Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 December	7 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor enthusiast[edit]

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

Tendentious and devoid of useful content. Referenced only by a blog. Rathfelder (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with previous comment and also want to point out it's not really a notable term in any manner and seems pretty sarcastic. There isn't enough substance to create an article on this topic. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 23:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable concept. This article is referenced only to a blog and is overtly speculative, as indicated by the frequent use of the word "might". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and not encyclopedic. -- Dane ^talk 05:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and even if there were more references it would be more suited to Wiktionary. TheMagikCow (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sources provided here do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable 3rd party sources. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Jenkins[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, sources are link to apple music, her twitter and her iMDB page. Single was just released on 12/2, so maybe WP:TOOSOON? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 23:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might become notable in the future but currently falls short of the notability requirements for biographical articles. Pichpich (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is indeed eligible for inclusion on wikipedia. People are starting to attempt to impersonate her on social media pages, and according to website metadata, her name is being searched constantly. It seems fair that she has a wikipedia article letting people know her work history and current accomplishments, especially since wikipedia has become such a frequently used informational website. She is very popular on her social media accounts, and fans have asked on certain social media pages why they can't find her on wikipedia. It isn't too soon, and I honestly feel she is eligible. - WikiPR1234 (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPR1234: Social media is worthless as a source, anyone can get social media accounts. Our general notability guideline specifies that articles need to be based on multiple independent reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson , I didn't only say social media. That was ONE thing used to verify a statement that she made. I didn't know wikipedia contributors were so accusatory and hateful over a new entry. I am stating facts along with what I believe to be a great add to the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPR1234 (talk • contribs)

We're not hateful over new entries, we just don't take kindly to people trying to use our site to advertise. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This page should be kept, because this actress is just as "notable" as countless other public figures (even if small) who have articles on Wikipedia. There are clearly sources to back up the things said in this article. The Internet Movie Database is the best way to verify films, work credits and other info for members of the entertainment industry, which she is. there is also a source here that was added (her twitter page) and that is reasonable, only because it verifies a statement that the actress made about her own music. her social media can be used to verify HER words. Jana424 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)— Jana242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm guessing WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT applies here. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional entry created by subject's manager's assistant, fails WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find sufficient sources which would demonstrate encyclopedic notability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to demonstrate notability. Only one release, less than a week ago. Eagleash (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate any sources that would support keeping this article. It appears to be promotionalism. -- Dane ^talk 05:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Rudd (musician)[edit]

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

Per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. I could not locate any reliable sources to add to the page. The only source provided is a primary source from the musician's band website. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only reference I found other than the aforementioned site was on a Wiki page with only a brief mention. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current references now seem indicate quite sufficient notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have added additional information, sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Reliable sources are easy to locate if you search. Dan arndt (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Superjesus. Article is basically a rehash of that. He lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of Superjesus, Nick Barker & the Reptiles and Southpoor. Passes WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a session muso for Barker, Southpoor are not notable. Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southpoor don't have an article but they do have two notable members: Rudd and Garner (Nick Costa Band, Nick Barker & the Reptiles) and so they are notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southpoor are notable because Rudd is and Rudd is because Southpoor are? Nice bit of circular reasoning you've got there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO as a member of the band Superjesus. -- Dane ^talk 05:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, need multiple bands. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in its current form it is a valid standalone item, see no reason for deletion or changing JarrahTree 09:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 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 redirect to Mobile Crowdsensing. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdsensing[edit]

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

Dictionary article. Unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid stub. This is a relatively new term, but there are plenty of books and articles written about it that can contribute to this article. A few examples: [1] [2][3] [4][5] Bradv 23:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Crowdsensing, per comments below. Bradv 01:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Mobile Crowdsensing, a better article. Crowdsensing usually means mobile crowdsensing and a WP:BEFORE style search shows that "mobile crowdsensing" has reasonable sourcing including a number of secondary reviews out there. Indeed most of Bradv's sources are about mobile crowdsensing. Crowdsensing is a plausible search term, hence a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind that. I wasn't aware of the quality of that article, so never considered that option. There's probably no point in having two articles, so I'll change my vote. Bradv 01:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly happy with that optionRathfelder (talk) 20:19, 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 speedy close.. This is not an article. It's a redirect that the nominator blanked and then took to Afd. This is not the place to discuss redirects I'm going to close and restore the redirect. Take to WP:RFD if you wish -- without blanking it, please. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gear Knobs[edit]

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

The page is unencylopaedic and is one of many nonsense pages made by user Sladen who seems to have ridiculous authorship issues regarding anything to do with The Grand Tour (2016 TV series) Dyolf87 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense TheCrazedBeast (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substance whatsoever, so would fall under A1/A3, correct? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 01:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolis[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD here as it's clear this is still advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else, and it therefore violates policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as AfC reviewer. If there's something in the article that's advertising, it's certainly not clear. It's mostly matter-of-fact statements about acquisitions. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks neutral and there are sources in notables french newspapers, other than the ones already in the article : [6] in Les Échos, [7], [8] in Le Figaro, [9] in Ouest France. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not seeing advertising here, in fact I'd consider it better than average for a corporation article. Notable references per Comte0. Meets GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the sake of policy, no one has even acknowledged how this is still violating WP:NOT, which beats out any guideline such as WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:CORP, and policy is something we use every day; comments such as "I'm not seeing the advertising here" or "it's better than those other advert articles" is not what establishes our policy methods. Also, as for the article itself, it still shows how this is still only existing for the company's own advertising gains. The first link offered by the comment above is literally a "The company's story", so that beats the chances of it being independent. The LeFigaros is in fact apparently a republished PR, the Ouest apparently seems to be between a listing profile and PR. If this is literally the best we can offer here, we're damning ourselves as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure where the advertising is and it clearly passes WP:GNG, As per WP:NOT, any content that a user feels is promotional can be corrected through regular editing and WP:NOT stipulates following Wikipedia:Deletion policy which also states regular editing of a notable topic should be done instead of deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. Joyous! | Talk 00:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option Alpha[edit]

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

Deleted first because of a mass advertising campaign and a user asked for restoration, but quite honestly, this new one has equal amounts of advertising and sole motivations at tgat; the sources and information are simply published and republished advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else and the "notability-acclaims" section lends nothing for actual notability and substance. WP:NOT applies since this is not suitable for this encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in the discussion with user DGG about the merits of the speedy deletion of this page. Looking at the sources, they are all sources – while you may not read them personally – that are useful resources for people interested in this niche industry, option trading. Can you please give an example of text that seems overly promotional or advertorial? Please see this similar page as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TradeKing They are both in the same industry, and both pages provide very much the same information. Andyjkelly (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional. (The earlier copy I speedy deleted was written by a banned sockpuppet, who has written many such articles,, which are in the process of being removed). I declined to restore it. The text for the deleted copy must have been found on one of the websites that hosts deleted articles from WP, for it is almost identical to the present submission. The promotional elements begin in the lede, which is a straight advertisement: "the top-ranked training platform offers some of the most comprehensive options trading resources in the industry including downloadable PDF guides and checklists, video training courses, live webinar workshops, weekly podcast shows, and exclusive options scanning and backtesting software." None of this is sourced, and all of it is puffery. In particular, "some of the most comprehensive" is an utterly meaningless statement, though advertisers tend to word thing that way--it's a clear give-away for the purpose of this article. None of the references are from a general newspaper of magazine,--they are all from specialized newsletters and blogs within the industry. (I advised the contributor that if they wanted to try an independent article, to first look for some better sources. Either they didn't bother, or there simply are none.) For example, the OptionsTradingIQ blog is just an unranked list. Most of of the others are worse: they are his own podcast on various platforms. Usually, when people compare their article with another in WP, the response is Yes, we have a lot of other junk also--but in this case the TradeKing article is considerably less promotional--though I am unsure about its notability also. I think even G11 would be justified for Option alpha. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I had tagged the previous version for speedy deletion and I just saw that it was recreated. The references are not what we consider reliable sources and this wouldn't really satisfy the requirements the WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Lemongirl942 and DGG. Valid points and this appears promotional in nature. -- Dane ^talk 05:30, 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. Just noting that "no references" is indeed an important reason for deletion, see WP:V. Sandstein 08:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-418 b[edit]

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

No references. Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 20:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on the whole, I wouldn't suggest deleting articles simply because they have no references. A bot could do that. In the particular case of astronomical objects, they would be deleted for lack of notability. Wikipedia has general notability policies, but there are special notability guidelines for astronomical objects. There are four main criteria, and only one of them can realistically apply to exoplanets: "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works ... (with) ... significant commentary on the object" I won't vote either way on whether this article should be deleted, but will offer my opinion that not every planet is automatically notable. Lithopsian (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no significant independent interest in this object. A general Google search and a Google news search find no media interest, just a lot of catalog entries. A Google Scholar search finds the paper announcing the discovery and only two papers that cite it. Until media or scientific interest is shown, this is not notable. RichardMathews (talk) 20:04, 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 Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward R. Fyfe[edit]

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

Was prodded a few weeks ago, since it had no references. Now, it does, but none of them go to notability. His citation counts are quite low (highest is 74). A news search turned up virtually nothing, as did searches using the other engines. He has had a few articles published in industry magazines, but nothing about him. In addition, as it stands the article has a high POV issue. He's definitely accomplished, simply not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done what should have been done in the first place and tagged this for speedy deletion as blatantly promotional. I haven't looked into notability, but that's beside the point when we are confronted with such obvious spam. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:20, 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 redirect to Stargate Atlantis (season 4). Closing as a redirect to Stargate Atlantis (season 4). Material is still available through the article history if someone has the urge to merge some of it. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's Crossing (Stargate Atlantis)[edit]

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

A non-notable TV show episode. Delete and redirect to the episode list, as per the next one in the series, This Mortal Coil (Stargate Atlantis). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge as no reason for deletion is given. I am unable to find more independent RS commentary than IGN, but there's nothing in here that should be deleted, rather than merged or redirected as is the norm for non-problematic NN content. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notability isn't a reason for deletion? Any merge would have to be highly selective, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could be merged to Stargate Atlantis (season 4), but why bother? For individual episodes that article is largely just plot summaries. I suppose some of the Production information could be moved... Right now I'm inclined to agree with redirecting it. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- poorly sourced article consisting mostly of plot summary. I'm not convinced there's anything worth merging anywhere, but the title might be useful navigationally. Reyk _YO! 08:57, 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. Speedy deleted four times by four different admins. If she becomes famous enough the protection can be lifted, but as it is it's just been recreated every time it's deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucki Starr[edit]

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

Not really notable - sources are not so much sources as passing mentions and YouTube channels. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. This version of the article is identical to that created by Luckistarrfanpage and ultimately speedy deleted by Iridescent. The few independent sources only had passing mentions of her, if they mentioned her at all. For some of the claims in the article, the cited source would mention another person in that capacity. Accordingly, she fails at having any significance or importance validly asserted about her. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't salt (or at least make an appeal process clear in the deletion rationale so future creators see it). While this person clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria at present, there seems a reasonable chance she'll have her fifteen minutes at some point, and unless the recreation reaches nuisance levels we don't really want a repeat of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Zuckerberg. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't we have a repeat of a decision that was perfectly valid when it was made, just as it would have been valid to delete an article about a Swiss patent office clerk in 1904 if Wikipedia had been around then? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's deletion policy (and in particular WP:G4) means that once something is deleted via AFD, that tends to create a presumption of non-notability which makes it extremely hard to create an article in future should the subject's notability change, as the patrollers jump on it. (Check out the deletion log for Nicki Minaj for a particularly extreme example.) That Zuckerberg deletion was never valid by the deletion criteria of the time; at the time, Facebook had considerably more readers (and multiple orders of magnitude more participants) than Wikipedia itself, and nobody was proposing to delete this or this. ‑ Iridescent 23:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:43, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward B. Kramer[edit]

