Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 November	12 November >

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. Sandstein 21:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Snakes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the members of this band may be notable and some come from some other notable bands, however this band is not notable per our guidelines. It was a side-project of one of the members of Nothingface when they temporarily split up. During its short existence this band never achieved anything notable which would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. They apparently produced only a single EP, not even a full studio album, which had no impact at all. No airings, substantial coverage or chart placements were achieved. It fails WP:NMUSIC in all points. The band is mentioned in some short blurbs and interviews in some metal related magazines/webpages which deal with the break-up of the aforementioned Nothingface, but it is only in passing and the band itself never received any significant in-depth coverage at all. They therefore fail WP:GNG too and the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin Kings[edit]

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

No references listed and none to be found, a non notable film that fails WP:NF. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 09:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find anything for this film. There might be something in Kannada language sources (but I don't know that language). Fails WP:NF. Anup [Talk] 21:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedied by TomStar81 (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 15:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Operations Group[edit]

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

Created by known SP. Non-notable firm, specialises in only railway stock moves. Nordic Nightfury 07:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage I see is limited to Rail Magazine and even that is very brief. It doesn't explain why this organisation is important. As there is little diversity in coverage, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for speedy deletion G5 as the creator Piccadilly389 is sock of a blocked user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/D47817/Archive#21_October_2016. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mecalimb[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions in reliable sources; does not meet WP:GNG, and per research, does not meet WP:BAND at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any results online besides self-authored pages and database entries. One calendar page mentions them getting tacked onto a regional tour last month, and a video interview was posted on a personal youtube account. I don't think that's sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humbervale Park Baptist Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LOCAL Brianga (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an accurate page, please check the citations. All information is true and accurate. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke23waltz (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the issue is not whether the information is true and accurate, but whether the church is notable according to Wikipedia standards. Which is does not appear to be. St Anselm (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is nothing to indicate that this is not yet another NN local church. It might be nice if every church could have its article, but that is not the common outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched. Found a few dozen newspaper listings for programs, but found nothing beyond listings (concerts, services, Sunday school - routine activities of an active congregation.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We are a non-religious, non-sectarian charity, not a web host for evangelization of souls. Their website is insecure and might be adding cookies to people's computers. I found zero news sources online, and only three book sources, one of which is a travel guide. A church founded in the past century, with modern architecture, it is one of thousands in Toronto. It fails every factor of my notability standards for churches. FWIW, my father's parents (one Roman Catholic and one Protestant) were married in that fine city. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 J. Reuben Clark Law School. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU[edit]

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

I think that this page is really redundant, and unnecessary. There is one page which lists all of the law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. This page also tells which law school each clerk graduated from. There are also pages that list all of the law clerks to each seat on the Supreme Court. These pages also tell which law school each clerk graduated from.

I don't see why we need a separate pages listing all of the clerks who graduated from BYU. There is no other law school that has a separate Wikipedia pages listing only the law clerks who graduated from that particular school. This page is an anomaly at best. What justification is there for a page which lists law clerks who graduated from a particular school? Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BYU law school page because that is where readers are most likely to find it and there are no similar articles. I suppose there could be one for Georgetown Law, Michigan, Yale, Harvard, Stanford. Why just BYU Law? --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 21:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To BYU Law School page. The information should be there, but there is not really a justification for a content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge There is no reason to make this an AfD unless you are saying that lists in general are a bad thing, which is not something that fits the scope of an AfD in the first place but instead belongs as a policy discussion on the village pump. If other law schools lack this kind of a page, I'd suggest that they should be created instead as this isn't an excuse. That said, a table like this seems to be something reasonable to include on an article about a law school and I have no significant problems with a merger as long as the information has reliable sources (it appears to be the case here) and isn't being simply deleted or culled. Those who might be interested should be encouraged to create similar tables on other law school pages. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the list is redundant, and frankly not useful in isolation except for possible BYU vanity purposes. Don't encourage more schools to start one of these. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I agree that other law schools do not need to start one of these. According to Brian Leiter's law school rankings, 35 law schools has at least one alumnus clerking for the Supreme Court in the years 2003 to 2013. 22 law schools had at least two alumni clerking for the Supreme Court during those years. And Leiter's list doesn't even include all the schools that produced clerks since Supreme Court justices started hiring clerks back in the 1800's. We don't need all of those law schools starting pages like that.

