrity of Michael Jackson" and "Listing more words on a page won’t do the vastness of Torion’s talent or brilliance justice. The vibrant colorful music he creates, that brims with life, authenticity and possibility, can only be heard and felt." are incredibly inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. A search for the artist on google finds passing mentions in articles but nothing to indicate notability. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is not ready for its own article space. The sources provided are weak and not reliable enough to prove he is worthy of article space in Wikipedia. In my perspective, subject should wait until he receives more in-depth news coverage by reliable sources, if it happens. Scorpion293 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scorpion and nom - subject fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising alone and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, advertisement for the person. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Dante[edit]

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

Good faith google search is not finding references to show this person is notable. References in the article are primary sources or very general (links to home pages of organizations). Can't find a reference to support "Chairman of New Media" at SAG AFTRA (or even find if that's a notable position). Article has been created multiple times at Ruben Dante and Ruben Landon Dante.

If kept, this article needs a serious re-write to avoid promotional tone. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this, "Ruben Dante" I just made a page for, I didn't realize this one existed, however He goes by his First middle and last name, Ruben Landon Dante, thats probably why there is two. The fact that he was chairmen of new media at SAG wouldn't be listed on the New SAGAFTRA website, we talked about this when I initially interviewed him for a book, the reason being is that SAG has merged with AFTRA and archived information simply isn't something they keep in the website however it has been independently verified by IMDb, weather its a notable position, well yes 2011 was when Netflix and Hulu where seeing huge growth without precedent, kind of why that position was particularly important at the time. I just wrote what seems to be mostly common knowledge except for the Options Table so it doubt it would sound promotional in anyway there is nothing suggested or hinting at where or not anything he is saying or doing is a good or bad thing, maybe even seeming more bad than good as his position in new media was quite fiscally conservative and the union wasn't too happy about it nor where the actors. You can surely delete this article and mine, but he has been referenced a bit especially lately so odds are they will keep popping up. Furthermore there are far less notable people, especially as actors that are listed in Wikipedia with little to no serious mainstream credibility at all, If Nothing else he was on the Disney Channel for some time as well as Feature Films. His entertainment company has more than enough articles on its own from various magazines and Amazon's IMDb itself, Not to mention the Hollywood Reporter, Hollywood Advocate, As I've been looking around, it seems less and less publications archive anything online to reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenniseShull (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any secondary references to him as an individual save for IMDb, whose information has apparently been written by the PR department of his company. In addition to there being no reference of his position at the SAG I am skeptical that being what seems to be a middle manager with no lasting impact reaches the threshold of notability anyway. The major claim to notability seems to be his founding of a website called All Things Hollywood, but secondary coverage of that company is lacking as well... C628 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is Actually incorrect, he is not Most Prominently known for his "All Things Hollywood" he is most knows as a trader, and is Most referenced as a Financial Figure NOT ATH, that is just how he got his footing, The only thing anyone related to Ruben Landon Dante had to do with his IMDb is his Biography as it had been continuously inaccurate, he has no control over anything else on that page, if you don't believe that, go try to edit someone's page on there. He is Hardly or At all involved with All Things Hollywood or as an actor anymore, thus I Don't see why anyone on his team would be invested in trying to give him any Notice in that regard, when I made the page I intended it to be more for college students researching money managers in mind not really Hollywood Types. DenniseShull (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenniseShull (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was an Actor On Major Cable and Film, not a "Middle Manager" I'm not sure what c628 meant by that, in fact I don't believe he ever did or does anything in a middle management position given that he seems to be a big proponent of "Direct Access" everything especially in trading an investing.DenniseShull (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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