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

Fraudulent spam for non notable individual bombarded with dud references, primary sources, quotes from him and faked verification. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing wrong with this article. Kerm1120 (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Competence is required. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because its self-promoting doesn't qualify it for deletion. It means you should remove the language inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Asdfsadfsadfsadfsad (talk) 17:30, 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 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - he appears to meet my standards for notable lawyers. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian. Keeping in mind your standards stated need for verification, which part of your essay do you contend is satisfied? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my essay is satisfied insomuch as meeting these four factors: 1, law review editor and author; 2, argued a precedental case, Watterson v. Mallard Bay; 3, called by media to comment on issues for which he is an expert; 4, member of the bar of SCOTUS. Verification: 1, named author at link for law review article; 2, named in case header (as "Ed Kramer"); 3, at least 2 Business Review articles (again, as "Ed Kramer"); 4, SCOTUS keeps the names of all counsel, e.g., here. So he clearly passes my standards. Whether these, however, violate the rule against using primary sources is an altogether different question; the article might have to be deleted for want of secondary sources, and I leave that issue to the closing sysop. I hope that answers your question. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. your essay says "a leading editor", not an author. Kramer is not an editor. If you are expanding to all authors then this essay becomes ridiculously broad (and IMO is already too broad). 2. your essay says nothing about precedence. To include every lawyer who participated in a case considered " Precedential" is ridiculously broad. (and did he argue it). 3. Called on by the media is not mentioned in your standard. 4. your standards state under non-notability "Admission to the Supreme Court of the United States is not notable enough." On the verification 1. Author only, not editor. 2. Huh? really? 3. What 2 "Business Review articles". Commenting to the media does not make you an expert. So no, it does not answer my question. It does however raise another. Why are you dropping your standards to try keep this disgusting piece of fraudulant promotion? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that he wasn't an editor on law review, and I don't see that I'm lowering my standards. In any case, I don't know the guy and I won't insist on keeping this page. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Missing in the citations and doesn't seem notable from what I located online. -- Dane ^talk 05:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried cleaning this article up, finding out what info was cited sources, and what other information was out there. There are NYT articles for a person of that name, but he was made senior VP of Dime Savings Bank - and there's no mention of a banking career history in this article.

It seems like the claim-to-fame is a case that went before the Court of Appeal in Louisiana, that he's a real estate developer, and had been quoted several times about his opinion of the housing market. He is on the board of the Baton Rouge Growth Coalition, so that's good. But, I am not seeing anything close to "significant" coverage, and when he's covered, it's generally a few sentence quote. I also don't see attainment of a very notable event in his career. So, all that said, it seems that there the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:N guidelines.

Bearian, Regarding SCOTUS, are we sure it's the same Ed Kramer? Because the article said that the case brought before the Supreme Court was Watterson v. Mallard Bay, but the writ to the Louisiana Supreme Court was turned down - that case wasn't heard by the state or federal Supreme Court as far as I can tell. With the bloating in this article, if it was the same Ed Kramer on the No. 10–708, First American Financial Corp., Successor in Interest to First American Corp, surely it would have been in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ed Kramer that tried the case before the Supreme Court was an attorney at the Fair Housing Law Clinic at Cleveland Marshall College of Law. There is a picture of him there in 2011 - he would have had to have changed a lot since the 2006 photo in this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is for this case. Bearian (talk) 04:05, 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. Consensus is that the subject does not presently meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Dang Nguyen[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. created by a single purpose editor. Has not held any high academic positions like professor. He is only the lead author on 2 of the quoted articles. Also an orphan article LibStar (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, nothing shows notability as the article currently stands. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources that show notability. -- Dane ^talk 05:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing notable here. run of the mill doctor. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 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) 11:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Teja Nath[edit]

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

Unable to find any source or references about this saint. Doesn't pass WP:GNG.

@Iridescent:, Read the Legends section The villagers of Kirthal relate several legends about Baba Teja Nath:

Once Baba Teja Nath was sitting with his disciples and he suddenly started laughing, after a disciple asked him for the reason for his laughter he said that in a fair held of the bank of river Ganga a tightrope walker was performing an act and in the middle of the rope his trousers came loose and everyone present at the fair started laughing so Baba also laughed. Later that day when the villagers who went for Ganga Snan returned to the village the disciples told him the story that Baba told them earlier that day while sitting with them and whether it is true or not, the villager said that it is completely true and Baba was standing beside the villager when the event occurred. It is said that Baba Teja Nath was present at two locations simultaneously.
Once some holy scholars from Haryana to Haridwar going through Kirthal in midway for meeting Baba Teja Nath. When they arrived it was raining heavily accompanied with thunderstorm and hail. The scholars became jitter and started escaping into nearby houses. In reply to this Baba Teja Nath shouted at them and told them that he has drawn a line on the ground and they should come inside the area of the line. All the scholars obeyed him and once they were inside the area of the line they saw that the area was completely free from the thunderstorms and not a single drop of rain fell in that area. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous Spider-Man, will you please read what Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion actually says before you tag any more articles for deletion? There is absolutely zero likelihood that this topic was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, which is the sole criterion for whether something is deletable under A11. (Aside from anything else, it's been mentioned in the parent article for over two years.) Speedy deletion is nothing to do with notability. ‑ Iridescent 14:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to indicate notability. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party WP:RS that justify content or notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. self-written spam with no proper sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ovais Ahmed[edit]

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

COI, only sources and coverage are from self titled website and a fb page. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:02, 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 keep. With nothing against opening a new AfD if someone feels particularly strongly about this. Sam Walton (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Droop-E[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It doesn't look like it fails WP:MUSICBIO. Need more sources though...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am finding NYT about him and his father, NPR, a few articles on HighBeam that could be used. If there are some sources to back up his recordings, it seems he would meet WP:MUSIC.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 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. Deleting as WP:TOOSOON as this station does not exactly exist yet. Joyous! | Talk 01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

600 AM Vancouver[edit]

600 AM Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

91.5 FM Surrey, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Two WP:TOOSOON articles about planned future radio stations which received their license approvals from the CRTC yesterday (and I do mean literally within the past 24 hours), but have not yet actually commenced broadcasting as required by WP:NMEDIA. While it's true that Wikipedia used to let licensed but not yet launched radio stations hold a presumption of notability because of the license approval itself, we don't anymore -- there have been far too many radio stations that got approved but then failed for one reason or another to actually get off the ground and had their licenses expire unbuilt, so consensus is now much stricter that a radio station does not get an article until it's actually on the air. No prejudice against recreation once the stations are actually transmitting signals, but "newly licensed future station which still exists only on paper as of today" is not enough in and of itself for a Wikipedia article anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: General note: Two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also agree that it is WP:TOOSOON. Maybe the station will fail, and the article will be entirely pointless. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; radio stations that have just been licensed don't quite have the presumption of notability for broadcast stations, and it's too soon to say if these two newly-licensed stations ever will, especially since both stations have until November 28, 2018 to commence operations (and they can request extensions of time if necessary). The 600 AM station's licensee, Sher-E-Punjab Radio Broadcasting Inc., has previously leased a US-based station, KRPI (in the process running afoul of the CRTC; also of note, that company name currently redirects to KRPI), so something about their planned station could be mentioned in KRPI's article (which already mentions an earlier Sher-E-Punjab application for 600 in Vancouver that the CRTC denied in 2014), but there's no need for a separate article yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESOM School of Music[edit]

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

Non-notable educational institution, no reliable source coverage. Appable (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a WP:SPA, WP:COI article, which has been through various transformations without ever establishing reliable 3rd party references, which my searches have also failed to locate. Nor am I seeing any real claim of notability for this tuition centre, even in the strongly promotional version which was recently edited-down in place of G11 deletion. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, and just another more WP:PROMO article, with WP:COI created by a WP:SPA editor. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non diploma offering school, so school exception does not apply. would need to meet CORP and won't by a mile. Even pared down it is still very close to G11 territory. John from Idegon (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in three online Ugandan newspapers (some false hits, but I read the articles and no mentions actually made of this school). No hits in Newsbank, LexisNexis, and Proquest. No evidence of notability. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the unsourced claim to have 1,600+ students can be confirmed. This Google StreetView image of their Rubaga Road location suggests that they are not a large institution. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and appears to be WP:PROMO. -- Dane ^talk 05:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Men[edit]

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

This single does not meet notability criteria for singles or for songs. If the details can be sourced, merge them into the article about the album The Adventures of Women & Men Without Hate in the 21st Century. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article as written is definitely inadequate, but this song was a top ten charting hit: you'll see it in this chart parked at #8 between Lou Gramm and Paula Abdul. And on a ProQuest search, I am finding a few pieces of coverage that specifically address aspects of the song, including some criticism of the possessive implications of the lyric "Stop pushing your women 'round" and some implications that the anti-violence theme actually fed its chart performance — it actually seemed to be stalling out on the charts until Polytechnique happened, and then bam, top ten because current single by band from Montreal which addressed violence against women = easy instant anthem. So, yeah, that's notability per WP:NSONG. I'll substance and ref it up properly. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for improving the article. Would you also be able to use ProQuest to help improve Sideways as well? Heepman1997 (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NSONG, WP:GNG - Has been highly ranked on a significant music chart. Ranked #8 on RPM, which is one of the "Recommended charts" listed at Wikipedia:Record charts. Also the song has received significant coverage in reliable secundary sources and meets WP:GNG. -- Taketa (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand - sufficient evidence of notability DocumentError (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 - obvious WP:BLP1E Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saneie Masilela[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Meatsgains (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it warrants it's own article as there isn't enough information available to reliably source an article. Perhaps it could be added under one of the Child Marriage articles? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with measgains because he was also notable for the initial engagement, the subsequent wedding and finally the onsummation of the marriag. That is a total of three flurries of media attention, and all instances included reliable sources. Also, he is arguably the most notable male child subject to marriage in contemporary history. At least in terms of media coverage he is almost certainly the most notable with the term "sanele masilela" conjuring up 38,000 returns. Also, when you take into account the different transliterations of his name the total search return is arguably roughly double that. Negingxiilch78 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because something returns x amount of results on google does not mean that it is notable or can be appropriately sourced. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Negingxiilch78: I suggest you read through WP:BLP1E, which states that we should avoid having an article on a person "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Meatsgains (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability whatsoever. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Clean Copy^talk 20:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's been said above, but clearly WP:BLP1E applies in terms of coverage only in the context of a single event. There is nothing else upon which to build an encyclopedia-worthy biography. The news coverage is low quality too, with an unseemly colonial attitude ("look what those backward Africans are doing now"). Let's not stoop to that level ourselves. Deli nk (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reason why this is notable. Furthermore, a Google search reveals very few results, indicating there is little information on the topic. Agree with User:Deli nk above. LoudLizard (📞 | contribs | ✉) 22:27, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Also deleted Albert Aflitunov for the same reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Aflitunov Ptolemy[edit]

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

Previously deleted for reading like a hoax, no notability and web links are not actual sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please see previous AfD discussion regarding this being a hoax: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aflitunov Albert Ptolemy Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 23:18, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential elector candidates, 2016[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Huge and useless list of mostly unknown people. Massive fail of WP:NOTADIRECTORY". Article dePRODded by creatto and on the talk page of the article the argument is made that we have lists like this for earlier elections, too. This is incorrect. We have earlier lists of electors, whereas this is a list of elector candidates. Most of these (largely non-notable people) will not even become an elector. This is pure listcruft. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list of the candidates is unwarranted, and as such, I think that this should be deleted and the list of electors be created after the results can be confirmed, and a more informative list can be made. Omega625 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States presidential electors, 2016 was started in October, and has extensive sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is largely a duplicate of List of United States presidential electors, 2016, and it is the electors who are legally entitled in the Electoral College based upon the winning candidate in their home state who are most important.--TommyBoy (talk) 05:05, 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. copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Mersmann[edit]

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

Clear COI, potentially notable but article does not convey notability Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article text as it stands is copied from the subject's website. If that is to stand, User:Armin Mersmann would need to follow the WP:DONATETEXT procedure. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jascar[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Just another minor D&D deity that has no non-primary sources. As he is not present on the current list, a Merge is the most appropriate action.64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless third-party sources are forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per 64.183.45.226's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities as this is the best target for the content. -- Dane ^talk 05:40, 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. A redirect can be separately created (and contested), we don't have enough discussion of that here to determine a consensus for or against it. Sandstein 16:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina alidodova[edit]