I also agree that this list is redundant, and not useful in isolation except for possible BYU vanity purposes. Use for BYU vanity purposes would appear to violate WP's policies against self-promotion. If you want to merge this article, that's a possibility. There already is an article entitled List of J. Reuben Clark Law School alumni, and a lot of the Supreme Court clerks are listed on that page. That page also lists the alumni's subsequent accomplishments after they clerked. So the List of J. Reuben Clark Law School alumni contains more complete information. And, there are many other pages with lists of notable alumni of a particular law school, so there's no problem with pages like that. This article could be merged with the list of J. Reuben Clark Law School alumni. Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BYU Law School page per WP:PAGEDECIDE; I think it's best we present this information within the context of the existing article for BYU's law school. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (prefer delete): Redundant to List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States and its various sub-articles, except it selects from that list people who would be part of a list of BYU Law alumni. I am not aware of any specific policies or guidelines on when these sorts of "intersection lists" are permissible, there is some advice at WP:OL, suggesting that we should avoid "irrelevant intersections", and that for an intersection list to be appropriate, we should look for: ... a reasonable amount of solid, mainstream articles, books, or documentaries specifically addressing the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested, for it to have some notability as an intersection. I don't think we have that here. And while this list could be incorporated into the BYU Law article, I don't think it should, because it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable. Even if we did add the list of names to the article, I don't believe there's an attribution requirement given it's just raw data, and was already present in the List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States series of articles. Even then, we should take care, given the lede paragraph of this list is evidently a copyvio or close paraphrasing from some BYU Law website. In short, delete ought to trump merge here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 05:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MyBusTickets[edit]

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

Delete and Salt as happening to see this article, I see it was in fact an advertisement and it's once again here after restarting in 2014 by an advertising-only account, and my own searches are then not finding anything better than obvious paid advertising and PR, and that was including in the immediate first searches, showing there's literally nothing better. Of course all of the listed links here show only what they would say about their own advertisements, and this is what we've come to expect from such sources who are notorious for "pay-for" news advertisements. Another is the article itself goes to the sheer blatancy of casually listing the involved "media and partners", something else only advertising-motivated. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is almost a speedy delete under WP:SPAM. Those sources obfuscate things somewhat. South Nashua (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches and analysis of available sources, this company/website does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:WEBCRIT at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Barker[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Article's had one source since 2009 and unfortunately I can't find any evidence of notability at all not even mentions, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a series of minor roles is just not enough to establish notability. one and two episode apparances in TV shows do not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The tone of the article smacks of more self-promotion than I am comfortable with, and it does appear her roles were mostly minor. But that said, it appears that Drop the Dead Donkey ran for 8 years in the UK, though I cannot determine how often she appeared there (the article says "recurring character") -- On this one, I'll say my piece but am open to reconsider my position if others locate additional material. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G5 ~Anachronist (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCorp Onetree Pictures[edit]

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

WP:HOAX like everything this user created. Timmyshin (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Please note that this looks to be the same person that was blocked last February as FilmMakers20190 (talk · contribs) so a speedy per WP:G% is possible as well. MarnetteD|Talk 22:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G5 ~Anachronist (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chauncey Rodriguez[edit]

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

WP:HOAX like everything this user created. Timmyshin (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Please note that this looks to be the same person that was blocked last February as FilmMakers20190 (talk · contribs) so a speedy per WP:G% is possible as well. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G5 and salted due to being repeatedly created. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Squints[edit]

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

WP:HOAX like everything this user created. (Yes the poster is fake too.) Timmyshin (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G5 ~Anachronist (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth About Jane And Sam II[edit]

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

WP:HOAX like everything this user created. Timmyshin (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. Please note that this looks to be the same person that was blocked last February as FilmMakers20190 (talk · contribs) so a speedy per WP:G5 is possible as well. MarnetteD|Talk 22:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of football stadiums in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic[edit]

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

Firstly, this is not yet a recognised football nation. Secondly, this list essentially contains just the one proper item; the other two stadiums are not notable. Lastly, there is no evidence of any coverage worthy of WP:GNG. Spiderone 20:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of 3 stadia, which isn't enough to be worthwhile. Also, not a FIFA recognised state, and only 1 stadium is notable anyway. Joseph2302 09:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G5. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 Wishes (2016 film)[edit]

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

WP:HOAX, no such film. The content is modified from Three Wishes (Singaporean TV series). Timmyshin (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article even goes so far as to claim that Hans Zimmer scored this fictional movie! FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax Spiderone 20:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is starting to look like this editor is in the hoax business. It should also be noted that they were blocked last February when editing as FilmMakers20190 (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of stadiums and indoor arenas in Greater Manchester by capacity[edit]

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

See WP:LISTCRUFT; I can understand why a list of stadiums in a country might be notable but I can't see any reason for regional lists; could you imagine an article called List of stadiums and indoor arenas in Wiltshire by capacity for example? Spiderone 20:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary listcruft. Joseph2302 09:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If List of stadiums and indoor arenas in Wiltshire by capacity isn't notable (which it isn't), nor is this. Narky Blert (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nargis Khatun (footballer)[edit]

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

Hasn't had any full international caps; fails WP:GNG also Spiderone 19:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 09:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. A few sample references to start:

"Unrelenting passion", The Daily Star
"Meet our Supergirls", Dhaka Tribune
"Goal-happy Bangladesh thrash Kyrgyzstan", Dhaka Tribune
~~"Why Are We So Good", Bangladesh Chronicle~~
"Singapore no match for Bangladesh girls", Dhaka Tribune
"Bangladesh down Kyrgyzstan 10-0", The Independent

Full name is Mossamat Nargis Khatun per Metafootball, a number of more routine match coverage articles, and PFF profile. Hmlarson (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 sources are about the team in general and don't focus specifically on Nargis; the third source is just about her scoring a goal and nothing more; the fourth source doesn't mention her at all. Spiderone 18:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the error on #4 - I removed it. I disagree about the others. Hmlarson (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#5 and #6 are just trivial mentions; the reason being that she is mentioned no more than twice in each article and there is nothing significant there such that we would be able to flesh out this article from it. Spiderone 10:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per as Hmlarson. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete arguments are not evidence based. Evidence supporting WP:GNG is shown, and WP:ATD is a policy. Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by not evidence based? The fact of the matter is that she has not played any senior level football. Furthermore, the sources provided have either been passing mentions or player profiles and do not amount to significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. ATD should only be considered if there is a possibility of GNG being met. For example, would you argue that I could create articles for these players given that they have player profiles on a reliable website? Spiderone 10:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone:, For curiosity, I searched those players of Sutton United, and found that most of them already have articles. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim Husain Meraj: that's fair enough but those are all down to a WP:NFOOTY pass rather than an attempt at GNG. We don't have a crystal ball so, for all we know, Nargis might never make a senior appearance and fade into obscurity or she might quit football and do something else. I believe that the best solution is to delete this now and then recreate if and when she ever meets WP:NFOOTY otherwise we will just end up with a lot more of these 'she might end up being notable' type articles. Spiderone 11:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all four !votes above, the entire core deletion argument is "Fails WP:GNG". In WP:ATA, such !votes are identified as "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". What happened to WP:BEFORE D1? Unscintillating (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as what actually applies here is the footballers notability and it's not being satisfied (as shown by the listed information), therefore considering that, delete. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. There is already consensus here in a very recent AfD that this player is not notable. To review the sources noted above as supporting GNG:

Unrelenting Passion A couple of brief paragraphs. could be used to support GNG but needs much more from over sources to indicate significant coverage.
Meet our supergirls - not suitable for GNG. Essentially no discussion of the player. Three biographical facts and a 16 word quote from her coach. Essentially no coverage at all.
Goal-happy Bangladesh thrash Kyrgyzstan - Routine match report. Three brief mentions of the player. Not dedicated coverage and not substantial.
Singapore no match for Bangladesh girls - one mention of the player missing a chance of a goal in a Routine match report. Not dedicated coverage and not substantial by any stretch of the imagination.
Bangladesh down Kyrgyzstan 10-0 - one mention of the player scoring a goal in a Routine match report. Not dedicated coverage and not substantial by any stretch of the imagination. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Burrows[edit]

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

Although this person appears to have won an award, it does not appear that the award is a particularly notable one. I can't find coverage that would meet GNG. agtx 19:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is non-notable with article based around a laughable award. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. I originally tagged this for speedy deletion; clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal any substantial sources. I'm inclined to !vote delete unless someone else has better luck satisfying WP:BURDEN. Mkdw ^talk 01:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow close. BLP and hoax concerns, as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Donald Trump[edit]