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

Child contestant on TV talent contest, who does not meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only coverage I can find are blurbs written by talent management agencies, a youtube video and an instagram account. Not notable at this point. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Umed Alidodov#Personal life. She's the daughter of a former Tajik football international. I added a mention of her there. There's a few articles on her in Russian but not enough to warrant her own article at this time; redirect is fine for now. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know what the detail of policy says about this, but by the spirit of WP:BLP there should be a presumption in favour of deletion of articles about children who have marginal notability. Being the daughter of a marginally notable person also means that this girl shouldn't have her future life defined by having the first hit via a search engine being a Wikipedia article, which, if this is kept or redirected, it will be after the current social media buzz dies down. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:BLP applies to age at all. Lots of kids/spouses etc redirect to another article about their more famous relation. Articles I added date to 2012. It's not social media buzz. She's gotten coverage in Tajik media, and I would assume additional coverage in Arabic, since she sings in Arabic as she lives in Dubai. She doesn't meet GNG now, but I fail to see why a redirect would violate BLP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course age is relevant to WP:BLP. If adults choose to put themselves in the public eye we can assume that they do so knowing the consequences. The same can't be said for children. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you're talking about. She is an aspiring singer, model and actress who appears on television and has articles written about her. These articles clearly identify her as the daughter of Alidodov. There is one line about her in her father's article under personal life. What is the BLP violation by having a redirect? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had explained myself clearly, but obviously not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:15, 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 Undead (Warhammer). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Kings (Warhammer)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Undead (Warhammer). These articles are not very well put-together, but, while we have the "parent" article, a merge seems appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per J Milburn. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I could not find any independent reliable sources offering significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Undead (Warhammer). Since the information here is completely unsourced, merging would be inappropriate, as it would just consist of adding unsourced material to another article. Another article, I might add, that has major sourcing issues of its own already. If, however, some reliable sources backing up this info are found, I would not be opposed to changing my recommendation to Merge instead. I'm not sure how likely this is, though, since while my searches do bring up a few hits, none of them are in depth or from reliable sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Undead (Warhammer) as this seems like the most appropriate target for this article. -- Dane ^talk 05:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Undead (Warhammer) per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. spammy self-promotion from non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzy diddy[edit]

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

Notability not truly met, COI issues. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seeing essentially 0 coverage. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any importance and significance to be encyclopedic. JackTracker (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion He is a verified artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamdizzydiddy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. Only sources are social media, which don't count toward satisfying WP:MUSICBIO.--Drm310 (talk) 18:44, 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 Speedy deleted by User:Samtar (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News on Girard, Texas[edit]

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

Potential COI, does not meet notability guidelines Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 17:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Confused what the article is even about. If it's about the book named, I don't see that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (books). NickCT (talk)
Speedy delete per CSD A11 and possibly G11. The creator of the article has the same last name as the person who wrote the book the article is trying to be about and doesn't assert the significance of the subject. It reads like a blurb from the back of the book, and even mentions the availability on Amazon. If someone else concurs I will tag it. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur, if that is allowed. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 19:39, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Development Finance[edit]

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

institute that was created in 2016 and almost no links on the web. does not meet criteria WP:CORPORATE Domdeparis (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The organisation appears to have existed since 2013 [10]. However I am not seeing a presence in reliable 3rd party coverage, so at this point it appears WP:TOOSOON to meet the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: Additional independent, third party sources (University of Cape Town, Agricagrowth Institute, and the academic journal "Africagrowth Agenda") have now been cited to establish notability. MarxyMarx123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the sources that you have provided is that they just identify the organisation in a cursus but do not talk about it as such and one of them is a partner organisation. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a citation, SADC-DFRC (South African Development Community Development Finance Resource Centre), an independent secondary source discussing the activities of the Chartered Institute of Development Finance. --MarxyMarx123 (talk) 10:44, 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 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a notable professional institute in a country where English is used as much in professional circles as it is in South Africa I would expect there to be at least a few sources found by Google News or Google Books for its English name, but there are none. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the added sources are primary sources. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weakly sourced with primary sources and looks like it may not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. -- Dane ^talk 05:42, 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 speedy Delete. Speedy deleted A7 by Iridescent (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 21:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge tree training[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG . The sources are press releases and all I can find in my searches are blogs and social media. Jbh ^Talk 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP as there is no substantial coverage of the company in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 13:34, 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 redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Opinions are about equally divided between keep, redirect and delete. There are what seem to be valid arguments on both sides; whether one considers this term to describe the same thing as Political positions of Donald Trump (making it a content fork), or a separate topic (a distinct ideology vs. a disparate set of positions) is a matter of editorial judgment which I can't determine by fiat. What I can tell, however, is that on balance we have consensus to not continue to cover this as a separate article. In such cases I find that the best thing to do is to close the AfD as a redirect, which allows subsequent editorial consensus to work out whether and what to merge from the history into the target article. Sandstein 08:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpism[edit]

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

~~This article seems to exist only to criticize Donald Trump (note that the lede says Trumpism is based on the CONTROVERSIAL remarks of Donald Trump - in other words, the bad stuff).~~ Previous incarnations had more detail, but very little that was definitive or factual. I deleted one particularly outrageous, poorly sourced claim[11] which by itself makes me think the article and its history should be erased. What remains is just an attempt to establish that Trumpism is a word, and evidence that there are various theories about what Trump believes but nobody is really sure. IMO there is nothing here worth salvaging. I propose that the article be deleted and then redirected to Political positions of Donald Trump, where it is already mentioned and briefly described. MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you deleted was actually one of the few claims in that article that actually was sourced. Most of the article before hand was just a bunch of stuff somebody made up about what *they* thought "Trumpism" was and then tacked on sources to make it look legit (it wasn't).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This title was originally created as a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump; it was RfD'ed and kept in November. [12]] It was expanded to an article later that month by User:‪LavaBaron‬, who I am pinging as the actual author of the article. In the history I noticed another outrageous addition to the article [13]; it was promptly deleted but IMO gives yet another reason to nuke the whole thing. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions by LavaBaron (thank you) have restored neutrality to the article. But still, all it includes is: proof that the word exists, a list of a few catchwords, and evidence that people can't agree on what Trumpism is. I still favor delete and redirect to the more substantive article Political positions of Donald Trump. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which revisions would those be? He created that mess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Donald Trump. This is actually about him, not some "...ism." BTW I didn't find the article so negative, just poorly worded in a couple of places. Which was easy to do considering the vagueness of the topic.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - For a number of reasons, the best of which is probably WP:NOTNEO. NickCT (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - After taking a closer look at the sources following LavaBaron's prompting, the term appears to get direct coverage from RS and probably meets notability criteria which is the fundemental basis for inclusion. Still seems a little un-encyclopedic though! I grudgingly switch to "Weak Keep" NickCT (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just to be clear, this article was not created "only to criticize Donald Trump." This is the original form of the article which was even and balanced [14]. I even posted a notice that I had created the article to the Donald Trump WikiProject. Obviously, it has attracted some SPAs and IP editors since then. (1) I'd suggest the way to resolve SPAs and IP editors is through protecting an article, not deleting it, (2) I have restored the substantive elements that make the article encyclopedic and am pinging NickCT, MelanieN, Kitfoxxe with a request they take another look at it now. "Bulletproof" LavaBaron (Survivor of 4 DYK TBAN Attempts) (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: - I don't really care whether the page was or was not created to criticize Donald Trump. My only question is whether the subject is notable and I don't see evidence that it is. Could you point at the specific notability criteria you feel supports the inclusion of this article? NickCT (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: my apologies, I didn't mean to imply that you had claimed the page was created to criticize Donald Trump, my comment was directed towards something another editor had said and I perhaps didn't make that clear enough. I believe it merits inclusion on the basis of WP:WORDISSUBJECT similar to Gaullism, Craxism, Sihanoukism, Owenism, Garveyism, Powellism, etc. On another level, beyond WORDISSUBJECT, I believe it meets GNG on the basis of it being declared one of the "10 words of the year" of 2016 and that naming receiving widespread coverage in RS [15], [16], [17], etc. LavaBaron (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it appears to be a word used in the media. Los Angeles Times, MIC, Rolling Stone, Post. Just like a Bushism. ValarianB (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great non-policy based argument, followed by an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Bushism" is an entirely different concept. It says "This article is about George W. Bush's often unconventional use of English. For his political ideologies, see Political positions of George W. Bush." Similarly, for Trump's political ideologies we have his "political positions" article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure I pointed out solid reliable sourcing, followed by a reminder that we have articles on similar topics with similar sourcing, Nick. No need for hostile tones. ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a neologism or a term of convenience, not an actual thing. Not an ideology, not a "theory", not... anything except "stuff that Trump said". Usage of the term in some sources is necessary but not sufficient for notability. Whatever is useful can be placed in Political positions of DT article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in reliable sources alone is sufficient for notability. Of course, we can always debate what the meaning of the word "significant". NickCT (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 6 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) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect While reasonably sourced and NPOV versions exist, the problem here is called WP:SYNTH. Yes, there are sources that have used the topic. But this is more of an anthology of quotes, than coverage of the topic. Not enough time has elapsed to view the topic as presented as something that exists without Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Add: Since WP:SYNTH does not have a WP:DEL-REASON, add WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Political positions of Donald Trump . What people consider Trumpism is referenced there already. p b p 21:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. On the surface, this seems like a vanguard set of policies, like Reaganomics. In reality, it's a neologism with little actual substance behind it. It does not seem to be a subject that should be WP:FORKED from one of the main articles.- Mr X 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. The subject of the article appears to be indistinguishable from that of Political positions of Donald Trump. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure. Nearing the million search results it jumps the GNG easily. While it now could still be both a redirect or a short article, it is very likely to develop soon but yet not easy to predict if more like Bushism, Reaganism, Kennedyism, Fordism and many other -isms like LavaBaron cited above. --S I 23:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the examples you give: Reaganism is a redirect (to Political positions of Ronald Reagan). Kennedyism is a redirect (to John F. Kennedy). Bushism has nothing to do with political positions; it's about the odd ways GWB used the English language. And Fordism is about Henry Ford, not Gerald Ford. Not a very convincing argument to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim my examples were not a good argument, but my argument is the pure amount of the use of this word in RS, what clearly establishes notability. + trumpisme, trumpismo, Trumpismus, q:Trumpism ... That the reception of what Trumpism is and that the content of the article does and will certainly develop is no reason for deletion, too. --S I 01:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But how does the topic of Trumpism differ from the poltical positions of Donald Trump? We don't have separate articles about different names for the same concept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump per MrX; the sources use this term in a broad variety of ways; this is a neologism with no settled meaning, or even any unifying theme. Neutrality^talk 00:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Until we get a taste of what Trump will actually do in the next few years, there is no basis to define Trumpism except speculation and fantasy. Weak support for a redirect to political positions, although this might encourage further raging flame wars there. — JFG ^talk 20:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to political positions of Donald Trump, noting that this was the result of Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_10#Trumpism. Protect the page to prevent recreation if necessary. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I hear frequent references to Trumpism on television and radio, by notable people such as former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. The only hesitation I have about keeping the article is that we don't yet know what Trumpism will really turn out to mean, as we aren't even into the first 100 days of his presidency. I would suggest keeping the article as a brief stub and expanding it as the meaning becomes more widely agreed upon over time. Most of the other Trump articles to which it could be merged or redirected are already bloated, unfortunately.--FeralOink (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again this argument doesn't address the question of how the topic of this article is different from that of political positions of Donald Trump. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to political positions of Donald Trump and Merge some of the information in this article there. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The so-called ideology has significant following and has been covered in the media. MB298 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, what distinguishes Trumpism from the political positions of Donald Trump? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The political positions article is already extremely long. Identifying an ideology is more of an academic exercise. JJARichardson (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article can't seem to identify or define the ideology. Definitions, academic and otherwise, are all over the map. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has academic sources and the topic is notable. However it needs a clean up. Rupert Loup (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many more times does the question need to be asked before people stop ignoring it? What is the difference between Trumpism and the political positions of Donald Trump? I feel that I'm getting into Paxmanesque territory because of the number of times this question has failed to be answered. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to political positions of Donald Trump. This is always going to be a battleground because most people who follow this ideology are unlikely to accept a lot of the fundamentals about it (e.g. that it is founded on bigotry and ignorance of reality). Guy (Help!) 11:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. Not a sufficiently distinct topic. See WP:NOPAGE. ~~If we find out people don't like that redirect target, then we can delete it, retarget it, and say the first one didn't exist.~~ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until it gets secondary sources, i.e. sources produced when this is no longer a current topic. Anything written now is part of this subject's time period, so it's a primary source for this specific subject. If it endures, e.g. fifty years from now we're talking about the latest influence of Trumpist politicians, sources written between now and then will potentially be secondary sources at least for the origins of the movement. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 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 redirect to MechWarrior#In-universe_timeline. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries[edit]

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

the game will be released in 2018 and as the article says So far there has been no information released about MechWarrior 5 So this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON Domdeparis (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:TOOSOON. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Merge/Redirect to MechWarrior, per arguments below. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to MechWarrior. Common practice is to document future/too-soon works on the series' page. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It is a valid search title as it has been announced, but we definitely should not have a separate article at this point. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MechWarrior#In-universe_timeline before coming to AfD. czar 08:19, 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. Whether a redirect to the founder Robert Parry (journalist) is appropriate is a separate matter; nothing here precludes creating such a redirect. Sandstein 08:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consortiumnews[edit]

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

A news service. This article was speedily deleted per WP:A7 (no assertion of notability). The subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 28 decided to refer the article to AfD to determine the topic's notability. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be secondary coverage that says anything about it. It's just other news sites quoting it or in one case recommending readers make a donation.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consortiumnews doesn't seem to have ever been mentioned by other news sites. NickCT (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. What coverage I can find consists of republication of articles published in Consortiumnews, citations to things published in Consortiumnews (usually on the topic of conspiracy theories) or coverage of the founder (who has an article). It was argued in the DRV that citations and republications confer notability, they don't. Hut 8.5 19:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. Noting, also, that per WP:INHERITORG, the founder's having an article on him is irrelevant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge [18] is a very solid source, but there isn't much else that really discusses the site. It *is* heavily referenced (and briefly discussed) in a book by Oliver Boyd-Barrett. Also referenced heavily in [19], [20] and other books. A redirect is appropriate. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit: It's actually articles by Parry being heavily referenced. I can't see any other articles from Consortiumnews being referenced. Would I be correct in assuming, then, that by redirect, you mean to the Parry article (which would make sense given his profile)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most are by Parry at the Consortiumnews. I don't think there is enough for an article separate from Parry's article, but I do think there is enough we should be redirecting to Parry. And I do think the coverage of this at Parry's article could be a bit more detailed I've updated my !vote to include merge, though not as detailed as the text that you reverted (which was major overkill in terms of content and format). Hobit (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. Parry is notable, but the article on him kept getting hijacked as a COATRACK to include opinions deemed to be UNDUE for the relevant articles by pointy editors whose content was rejected by both policy and consensus. I have no qualms about the article on Parry being developed to reflect that he is a respected, if subversive, political journalist using quality references supporting his notability. In fact, there was a redirect in place to the Parry article, but Consortiumnews changed its name slightly earlier this year, which has probably broken the redirect. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG - no coverage that is significant by third party sources. -- Dane ^talk 05:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Russia Insider has an article praising it, isn't it commentary?--RekishiEJ (talk) 15:39, 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Francis[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Have found 2 mentions but nothing substantial, Fails BASIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of substantial coverage. Her roles are almsot all as an extra or very minor character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 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 01:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not clear she meets WP:NACTOR. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junnie Cross[edit]

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

Cross's lone claim to notability is being Miss Delaware. As it stands this article has one source, which is neither fully indepdent, and I am not sure how much it would be considered reliable. To pass GNG we need multiple sources, and in a way that overcomes one event concerns. My search on google could not find any sources that provide indepth coverage of Cross as subject in a reliable source. There are probably a few from the time she was Miss Delaware, but unless shown otherwise there is no reason to suppose these are enough to establish notability beyond that one event. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's literally nothing here but a few trivial pageants and nothing else, so there's clearly no other convincing achievements for significance, let alone notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't see any coverage. NickCT (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage of this person outside of passing mentions regarding pageants. -- Dane ^talk 05:48, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Kurtz[edit]

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

In theory there are two claims to notability, one being Miss Delaware, the other being a news anchor at the local level. The first is not enough on its own, and beyond that we actually lack any sources directly about it. My search on google came up with little. I did find this [21] which from the title does not strike me as a reliable source, and merely fact checks that Kurtz was Miss Delaware. Also this [22] extremely short blurb from the University of Delaware. The two sources we have here are her own website and the website of her employer. They prove she has worked in broadcast journalism, but nothing her shows her role in such has at all been notable. So she is a non-notable beauty pageant contestant and a non-notable broadcast journalist. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial pageant participation and achievements, nothing outside of its specific field to ascertain any actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no separate notability outside of a state-level pageant win, and this is not sufficient per prior outcomes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Elizabeth Williams[edit]

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

Williams lone claim to fame is being Miss Delaware, and this is not enough on its own to justify having an article on her. By most interpretations we lack any sources that fit the criteria for meeting GNG, that is reliable, 3rd party, secondary sources. The one source is from the Miss Delaware organization, which has interest in mentioning and promoting its title winners. Even if we were to accept that it is indepedent and reliable enough to count, GNG requires multiple sources, and we would have a one event problem. My search for additional sources. I did find this [23] article from the Syracuse University newspaper. An article that begins "Syracuse is know for among other things its beautiful women" does not highly reccomend itself as reliable. Generally we do not consider articles in college newspapers to be enough to demonstrate their subjects are notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as considering all of the past mountains of AfDs closed as Delete, this is no different given there's only 1 trivial pageant - and that's it. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- only one source listed and it's a primary one. Per prior outcomes, such pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoha Parekh[edit]

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

Parekh was Miss Delaware. This title alone is not enough to make someone notable. She also had a bit part in a movie, and I think I may be overstating her role at bit part. The movie role is sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. The other sources are from Miss America and an article that mentions her among other Miss America contestants, but is not about her. My search for her on google came up with nothing better. I did find mention of a Soha Parekh who wrote a book on the history of the sari. However there is absolutely nothing indicating they are the same person, and not just the different spelling but the nature of the interview suggests they are different. The one person we have no indication she has ever left India, and this one we have no indication she has ever left the United States, although we have almost nothing on her. Clearly nothing coming even close to passing the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is literally as trivial as it gets, 1 trivial pageant and 1 trivial acting job, let alone actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 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 keep. Katie^talk 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

100 Women (BBC)[edit]

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

AfD created by request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The requesting anonymous user posted the following on the article's talk page:

I have nominated this page for deletion. The campaign does not meet the notability requirement that 'the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The references on the page are just to official 'BBC 100 Women' campaign pages (certainly not independent of the subject). Searching further, there is little evidence that the campaign is influential enough to be given substantial coverage in independent third-party sources. Compare this to the attention given to Time Person of the Year, for example. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I am not conviced it could not survive as a list; it should be looked into further before the axe falls. Kierzek (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as the nominator. As it stands, the campaign's article is little more than trivia: a long list of names without much context. The campaign has not gathered adequate attention from independent, reliable sources to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is absurd. This page should be kept. I think there is a misunderstanding about this entry. It is very high profile, is the subject of a BBC article, and Women in Red as well as ~~BBC~~ Wikimedia UK are spearheading this effort. Deleting this article also makes Wikipedia look terrible. Just a bad idea all around. KEEP! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the project is made by the BBC: they are just advertising their own project. Where is the decent coverage in sources independent of the subject? There is very little of substance. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's just really odd and very suspicious that an anonymous person did this AfD. I actually think that there is some sort of personal vendetta happening here. I think the AfD tag should be deleted because the nomination for deletion in and of itself should be AfD'd!

Beside the fact that nothing you say is correct. This is not the BBC just advertising their own project. This is the BBC partnering with a whole slew of Wikipedia projects and chapters to improve entries about women on the encyclopedia. This is something GREAT and high profile for Wikipedia. Absolutely wonderful so this AfD is ABSURD. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out below, any user is permitted to start an AfD. TimothyJosephWood 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have the right to say I think it is misguided, wrong, and a total embarrassment for Wikipedia. Just because things can be done doesn't mean that it should be humored. I oppose this vehemently. It is not helpful or productive. There are other articles that need to be assessed and queued for deletion. This nomination clearly illustrates the problem with AfD. It's the worst part of Wikipedia. Deletionism and total ignorance of community outreach and initiatives to make Wikipedia better. It also illustrates sexism as well. Whether the nominator intended this or not that is what is happening here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brill, you are assuming facts not shown in evidence at this point as to there being something more than is shown. The AfD system is working here. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD does not only work to delete non-notable articles, but also to establish firm consensus to keep notable ones. That you are personally offended by the nomination is noted, but not particularly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 18:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crazy! The project is not about the BBC, its about 100 women and 70-80% of them are VERY notable. They are notable (in part) because they get coverage from lots of media sources including the BBC. Nearly every country in the world has run articles about whether people from their country is on this list. There are editathons happening around the world involving dozens of Wikipedians and several chapters. Chances of this getting deleted? Zero. This is too silly. Victuallers (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are off the point, Victuallers. By definition, the article is about the BBC's list of women, not the women themselves. The women themselves (those who are notable enough) have their own articles. This notability discussion is about this BBC campaign/list, which does not attract significant coverage in important reliable sources other than the BBC (its creator and promoter). 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to add the independent sources to the article itself. A little digging like I did would have cleared up the matter swiftly. Please look at the main page for sources. Also, when do we let anonymous posters do AfD by proxy?Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: "Any user may suggest deletion of a page for good cause." (Italics theirs.) The IP user specifically reached out for help in starting the AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NatGertler, I did miss that! However, I'd submit that at least a proper WP:BEFORE was not done before this article was sent to AfD. There are a ton of RS which are independent to BBC. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The BBC is great, the people honored are great, however this article is not an article about the event. It is really just a reposting of the lists. Each person already has her own article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to keep after secondary sources were provided. Article remains mainly a reposting of BBC's lists, but topic itself is clearly now shown to be notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not an opinion poll. The question is are there RS in unrelated media. There are. Not only are there articles in multiple international sources about the program itself, German [24], Spanish [25], English [26], [27], [28]; but within each of the nominees stories (100 each year for multiple years) the program is discussed. Significant coverage is not a single article written on a subject, but rather the weight of coverage in reliable sources over time. Exponentially, at a bare minimum there would be some 400 articles internationally about the program, just in the nominees bios alone. For a small example Hong Kong [29], India [30], [31], [32], [33], Japan [34], Lebanon [35], Mexico [36], Morocco [37], Nepal [38], Nigeria [39], Pakistan [40], Russia [41]. SusunW (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) -- Yes many of the women are notable, but being celebrated in a radio series does not make them all notable. The article is about people featured in the series, so that it is really about the series, not the people. Perhaps this is a case where it is valuable to use an older purpose of list articles, as a means of identifying (by redlinks) articles that ought to be written. It is probably more valuable for SusunW to apply effort to creating those missing articles than plastering this AFD page with references. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of people that the BBC includes as being notable is certainly notable on its own right. But as Megalibrarygirl and SusanW mentions there is content in reliable sources that explains the list. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 17:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a list, not a "series," I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list precedes a series of programs about women held over a three week period. It is a much broader subject than just the list. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay more problematic will be Category:BBC 100 Women. I don't believe being on a BBC list is surfficiently defining for the notable women so-named, but that's a matter for Cfd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is useful in promoting the project, which has received wide publicity, it is also currently being used as an anchor for the BBC 100 women edit-a-thon, people can come to it, and create wikipedia pages for some of the people on the lists who do not have pages. It is useful for people to access other pages generally, but especially in the middle of an edit-a-thon supported by wikimedia volunteers, deleting it would be bizarre.81.105.187.71 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A notable article about an event the BBC holds annually, and which receives much promotion. I would question the motives of the nominator who originally posted on the article's talk page. This is Paul (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay, but the category creator is an administrator who surely knows WP:OC, both WP:OCAWARD and WP:TOPTEN. The category is clearly non-defining, in my opinion, and I've taken the matter to Cfd.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable list as that is what it really is in present form; it does need some work but that can be cured. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SusunW. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep There appears to be a clear strong consensus to keep the article. There does not seem to be a need to keep this open for an extended period of time. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 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 Deleted as A11. by DGG —SpacemanSpiff 11:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cuisine ween[edit]