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

Crystal is the biggest concern I have. An article can be made if he is impeached, but he hasn't been in office yet. It's impossible to impeach a person if he's just president-elect. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Doesn't seem well-sourced enough at this point. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 19:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Discussion of the possibility of his impeachment by scholars is appropriate to articles about the scholars. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this to be its own article, not enough coverage to warrant splitting out from Donald Trump. Sam Walton (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gluons12 and Robert McClenon. Jiklo1569 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete One guys opinion does not notability make. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I despise the man, we're all of three days removed from the election and this is purely speculatory opinion. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 19:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Could be WP:SNOW case. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above and BLP issues to boot. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same thing everyone above are saying. Ethanbas (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe impeachment before holding office is possible. But as long as the process has not started Crystal applies. Undelete if a formal process is filed. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Snow delete Ridiculous. Closing admin should check if the article creator is WP:NOTHERE. Revent^talk 19:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie O'yang[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any reliable secondary sources on this topic, and so don't feel she meets the general notability guideline or WP:AUTHOR. The existing sources are an interview with the subject on a blog, another interview and a link to some of her publications. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:PROMO FuzzyGopher (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Russell (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on the argument that other stuff exists. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails relevant notability guidelines -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's current club have received publicity for their unbeaten run but that is at a level several tiers below a fully professional league and doesn't confer notability on individual players. The subject's highest point was unused sub in a playoff between Scottish 2nd and 3rd tiers, which is insufficient for WP:NFOOTY. AllyD (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plays for a semi-pro team and thus does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 09:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myer Centrepoint[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. hardly any coverage. 15000 square metres and around 60 shops is very small by Wikipedia standards for a shopping centre . The fact that it serves a regional city does not it in itself add to notability LibStar (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable shopping centre, as per nominator. Ajf773 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:NOTYELLOW. I couldn't find SIGCOV and there doesn't appear to be anything about this mall that would meet NCORP. Mkdw ^talk 01:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:MER-C under criterion G5. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hengameh Ghaziani[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions such as [1], [2], [3]. This subject does not meet WP:BASIC, and finding no evidence that this subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Has anyone looked at Farsi language sources? Seems that english ones are going to be insufficient. imdb (yes, not a RS) shows 19 film credtc, I think: [4]. May be worth a bit more digging. Montanabw^(talk) 06:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renonyx[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. No independent sources are provided in the article, and if independent coverage exists at all I haven't been able to find it. Kolbasz (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one hits the jackpot. Several assertions of notability which are incorrect or deliberately obfuscated (such as citing an indie editing role for calling him a "filmmaker"). Article written by two newborn SPAs in 1 day. Deep personal history with no sources. No independent or third-party coverage. Major WP:PEACOCK. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or anyway I don't see notability as a photographer. Is the claim that he's notable as something other than a photographer? -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as anything, relaly. The article attempts "throw everything against the wall and see if anything sticks" notability: as a photographer, as an artist, as a musician, as a filmmaker, as a businessman... but regardless of which aspect you look at, none of it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Kolbasz (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Lassus[edit]

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

This person appears to be someone who's taken on a few roles as an extra in a few films. He doesn't appear to have played any notable roles. I don't believe this person satisfy the critera for notability under WP:GNGACTOR. Of the 7 cited sources only two actually mention this person (and one of those is IMDB which can be edited by anyone). The page has been an orphan since at least 2009 Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. One single named role, in an independent film. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Kolbasz (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not even clear that the films he was in are notable enough to count towards our requirement of multiple significant roles in notable films. It is even less clear he has had multiple significant roles in any films, and his stage acting is clearly not of a nature to contribute towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Birmingham Senior Cup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Birmingham Senior Cup[edit]

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

Article about a season of a county cup competition. There is no notability guideline for these articles, but every single AfD discussion we have had on county cup seasons has resulted in the article being merged or deleted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Was prodded, but the prod was removed without a reason by the article's creator. Number 5 7 13:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Birmingham Senior Cup. Per WP:NSEASONS, this is preferable to deletion where the target page exists. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Birmingham Senior Cup per WP:NSEASONS. Joseph2302 09:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Valid search term and the redirect could help users trying to find information. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Senior Advisor[edit]

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

All the sources given are from the business offering certification. A google search throws up nothing establishing notability, just primary sources and other businesses offering training to achieve the qualification. Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undisguised advertising. Classic example of a business using WP as a directory. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. We are not a web host nor an advertising platform; we are a private charity. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkien profanity[edit]

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

This appears to be basically a dictionary of profanity. No sources, no evidence of notability. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is of course part of a large categorization scheme, Profanity by language, with many similar Fooian profanity main articles, and it seems to me the way to proceed, per WP:PRESERVE, would be to tag it as unreferenced -- or better yet try to find and add some. But I don't see why we would single out and delete one particular profanity by language article over what should be a fixable problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although unsourced, the content is encyclopedic and falls in line with the wider "profanity by language" series. We're better off keeping than deleting it. Deryck C. 15:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how i missed the category, but I did search and find nothing. Probably others familiar with the category can find something showing it's been discussed in some detail. But I'm not convinced that all Fooian profanity articles are automatically notable. I'll withdraw this in a couple of days if no one agrees with me, but I'd like to keep it open a bit. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And moved to Jacobi's theorem (geometry) Sam Walton (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobi point[edit]