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

Reads like a recipe and may be able to be put under a stub for Indian Cuisine though I have googled "Ween" in this context and have not found any references. Are personal recipes allowed for non-notable food items? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 15:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Unable to locate reliable sources despite trying variations on the (supposed) name. The article appears to be entirely based on original research. It's nothing more than a recipe and Wikipedia is not a cookbook or collection of recipes. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glane23 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCOOKBOOK was not a redirect used for that policy I had seen used before. Nice to know it exists. Might like to try this spice out, but alas, not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia due to lack of reliable sources and the aforementioned NOTCOOKBOOK policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let us know how it goes if you make it, perhaps if its good enough we can revisit the subject

Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 23:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coláiste Íde agus Iosef[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, wierd use of the fraternity infbox. Naraht (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Massive improvement by AllyD and Kudpung, thank you.Naraht (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a newspaper reference which quotes the Minister for Education and Skills at the official opening. As a verifiable high school which currently has over 600 pupils according to that source, I think there is enough for it to survive under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (The appropriate Infobox template is a matter for normal editing.) AllyD (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this school equivalent to an American High School (ages 14/15 to 18) or an American Community College or an American College?Naraht (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, this school is in the Republic of Ireland, the article has got nothing to do with America. But FWIW, it's a government school providing secondary grades up to and including university entrance level education to age 18. This will have been revealed when doing WP:BEFORE listing at AfD and while making minor reviewer improvements on the fly . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung Curiousity more than anything else. And a fair point.Naraht (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per standard procedure for high schools as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and evidenced by 1,000s of such closures. The paucity of content is not a reason for deletion, but the article, obviously created by a student, needs a clean up and expansion. The wrong infobox is the first glaring error. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned up; minor expansions, and correct infobox added and populated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment OK, if the next is a Keep, I'll withdraw the AFD...Naraht (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this AfD has been withdrawn, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES recommends that the article should be redirected to the district article and should not therefore be a "Keep". The correct result should therefore be Redirect -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consensus is that simply stating "Keep Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" isn't enough and that a source now should be provided .... In this case a source has been provided which confirms the existence of the school, I see no valid reason to delete or redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic frequenzy scaling[edit]

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

Frequency is spelled wrong in the article, and one with correct spelling already exists Jeppevinkel (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (G7 Speedy) - So why did you create this article? I've tagged it for speedy deletion Exemplo347 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine found it funny to use my pc to make a prank Jeppevinkel (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 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 delete. No prejudice against userfication to enable the performance of a merge, if anyone wants to do so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Southern Railway[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. The two sources state "Alliance Rail Holdings has started industry consultation on proposals to launch an open access passenger service" and "Alliance Rail Holdings (Alliance) has started consultation within the rail industry on starting a new ‘open access’ rail service" - so it's not even a proposal, and fails WP:CRYSTAL. Only one of the two sources uses the term "Grand Southern Railway"; a Google search turns up some U.S. railroads, plus a British scheme from the 1830s that never got off the drawing board. Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or merge with Alliance Rail Holdings or Grand Central Railway as it is far too early for anything. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 10 years 15:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Griffiths[edit]

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

Non notable actress, found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Her most notable role would've probably been in Waterloo Road (TV series) so should perhaps be redirected there however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails BASIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:40, 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 01:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like easily passes WP:NACTOR. Was one of the principal cast members of Waterloo Road specifically as the role of Chlo Grainger. Also was in multiple episodes of Casualty and a supporting role in all three episodes of Hatfields & McCoys so I don't see the logic of redirecting to Waterloo Road.--Oakshade (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a few notable programmes is great however take away IMDB and you have 2 BBC sources which are only mentions, And with the greatest of respect she's been acting since 2008 so there should be something substantial, ofcourse if you can find anything substantial I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 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 keep. While more input here would have been desirable, rough consensus (per low participation) in this short discussion is that article is not promotional in nature, which was the basis of the rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDA Dimensions[edit]

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

Promo piece, ?. Speedy deletion template removed by the creator. Kavdiamanju (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that this is a promo piece, because the phone on which this software ran was discontinued over 20 years ago. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree, the user Kavdiamanju is known to provide condescending and inappropriate (non-existant) justifications on most topics. It seems like the user Kavdiamanju does not take time to make a case of justification but merely sets new articles to AfD without reasoning. Kavdiamanju Please justify your clams, factually and not by emotional, unrelated verbs such as "salt and burn". Please provide an actual explanation with reason in at least one (full) sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serjinator (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrator - Serjinator may have an axe to grind with nom. See [[42]]. Although I disagree that this article should be deleted, User:Kavdiamanju stated his reason for deletion (Promo). The "salt and burn" comment is rather direct - I am assuming it is because the creator removed the CSD tag and has yet to make a justification either on the article's talk page or here. CBS527^Talk 17:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't consider my comment as a "keep" opinion. It was simply an observation, and I haven't yet looked into whether I think this should be kept or deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have never heard of promoting a product that was discontinued decades ago. The main product this company developed, DispatchIt, was important at the time of it's design and notable, as was the company. There are plenty of sources available on subject. CBS527^Talk 16:13, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Kalinoski[edit]

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

Only notability/coverage is because he is a celebrity impersonator. Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable impersonator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Kucan[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to Kane (Command & Conquer)—his most notable role—would suffice, if it's even necessary (not sure that even Kane is independently notable from the series). czar 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 19:15, 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 01:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the light response, a redirect to Kane (Command & Conquer) will suffice czar 08:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is one of those articles where we're going to disagree. I'm leaning toward keep. I found this article from The Wall Street Journal which discusses his career as a video game actor. I know some people dislike the idea of using interviews to establish notability, but I think it's legitimate. There quite a few of them out there, such as [43] from VideoGamer.com, [44] from GameSpot, [45] from Eurogamer, and [46] from Game Informer. Reviews of the C&C video games often seem to critique his performance as Kane. For example: [47] from GameSpot, [48] from Maximum PC, and [49] from Retro Gamer. There also seem to be more on Google Books, but they're not easily accessible. I realize a review that says "Joe Kucan is great" isn't exactly the greatest source in the world, but it's the same kind of source that I'd use to bolster notability for a film actor after I found something like the WSJ article to anchor the bio. Finally, his theater career seems to have made local papers, like [50] from Las Vegas Weekly. The other theater reviews I found weren't much better than trivial mentions, but I gave up a bit quickly after not finding much of substance in the few Vegas-area papers I knew of. Someone who was willing to put more effort into it could probably dig up better sources. I'm neither a C&C fan nor a theater fan, so my enthusiasm in this area is limited. I'm sure someone will say that local theater reviews are worthless to establish notability, but I disagree that they're entirely worthless. Some of the Vegas papers have a respectable circulation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count blurbs like "The B-list actors give adequate performances, but it’s Joe Kucan’s reprisal of his role as Kane that sells the show. His over-the-top performance sets the perfect tone for the action and TNT-powered gameplay." towards significant coverage, though it's certainly worth mentioning in the game's article. The WSJ source is a good find. My issue with the interviews is less their format than that they're really about the game and series and less about the individual. If there was more coverage of his career, perhaps prompted by his prior roles, then we would know he was famous as an actor. The theater roles are covered by local media. This said, there could be an article here if someone bothered to write it. I'd be concerned for now about how this BLP sat with unsourced information for however many years. I think it's fine to post the sources and hope that someone fixes it but the pragmatist in me thinks it's unlikely and that the sources would be better served expanding a section about him in the main series article until there is summary style justification for splitting out. czar 18:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.light, Inc.[edit]

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

This article makes no credible claim of significance and has no indication that its subject is notable. The article includes a lot of information about how big the off-grid solar industry is (1.2 billion people as target customers, 100 companies in industry), but makes no mention of why d.light might be considered a notable player within that industry.

The only noteworthy coverage that d.light seems to have received is the NYTimes article, which is not enough to indicate notability in the absence of other reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 18:27, 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 01:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 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 delete. This should have been deleted via BLP Prod, however since we are here and no sources have been added in three weeks I'm deleting it per the incorrectly removed BLP Prod. —SpacemanSpiff 03:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjay Kapur[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: When I searched for any RSes his notability was somewhat insufficient for it. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A BLP Prod notice had been placed on this article but was removed when this AfD was started instead. BLP Prod remains relevant, as the article is entirely unreferenced, and could have taken effect by now if left in place. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 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 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keche (Music Group)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. Only singles so far (one site says they don't have an album yet), mentions of "hit" songs but without references as to their definition of hit (getting into national rotation, charting, etc.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:38, 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 02:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete No WP:RS evidence this passes either WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Only sources are either bare listings, promotional, or social media. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 23:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes-Castell[edit]

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

Non-notable. Article created by single-purpose account for promotional purposes, in contravention of our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hughes-Castell is the first international legal recruitment agency in Hong Kong which made contributions to local & regional legal industry. When I read the first issue of The LawList 1988 (co-published by the Law Society of Hong Kong and Hughes-Castell) in the library, I believe it is worth to write an article on Hughes-Castell. It is quite interesting from being a London-centric company to an European-acquired international agency and from an international company to become a regional focus recruiter. In addition, not many wholly foreign owed legal recruiters (no more than 5) are allowed in PRC. These companies bolster legal industry inside China. I need times to add the LawList, Hughes-Castell’s history and the relationship between Hughes-Castell and the regional legal industry. Please keep it.WWY1941 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:WWY1941, the article creator, is a single-purpose account with probable undeclared conflict of interest. Please review our policies at WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI. Citobun (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply.I didn't create or edit for promoting or advertising purpose. I didn't get any interest for positing the articles (maybe you don't believe). Indeed, how can you get paid for creating/editing a wiki article as Wiki is a open source? I wrote 4 articles (2 in English and 2 in Traditional Chinese) for personal interest plus I want to practice my skills. Until now, I only chose the companies which they were the first in the category in particular area or the person who has been unforgotten but with huge contributions to particular group of people in society. WWY1941 (talk) 05:36, 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 02:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the notability here. The article's references are largely self-references, either via its web site, a press release or two interviews with the company's owner. The other sources report routine matters and minor industry awards. There's nothing here that speaks to encyclopedic notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insignificant recruiting company with no reliable sources.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Globe Australia 2016[edit]

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

The annual edition of the pageant did not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. Popular pageants in Australia like Miss Universe Australia and Miss World Australia does not have annual articles (but necessary due to multiple reliable sources). There is no need for a series of redirects as the article starts with "Mrs Globe". The winners of the previous editions were already indicated in the parent article, Mrs globe australia. The content of the article was written in promotional way. Richie Campbell (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination for deletion the following reference links have beed added to credible news sources to satisfy the original WP:GNG requirements. 1. http://falanga.com.au/makedonkata-hristina-mrs-australia-globe-2016-gostinka-na-makedonskiot-festival-vo-viliamsteon# 2. http://mountevelyn.mailcommunity.com.au/epaper/ 3. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/inner-south/hiphop-artist-chico-johnson-works-with-schools-in-melbourne-to-share-positive-message/news-story/e29bcd1f523f0edcfdda678a70e0615f 4. http://eleutheranews.com/?p=1140 5. Link to verify existence of National print edition Newspaper The Latin Australian times https://www.facebook.com/latinaustraliantimes/photos/a.168362370239277.1073741828.154927351582779/201515620257285/?type=3&theater

As the WP:GNG have been addressed... the new issue raised now in the second attempt to delete is that the article is written in a promotional way, Every word in this article has been published in the news sources contained in the references. Lastly the importance of having the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 separate article is because of the news coverage as it is the 20th anniversary of the pageant. (Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Just Added another reference to article as mentioned new news stories are still appearing http://prwire.com.au/pr/64311/former-ms-australia-s-second-chance-to-represent-at-mrs-globe-pageant-in-china (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Richie Campbell (talk) Why don't you nominate this page also for deletion which I wrote it is basically like Mrs Globe Aust 2016=>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Latin_America_2016 I wont wont try and stop you go for it be my guest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Latin_America_2016 it will be another notch on your belt. You've contributed so many years to wikipedia you deserve some satisfaction. I don't have anymore time to write wikipedia pages then spend hours arguing to have them not deleted. Good luck muchacho (Australianblackbelt (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to satisfy notability, at least it does now. Writing style is no basis for deletion (if it was millions should be deleted). Aoziwe (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At Aoziwe: Did you individually check if the sources meet the definition of WP:RS? The article was nominated for deletion since No SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. Most of the entries in the article are more appropriate for the parent article, Mrs Globe Australia . In addition, the winner was already indicated in the Mrs Globe Australia. The candidates were not notable since they did not even win a notable state level pageant. Take note that the winners of state level in Miss USA pageant are being deleted for being not notable.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to learn here if you can help. Can you help with:

Which sources are not reliable and why?
State level deletions? Why? My benchmark is NCRICKET. It allows one appearance at state level, that is top domestic level, even if that appearance is a complete failure. (I do not agree with this standard but that is what it is.) So why delete state level beauty pagent articles for the individual contestants?

Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- At Australianblackbelt, you can check the contributions (AfD) related to beauty pageants of editors just like John Pack Lambert, SwisterTwister, or K.e.coffman to enlighten you a bit about this--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable beauty pageants among many and WP:PROMO article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not remarkable beauty pageant and I agree, it's a WP:PROMO article.--Artchino (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At Aoziwe Thank you for contributing to the discussion.

This source is a National print newspaper https://www.facebook.com/latinaustraliantimes/photos/a.168362370239277.1073741828.154927351582779/201515620257285/?type=3&theater
Several of the finalsits have beed fetured in articles form print newspapers
This is a National beaty pageant it is not state level and it is the 20th anniversary
Every word is stated in RELIABLE newspaper articles they are referenced to.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

NOTE that Australianblackbelt who voted keep above is the creator of the article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I originally nominated. Take into account that information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article, see WP:RSCONTEXT. The article MUST be deleted since the annual edition of the pageant did not received in-depth or SIGNIFICANT coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources. The references provided by the creator of the article were synthesized below:

The first reference is not about the Mrs Australia Globe 2016 beauty pageant but mainly about the First Macedonian Festival and Mrs Australia Globe 2016 was mentioned by passing as guest and not an in-depth article about the coverage of the pageant.

The second reference is Press Release WIRE which is not a reliable source. The press release article has been removed/expired.

The third reference is about the alleged Latin Australian Times article which is a photo of the newspaper posted in Facebook where the text cannot be read. Wiki articles must contain reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.

The fourth reference is about Mrs Globe NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016.

The fifth reference is about the Non-Profit organization CheekyMac Charities held “Briland’s Be Your Best Talent Quest”. Totally no mention about the subject of the article and not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016.

The sixth reference is about the Hip-hop artist Chico Johnson who works with schools in Melbourne to share positive message. Not a coverage of Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant.

The seventh reference is a community ePaper - Mt Evelyn Mail - 13th December 2016. The creator of the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 article specified in the cited reference that it’s on the front page titled “Dominating the Globe", but nowhere to be found. The front page talked about the “Equal View of Life”. I checked the search engine of the ePaper with the title cited but it says “Sorry, but the requested resource was not found on this site.”

The eighth reference is not a reliable source whose content is largely user-generated. Nevertheless, the article is about “Mrs UK Globe Classic” not a coverage of the Mrs Australia 2016 beauty pageant.

The ninth reference titled "Not with those boobs,darl!" is a promotional magazine. Anyway, it’s not coverage about the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 beauty pageant. Try looking at the link here: http://www.take5mag.com.au/

The tenth and eleventh references were about another pageant called, Mrs Globe Classic (NOT about Mrs Globe Australia 2016) which is another pageant of the same organizer and was also created by the Australianblackbelt. The Mrs Globe Classic was deleted via AfD consensus.--Richie Campbell (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE that Richie Campbell has attempted to falsley acuse me of being a sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Duckgo111#Suspected_sockpuppets

This reference was not mentioned in his critique: http://www.starweekly.com.au/lifestyle/from-behind-the-lense-a-real-beauty/ (Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I have noted this reference above (fourth reference). However the article talks more about the Mrs Globe pageant, then Ms Lucia Hou who recently won the people’s choice award at the Mrs Globe Australia pageant (did not win the the main title) and she also won Mrs Coral Sea. This reference is more appropriate for Mrs Globe or may be used for Mrs Globe Australia.--Richie Campbell (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The journalist that wrote the article has been contacted through facebook and she has gladly posted it on the Latin Australian Times Facebook Page so Ritchie can see it and read it for himself. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1181809865271749&set=o.154927351582779&type=3&theater (Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

If the article is posted directly in the Latin Australian Times website, the article may be used as a source for the parent article, Mrs Globe Australia which is a weak wiki article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A National newspaper which is print may be used as a source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources.(Australianblackbelt (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

This is an English Wikipedia, you can provide translation of the content of the article with verification that it was accurately translated (e.g., google translate) then you can use the article as source for the parent article, Mrs Globe Australia since the parent article lacks third party reliable sources and with questionable notability. Based on the analysis above the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 is not a significant annual edition of the pageant (see sources synthesized). If it is significant why is it very, very hard to find MULTIPLE reliable sources with in-depth sources. Take a look at Miss USA 2016, or even Miss Universe 2016 which has not happened yet but there are MULTIPLE (hundreds) of third party reliable sources or even Miss Earth 2016 article which has a lot of fancrufts but you can find many reliable sources through google searches. In addition you statement above that "the importance of having the Mrs Globe Australia 2016 separate article is because of the news coverage as it is the 20th anniversary of the pageant" is clearly promotional in nature.--Richie Campbell (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google translate? seriously? now I know you taking the piss Ritchie... I am fluent in Spanish I do a much better job than Google SwisterTwister has review my Spanish work before(Australianblackbelt (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)) Another reference http://www.theindiansun.com.au/pareena-the-face-of-ms-australia-globe/ (Australianblackbelt (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_simulation_video_games#Bus_simulation. MBisanz ^talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMSI 2[edit]

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

No credible indication of notability. A Google search finds only listings for sale and some YouTube videos showing people playing. Nothing that meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some approved sources based on the VG/S search. It's an edge case for notability, so I'll lean weak keep. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced yet - of those six references, four of them are all from a single source (Rock, Paper, Shotgun). The one from kotaku is just four sentences, and the final one from GRY my security software won't even let me see because it is black-listed. Maybe it is brilliant, but I'm not prepared to take the risk. It would be nice to hear from somebody else - would anybody from WP:VG care to comment? --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're all vetted sources. The Kotaku article isn't so much an article as a video article--hence why the YouTube video is embedded. I have no issue with the GRY article myself, so perhaps you have some particularly sensitive addon that you're using. Regardless, it's weak, and there's probably only notability for the pair of games OMSI and OMSI 2 rather than one or the other, since some of those sources are for the former rather than the latter. --Izno (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_simulation_video_games#Bus_simulation as a valid search term. With no major reviews and after reading through the sources (which are from vetted, reliable publishers), I don't see how we'd have enough material to write a full treatment of this topic. czar 08:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as user:Czar suggests. The references given do not demonstrate significant coverage in RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sam Walton (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra soni[edit]

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

Tried to speedy this under G11 but the article creator (almost certainly) used an IP address to remove the deletion tag so now must bring here to AfD. The kid has been in a bunch of commercials, apparently. No evidence of notability has been established. I suspect COI editing, and certainly bad faith editing. (Notes: the Bollywood Life ref. is to a self-proclaimed gossip magazine, which I am going to doubt has much in the way of editorial oversight, and the Tellychakar ref appears to be hear-say only; the other two refs are IMdB cites, which means no independence, which leaves nothing.) KDS4444 (talk) 13:10, 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 03:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Minor coverage, no main roles (IMDb has a single entry). WP:TOOSOON to be in an encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:00, 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 keep. General consensus to keep; the article has been at AfD for a while now and there has been no other input from editors to suggest anything other than keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Comeback (2015 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Existence does not equal notability. No refs, and I could find none independently (searching was complicated by the film's title). What I found was IMDB (no independence), blogs (not reliable), and some promotional information. KDS4444 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two short reviews: [51] from the Philippine Daily Inquirer and [52] from The Philippine Star. I used to be better at finding Southeast Asian reliable sources, but I'm somewhat out of practice. I might be able to dig up more later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 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 04:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure how good of a source this is, but I found this video chat at ABS-CBN. There's also this review from ABS-CBN. Like the other two, it's pretty short. I think they're probably long enough to satisfy WP:NFILM, which says capsule reviews don't count. It'd be nice to hear some comments about the sources that I've found. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess nobody's going to comment on the sources. The reviews are short, but I think they're still in the acceptable range for WP:NFILM. If I can find this much coverage, I'm pretty sure there's more that a native speaker could find. Three English-language reviews is pretty good for an independent film from the Philippines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've inlined the reference to one review from a major media source, and added another. Reviews in major media = notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:23, 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. Sandstein 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design of machine element[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a user guide or instruction manual. KDS4444 (talk) 11:12, 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 04:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom and WP:TEXTBOOK. There is this which might or might not be from the same research group as ref #2 (I could not navigate the site). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:41, 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Privatoria[edit]

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

There are several explanations as to why this shouldn't have been accepted: (1) is that the information and sources are all trivial and unconvincing, either coming from the company itself or republishing of it (supposed reviews are coming from indie websites, quite conceivable for such to be either self-authored or paid for), (2) is the fact my own searches are then not finding anything but said sources, especially as I got deeper, (3) is that the history shows it was only started for advertising, since there's no actual significance or anything close it and (4) there's literally nothing else but this, showing how it's simply a blatant advertisement for a newly started company, of which is hoping to use this as a PR webhost. Clearly this is not a case for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG but even if it was, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply which is Wikipedia-founded, not guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:13, 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 04:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a newly started company (founded in 2013) but your other points are valid. I approved the Article for Creation, and was probably wrong to do so.--FeralOink (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage to indicate notability. The only coverage seems to come from niche review sites with what seems to be limited editorial control. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 16:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mphone[edit]

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

Delete and Salt please given this was literally deleted last month for advertising and that's exactly what it is, simply considering all of the factors here: (1) the account is clearly an advertising-only account, (2) the source are all entirely trivial and unconvincing, (3) my own searches are not finding anything helpful and (4) for such a new company, and with such blatant and noticeable attempts at advertising, it's basically self-explanatory this is not going to be acceptable and it certainly should not be restarted again, since 2 times of advertising has been excessive as it is.

As it is, we've questioned before, including here at AfD, that such publications (but it seems there's not any for this company), cannot immediately be taken as automatic acceptance since there's obvious payment involved with "publishing news". Not that WP:BASIC or WP:GNG would even apply, WP:NOT is still applicable if anyone asks, since it specifically states "Remove any unsuitable", in this case advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 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 04:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 12:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing Well Foundation USA[edit]

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

Literally a trivial and unconvincing article, and it shouldn't have been accepted from AfC since, not only are the listed sources trivial and unconvincing, I've found exactly the same, and that's not surprising since there's simply nothing for actual notability and substance; the history itself suggests this may have been started for business listing uses as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no indication that this article went through the AfC process: the history simply shows it being developed as a draft on Nov 19th and then moved to mainspace on the 20th. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The article text predominantly concerns public discussion on the high proportion of this organisation's fundraising which goes to administration. My searches find only more similar coverage (New Orleans CityBusiness 2014 "Metairie-Based Wish-Granting Nonprofit Spends Little on Goal" – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). Leaving aside public-service arguments, which are not appropriate for either positive or negative coverage, there may be a question of whether the accumulation of negative coverage is evidence of notability, but as it stands I think this is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 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 04:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable for being a borderline scam. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in both USA Today and Tampa Bay Times satisfies WP:GNG. Significant scams are notable if they generate sustained coverage, which appears to be present. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Aslett[edit]

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

Aslett owns a local cleaning service in Pocatlello, Idaho. He also has written books about cleaning. When your books have to be sourced to a libarry catalogue instead of reviews, that is suggesting not really notable. Most of the sources listed here are his websites or connected to his publishers. My search for additional sources was not very helpful. I came up with sources showing his comapny leasing space in Idaho and that was about it, and an article written by someone of the same name in a southern Idaho paper, but that looked to be by someone else, unless some of the detials of his education here are wrong. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 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 04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Johnpacklambert I find 136 items in HighBeam Research. Some of them are news wires, but there are a lot of magazine and newspaper articles. (I filtered by magazine and newspaper publication types and got 132 items, but some of those are still news wires.) What do you think? I am happy to work on this article, if you those sources might make it a viable article. --CaroleHenson (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 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 Speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CTU Training Solutions (PTY) Ltd[edit]

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

Article promotes an IT training business and references do not demonstrate notability. Parkywiki (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11, G12, Cabayi (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...also sockpuppetry - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GaryMartinWright11. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article sourced to a listing site and brief press coverage of a venture. Nothing to indicate more than a firm going about a run of the mill business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auli'i Cravalho[edit]

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

Only notable for one film and does not meet WP:NACTOR.--Fastester (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As discussed in the previous AfD nomination, an actor can meet WP:NACTOR if they have a a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. While it is hard to say whether Auli'i's fan base in the long term will be large, the success so far of the film in which she plays the protagonist, combined with the fact her page has received 247,632 pageviews in the 13 days since the film premiered in the USA and Canada, suggests there is a large following of her/significant interest in her from people who have heard or seen about the film.

The last AfD for this article ran for around three weeks* from 1st October, resulting in a keep verdict. As the film has been out for such a short period of time, I am not sure how much can be added to the previous discussion. Thanks for opening this up for discussion Fastester (talk) - though I am a bit confused as to what your vote was for? I presume "delete" but could be "merge"? :-) EmWinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- * my mistake, sorry - originally said four weeks but just checked and it closed on the 19th EmWinn (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep She at least meets WP:MUSICBIO. "How Far I'll Go" is on the Billboard Hot 100. Hang googles (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She voices the lead in a huge Disney film that has been number 1 at the box office in the US for two weeks straight. Her Wikipedia page has been viewed an average of 15,000/day over the past 20 days.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What EmWinn said-it hasn't been that long since I first nominated this article for deletion, I'm afraid we will simply have a repeat of the first nomination, and to be honest I don't have very much new to bring to the table. Most of the arguments against deletion in the first nomination didn't seem to be rooted in any policy, but there must have been some other strength to them since it was decided consensus was to keep the article. Also, I'm not so sure Cravalho still fails WP:NACTOR at this point given the significance of the role. Sro23 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's a fair point to note that Neel Sethi's article was deleted. I might be in favour of a merge with the Moana article. That being said, while I understand Wikipedia has standards to uphold, I personally believe the presence of a short bio can beg for additional edits over time, simply because they don't contain as much notable or verifiable information as may be available. It would be disappointing to see a new and very notable Polynesian voice actress not be as thoroughly sourced as possible on Wikipedia... although at this point, because of the attributes which might make her notable outside of her role as an entertainer, the article could come off as biased or promotional. As it stands, cursory google searches and IMDB lookups are more informative than Wikipedia for both Neel Sethi and Auli'i. Meanwhile, I occasionally encounter pages that ARE obviously promotional, but remain neutral and informative enough to pass Wikipedia's guidelines. I guess my overall point here is that both of these people are notable enough to have their own pages (IMO), but whether or not there's enough notable, citable information about them is another story. Could be a lack of effort on the part of volunteers, which is understandable and is a thing that can happen. Pritchard 06:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAdventMaster (talk • contribs)

Keep. Peter Ostrum has a page and he was only in one film. Iwalters (talk)

I remember this same argument was also in the first nomination. Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sro23 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use that argument, then Neel Sethi was in one of the biggest films of the year and was the only one in the main cast to have an onscreen role, unlike Auli'i who only had a voice-over, and he had his page deleted.--Fastester (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am most persuaded by Bernie44's argument about passing the inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see multiple reasons, including WP:MUSICBIO. In addition, I'd like to comment that a very recent previous AfD was filed and while I know we don't have double jeopardy, this was literally discussed four weeks ago and the summary was "keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogress (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - A LOT of coverage by reliable sources, and, at the end of the day, it's the sources that count.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons persuasively discussed above, especially by User:3family6, User:Bernie44, and User:Johnpacklambert. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per WP:MUSICBIO, and I believe she meets point 3 in WP:NACTOR. Easy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexEng (talk • contribs) 06:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 12:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V-Focus[edit]

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

Source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources for this new television show; does not meet WP:GNG at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a broadcast television show on a national network, will likely pass per essay WP:BROADCAST with some digging. At worst, the article is about a week WP:TOOSOON and should have waited for reviews. English sources would be nice, however. Maybe a Taiwanese editor could double check the sources and add some media coverage? 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that the creator has created a number of similar Taiwanese TV show articles with (apparently) plagiarized body text. While I do believe these are notable shows, the articles need some cleanup/policing to make them policy-friendly. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Broadcast nationally in Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia (lead actor Melvin Sia is Malaysian), really see no reason to delete. Afd in my opinion is not the place for cleanup requests. Timmyshin (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's a new program that has received no significant coverage in reliable sources; filming began on September 21, 2016. This is a nomination for deletion, not a cleanup request. Lastly, WP:BROADCAST is an essay page, not a notability guideline. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case filming date = broadcast date, not sure why you bring it up, but Taiwanese shows aren't like American shows, as far as I know they never get canceled after a few episodes. Per notability guideline at WP:TVSERIES: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market.". This show has begun airing in 3 national markets, there's no way it isn't notable. Besides, volunteers have already subbed available episodes in English, Spanish, French, Indonesian, Romanian, Thai, Vietnamese, Portuguese and Russian on the streaming site Viki (website), see [53]. Timmyshin (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:TVSERIES is a part of Wikipedia:Notability (media), which is also an essay. It is not a notability guideline or policy at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case, but I've confidence that the wiki community will not support your request. Timmyshin (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely fails WP:GNG. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was argued above that there will be reviews or other coverage once the program begins to air. But it has been airing for a month, and a Google search in English finds no independent reliable sourcing about it.[54] Unless someone can provide some sourcing, perhaps non-English language sourcing, to meet our guidelines, it will have to go. Could be recreated later if sourcing develops. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus Nordic Nightfury 08:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments above. SmileBlueJay97 talk 23:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom should await the outcome of their own Special:Permalink/753284360#Requested move 2 December 2016 filed only four days ago. Secondly, we nominate articles for deletion, we do not nominate talk pages. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Michael Brutsch[edit]

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

An ongoing rename discussion which I initiated is ongoing at [55] but in light of one of the comments made there, I now feel this is really a BLP1E and thus I feel a deletion or more preferably a merge to [56] is more appropriate. If I'm running afoul of some Wikiprocess, please feel free to NAC this and I'll address this after the MfD has finished. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Controversial Reddit communities#Creepshots (as nominator)That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A merge discussion doesn't have to happen at AfD, of course, but as the author of the comment which That man from Nantucket refers to, I certainly support a merge. Mr. Brutsch is discussed in independent sources for one event in his life only, the time that his Reddit moderation went off the rails, and anything else is just context. For the record, I feel similarly about the article Unidan, which editors may want to contrast with this one. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 11:29, 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 delete. consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Roglieri[edit]

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

After I stated and showed the obvious signs of this only existing as an article but then worse, actually being a paid advertisement, a random IP removed it, therefore not only will the PROD still apply, but so is policy WP:NOT which is stated explicitly to remove any such advertising and that includes paid advertising, since it is not tolerated and will be deleted onsight, as it's quite clear there's enough here to state policy is far important than anything else. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have used similar wiki pages as reference to create this article. So I dont think this is written in an advertisment manner. Moreover please point out what is in this article that looks to you as advertisment ? Godisthebestone (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the links come from blogs and contributors to Forbes which is a hive for Churnalism articles. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable entrepreneur with insufficient sourcing to meet GNG. The subject's business is also at AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka-Singapore relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, the fact that one country has a High Commission in another does not establish any degree of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do remember that Singapore has a significant Tamil population. --Soman (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

many of the Tamils come from South India. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suggest a TNT. Honestly, articles like these are not helpful. No sources, one line content. I am not very confident about secondary sources either, but even if they exist, I suggest someone else recreate this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article didn't seem to be notability in Wikipedia at all, and also had no any reference sources to get verification for maintenance. SA 13 Bro 22:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
delete if someone is going to create an article they should make a genuine effort to at least establish a sourced stub. Unreferenced with almost no context. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 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 keep. But clearly needs cleanup for neutrality and copyediting, including the title. Subsequent discussion can work out if anything needs to be merged back to Degar. Sandstein 08:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Degar Peoples in Vietnam[edit]

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

The page, although it has numerous sources, is biased and slanted towards one particular side while harshly criticizing the other side. For example, they cast Vietnamese as being bad overall and committing "savage acts" or as "colonists" while casting the Degars, despite their diversity as one entire monolithic group. The article solely criticizes one ethnic group (Vietnamese) as the cause of all the faults for the Degar people using mostly partisan sources, unreliable sources (in books that mention genocide, they never elaborate on it such as the source, "Battle for the Central Highlands" while the source Criminal Investigation Detachment #3: Bamboo Battleground is not an academic book source for example), citation overkill (references 28-30, and 42-43 are the same sources while 9 references are being used to deliberate show that the claim is strong) or deliberate misinterpretations. In the 2004 subsection, there is repeated sentences that accuses Vietnam of criticizing the Montagnard Foundation as if Vietnam truly hates them. The format is much like a news article, mentioning all of the events which are deliberately selected to prove the general viewpoint, which is synthesis and Original Research. The article was originally from the Degar page before it was moved (see page history) which was ridden with bias. Ssbbplayer (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply based on length and number of sources, the topic would seem to be notable. If there is a POV problem, this is not normally addressed by deletion. If you, for example, feel that the Degar people are not persecuted, the usual advice is to add sourced material to that effect. Elinruby (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That an article needs expansion, plus additional editing to deal with relative weighting of sources, isn't a good argument for deletion per se. The fundamental issue of human rights in Vietnam in terms of social prejudice appears notable. If the page needs work, then it can be worked on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot wrong with this article (it's not neutral in tone, over-long and its style leaves something to be desired, for starters) but all those things can be fixed. The topic itself seems notable so it's worth persevering with this. I don't think it's a WP:TNT case. Neiltonks (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It needs major cleanup and and has a POV issue, but these can be fixed. I don't think it's a WP:TNT case but it might just be too much to handle. Like User:Neiltonks said, it is a notable topic. Tessaract2^Talk 16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Degar, most of this article appears to have been taken by Urchu from Degar#History on 19 November 2016, which was previously mostly added by Rajmaan in major edits on 16 May 2016 and 12 July 2016. Prior to removing this text the Degar article was under 9th words, well under the 10th words length when a split may be warranted, according to WP:LENGTH. This information could then be looked at in the context of the Degar article as a whole. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 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) 09:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elise williams[edit]

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

Borderline A7 candidate but the claim to founding a company plus the local new mention makes me think it barely passes the assertion of significance bar. Only new mention is the local morning show, and I could find no reliable sources mentioning her. Currently the only independent source in the article is the morning show interview, which is more of a fluff piece than anything else. Other sources are Facebook pages and her company website. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a borderline case, but none of the websites cited are actually discussing "Elise Williams". They are either talking about the website she co-founded, with sometimes a passing reference to her, or are minor-web fluff pieces that she has written. She may yet become notable in herself, but isn't now.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think it may be a case of too soon, I am not finding enough to establish general notability at this time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:43, 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 redirect to American Idol (season 13). Having looked at the sources in the prev AFD - She's known for American Idol & nothing else, In some respects this is a BLP1E/BIO1E, No point deleting so just closing as redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen O'Connor[edit]

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

Looking with the arguments on the previous AFD discussion with having no consensus to delete or redirect the show article with receiving keep votes in the last AFD. With the failing on WP:BLP1E and WP:NMUSIC, I suggest to either delete or redirect to American Idol (season 13) article. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Idol (season 13). She never got notability. 71.187.6.198 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as the clear solution since she's not going to be independently notable here so history is not needed and it's also clear she's only best known for the show. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pattinapakkam[edit]

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

WP:PROMO page created by WP:COI user. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although created by a COI user, User:Editor 2050 gave his best to rewrite it from a neutral point of view. It does pas WP:NFF since shooting began last year and post-production ended sometime this year, although a release date has not been set. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's nothing wrong with the article - it's just a few editors (probably the technical crew/director himself) who make changes to reflect what they want. They obviously have little idea of the usual templates/precedent used for such articles. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Where is the significant coverage in "multiple" reliable sources? Just because a film is in post-production stage doesn't make it auto eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia. This one seems to be only reliable source about this film (trivial coverage). I tried but couldn't find anything useful about this film and whatever is in the article doesn't help film to reach the WP:GNG standard. The article is currently nothing but an WP:OR toned-down.

I'm open to change my !vote if anyone can find the requisite sources. Anup [Talk] 03:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added several articles that show it meets GNG. All came out in the past week or so, so hopefully it should be fine now. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good now, Wikimandia did a fine job adding more sources and I see no major issues with the article at this moment. Sro23 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - Sufficient neutral secundary sources to meet WP:GNG. I see no problems caused by a COI in the content of the article. -- Taketa (talk) 11:12, 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 keep. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dariusz Miłek[edit]

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

No independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Plenty of independent sources. #4 wealthy in Poland by Forbes. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Sources are there...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cleaned up. Sources are fine. According to Forbes, he's chairman of Poland's largest retail company. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 10:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Setting aside notability of the n-th richest in Fooland, I also see in-depth coverage in RS like [57]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Datu Puti[edit]

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

Unremarkable condiment. If the manufacturer had an article, I'd suggest a redirect of a mertge. But they don't. TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - brand dominates the Philippine market when it comes to soy sauce and cane vinegar, similar to say, Heinz ketchup in the US. It's also the brand most commonly found in Filipino or Asian specialty stores abroad. Particularly since both are commonly used in Filipino dishes. Note descriptors used in the following secondary sources, "popular", "market leader", "iconic", etc.; CNN particularly, says "Datu Puti is synonymous with vinegar in the Philippines": Inquirer, CNN, ABS-CBN News, Adobo Magazine, Inquirer, GMA News, Rappler, PhilStar, Interaksyon, Daily Tribune, Inquirer, Malaya, Epicurious, The Telegram, New Times, Interaksyon, Business Mirror, Selangor Times, LA Times, Metro.uk.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Obsidian Soul for identifying more than enough reliable sources to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat to my surprise, there are enough usable sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern rugs[edit]

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

Declined speedy since the article has sources, but nevertheless this seems to be an entirely unremarkable business. One minor award does not seem to alter this. TheLongTone (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It sounds like a NN shop, or perhaps warehouse. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete -- an unremarkable online business with no indications of notability or significance. Bordering on corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:56, 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BillRun Technologies Ltd.[edit]

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

Overly promotional article on a non-notable tech startup. I could only find trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a spammy "tech startup blurb", including copy such as "...aims at offering an affordable billing solution for businesses dealing with big data, by using open-source technologies...". 'nough said. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable startup. I assume it's a case of WP:TOOEARLY. Could not find proper references in Hebrew as well, only Press Releases. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:45, 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 redirect to Rooster Teeth. MBisanz ^talk 12:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic Podcast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's been two months since the last AfD closed as no consensus (primarily due to a simple lack of comments), and there has been no improvement on this article. There is still no indication of notability other than the mere fact that the podcast is produced by Rooster Teeth, but notability is not inherited. IagoQnsi (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with either Achievement Hunter or Rooster Teeth. WP:WEBCRIT. Ceosad (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge what is available and then redirect to Rooster Teeth. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of stand-alone notability and Rooster Teeth already has sufficient coverage of this podcast. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator should read last AfD. I also note nominator is (believed to be) inexperienced when it comes to looking for reliability and notability of an article. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InstallShield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

InstallShield is not notable as installshield does not get much coverage it does it warrent an article on wikipedia Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InstallShield in June 2016 after its notability was demonstrated to the unanimous satisfaction of all the participants. The new nomination does not provide any reason why we should reverse the unanimous finding of the previous AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the recent AfD with such a clear keep consensus, this second AfD is baffling. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 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 keep. consensus; DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Donald Trump[edit]

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

Little actual content, WP:TOOSOON for anything to be added onto this article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this too soon? Content needs to be added to the page, not the page removed! Take a look at the history of Public image of Barack Obama, and tell me what you see. Ethanbas (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources already exist, so this does not meet WP:TOOSOON. Riceissa (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It isn't too soon at all. It just needs to be expanded. Nordic Nightfury 08:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete Sources do not exist in this article, which is the thing we're judging. Add some sources, and I'll change my vote, but this was created too hastily, with no work put into it, and there's nothing to keep at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't apply to WP:TOOSOON. JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion ongoing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#.E2.80.8EAppearances_in_popular_culture_deletion .We need a place to park some of the content on the main page.Casprings (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. As stupid and prone to WP:TRIVIA as "Public image of X" articles are, and as much as I'd prefer the establishment of a consensus to permanently kibosh all of them, as things stand today we don't have that and can't judge the article by that standard. I'll grant that this is one of those instances where somebody irritatingly created a "placeholder" page that just consisted of a boilerplate statement that "this is a thing that exists", while failing to actually invest the time in writing or sourcing anything more substantive than "this is a thing that exists" — but there is quite a bit of content already in Trump's WP:BLP that could easily be moved here to expand it. So while it's in dire need of expansion, we have the content and just need somebody to do the work of moving it — so flag it for improvement, but keep (at least until Wikipedia actually comes to its senses about how stupid these are right across the board.) Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been a major public figure since the 80s, a major political figure since summer 2015, and soon to be POTUS. I don't think WP:TOOSOON applies.LM2000 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a melting pot place to add trivia and bias about a living person, see WP:BLP that don't actually belong anywhere on Wikipdia. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:11, 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Authorized Version[edit]

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

There is no indication this Bible translation is notable. There are no reliable independent sources at all. Huon (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find blogs (mostly written by Wikipedians), booksellers, mirror wikis, and generic "lists of every translation ever made of the Bible" but nothing remotely reaching significant (or even detailed) coverage. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 08:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain this article/page. The wikipedia article/page: Bible_translations_into_English lists 141 Bibles, each of which have separate wikipedia articles/pages, and many of those have fewer or no more cited references than The AV7 Bible article/page. Why should The AV7 Bible article/page be singled out and selectively targeted for deletion while many other articles/pages with fewer or no more referenced citations are retained by wikipedia? What benefit is it to wikipedia or to the community of those who use wikipedia to find information to delete content that provides useful and informative content? The AV7 Bible article/page has existed in wikipedia for 10 years, since 2006, so why should it now be selectively singled out and targeted for deletion? The AV7 Bible ~ The New Authorized Version of the Bible has many distinctive and beneficial features and attributes that are not found in any other published Bible. Why should wikipedia arbitrarily censor just one of the 141 Bibles that are currently listed in its Bible_translations_into_English list? Onebible (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
onebible, the fact that poor articles exist on Wikipedia does not mean we should keep them. If there are other articles on the Bible translations into English that are not of a suitable quality, they will either be improved or deleted. As for the age of this article - just because no one has noticed that this article does not meet the inclusion criteria doesn't mean it magically gets to ignore them; it just means that it hasn't been noticed. At the moment there are only two Articles that link to the AV7 page, so it's really no surprise that it's "flown under the radar" so to speak. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac: Your "poor article" assessment seems like a subjective judgment; but since you and Huon have the power to assert your will, and you seem determined to get rid of this article, it makes little sense to try further to dissuade you. Rather ironic, though, that you talk about "inclusion" while seeking to exclude and diminish content that many people might find useful. So go ahead and do your worst ... but who will benefit by your capricious autocratic censorship? Onebible (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
onebible, what part of The Golden Rule is subjective? Your article has no significant coverage from independent sources. That is a purely objective measure. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. I thought the Golden Rule was, "Do unto others as you would have others do to you." Until this threat to delete came up, I had thought that wikipedia wanted to encourage participation in building a resource for informative and useful content, and that was why I invested the time to correct some errors in the subject article and add some useful content. As a result of your rejection of my contribution, I took a moment to see what some others thought about wikipedia and one of the first articles that came up started with this:

The Top 10 Reasons why people cannot rely on Wikipedia:

1 Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us ... some articles may contain errors ... you should not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.” The Wikipedia “About” section states, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality ... they may contain false or debatable information.” Reference: Using Wikipedia

2 Accurate contributors can be silenced. Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source” with the editor deciding what is reliable ... editors at the top of Wikipedia rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.

3 It has become harder for casual participants to contribute. The contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than years ago. The result is that a group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever. A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate ... it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onebible (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is there no credible claim of notability (so there's a WP:GNG issue) the article itself is written in promotional terms, right down to the part that tells you to go to the website that sells it if you want more information. This is not what encyclopaedic language sounds like. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of bible translations all of which claim to be the best translation or paraphrase this article is a promotion of a certain version of the bible unless the promotional language is removed and there is proof of this bible versions notability. wikipedia is not the place to promote anything or any organization. so my recommendation is to ~~Delete~~ this article in its current condition if you want to work on wikipedia that is great we want you here there is an alternative though why dont you userfy this article Wikipedia:Userfication — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonnymoon96, you're welcome to !vote "userfy" put please do not move the page until the AFD is concluded. Also, I'm removing the <ref>...</ref> tags in your comment since it's just a wikilink Primefac (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much Primefac i am thankful for your service yes my recommendation is to Userfy for onebible thank you Primefac for fixing my mistake i am grateful for your service

Delete the LOLCat Bible Translation Project has more mentions in reliable sources than this translation does. Totally agree on the promotional bit too. Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:PROMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, because the idea of a fresh, machine-translated version of the bible's original text is intriguing. However there is absolutely nothing out there that I can find to demonstrate notability. I don't even think it's a WP:TOOSOON: there's not a whiff of academic respectability from the site itself, and a cursory perusal of the text makes the whole thing look like a massive copy and paste job. I suspect the 'sharing' aspect is its raison d'être - i.e. it's an email and and social contacts harvester. Mcewan (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find enough useable sources, did find this (from English Language Bible Translators) but more is needed, note that this bible version is not mentioned at List of English Bible translations, no issue with it being mentioned there. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW - AfD created by sockpuppet account. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Momo[edit]

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

Reason

Delete -this page must be delete.John CS (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW - Article about a notable person. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no opinion): The nominator has told me that the page was created by a sockpuppet and also provided the following reason: "this person is not famous he only appeared in some films". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet created this article in 2014? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By all accounts, it seems to be at least a sockpuppeteer. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any details about the creator of the page, the subject of the article has appeared in notable films (the films themselves and his co-stars have articles on Wikipedia) and a quick Google News search turns up a number of mentions. As I said, this is a case for WP:SNOW Exemplo347 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The creator of this AFD has just been blocked as a sockpuppet. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:29, 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.