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

per WP:NOTJOURNAL, this appears to be written like a textbook or scientific journal - more importantly, I could not establish notability or significance for this during a web search. Garchy (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This stub is written like every other math article in Wikipedia. It states the theorem and the associated point, states who it is attributable to, and shows how it relates to other math concepts, with wikilinks. It does not give a proof, which in the absense of special insight might make it a violation of WP:NOTJOURNAL. As for notability, the cited articles give some more citations, but I did not find it helpful to duplicate them in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loraof (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references source the fact that this point is well defined, but not that it is called the "Jacobi point". And calling it the Jacobi point of a triangle is just wrong; it is not a triangle center, as it depends on the choice of angles as well as on the triangle itself. So if this is kept I think it should be moved to Jacobi's theorem (geometry), which is currently a redirect to this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Line 4 of the cited 2016 paper calls it the Jacobi point. Loraof (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (+move). The tone is not so shockingly more textbookish than that of your average math stub that deletion is warranted, I think. Improving it to reasonable levels would probably be easier than arguing about whether to delete it. Notability seems iffy, though, but meh, give the poor stub a chance. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but move to a statement of the theorem. I've seen other "Jacobi points" which might be more notable. Until they have articles, it's OK for Jacobi point to point to this article, but it's really about the theorem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: (1) The complaint that this is written like a journal article or a textbook rather than like a Wikipedia article has no merit. It just makes me wonder if the person proposing this has ever seen any Wikipedia articles on elementary geometry or any other topic in mathematics. (2) If that were true, the remedy would be editing, not deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, WP:NOTJOURNAL certainly has merit, as the article should not exist based on that concern and the WP:NOTABILITY issues. As for whether I've read other articles on theorems - that certainly has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept or not, based on the merits I listed above about what Wikipedia is not and the potential notability/significance issues - the significance issue (whether this theorem should have a sole article as opposed to being merged is the main issue.) Garchy (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (but prefer move). As Loraof already said, "This stub is written like every other math article in Wikipedia", and the sourcing we have is sufficient for WP:GNG. I still think that this would be better as an article about the theorem (that these lines coincide) than about the point (where they coincide) but that doesn't have to be settled by the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's the sort of thing our core readers would be looking for, especially those taking the GRE. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by RHaworth per CSD G5 after being moved to a different title [5]. The redirect from the move was deleted by Anomie BOT as a broken redirect per CSD G8 (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arm The Homeless (guitar)[edit]

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

The subject, Tom Morello, is notable, but per source searches, his guitar is not. Does not meet WP:GNG; source searches are providing inadequate coverage to qualify a standalone article. This primary source (see video) provides some content, but other sources are providing inadequate coverage that lacks depth (e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Morello: There seem to be only trivial coverage of this thing in reliable sources (amount of coverage in non-rs is of no use). Thus, fails WP:GNG. For the passing mentions it has received, make it a redirect and merge reliably sourced contents in target article. Anup [Talk] 12:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 12:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per reasons above. Plenty of coverage but nothing independent from Morello himself. I think fans should create a "notable instruments" section in his article, but I'm not a fan. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:MER-C under criterion G5. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 20:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Tavakoli[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject involved in film has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. Only finding passing mentions in relation to his work directing Here Without Me, which is also a WP:BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Turnure[edit]

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

The subject won Miss Washington USA. Of the two sources, neither is really about the subject. One is about how she and her twin sister won two years in a row. The other is about how Washington is not a "pageant state", the winner of the pageant receives less winnings than in say Texas, the pageant is not televised as it is in other states, ect. Basically it is a source that shouts "winning this title is less notable than some other state titles". John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no notability especially for a WP:BLP. Otr500 (talk)
Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maegan Phillips[edit]

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

Phillips one claim to fame is being Miss Virginia USA in 2009. My searches did not bring up more sources, and the sources we have here are clearly not enough. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Miss Virginia USA (2009) is just not notable. The Bristol Herald Courier link (about her pageant win) returns a 404 dead link. A Google search brought up a WP:Primary source. Otr500 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: was that meant as a "delete" vote?
Delete -- no notability here; these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above: Although these pages are "routinely deleted" I still do a minimum search, to include books and such, to satisfy WP:BEFORE. In this case I meant to leave a comment (Forgot to put "Comments" as I was going to work and in a hurry) to get back to it. It "fell through the cracks" so thanks @ K.e.coffman. I could not find any sources, except ones considered insignificant or WP:Primary related to her involvement in Miss Virginia USA, meaning this article subject would fall in the class of those justifiably routinely deleted. Otr500 (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Model of the World 2006[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable organised event, and article on which exists for promotional purposes, while offering no encyclopedic prose on the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Model of the World 2010[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam on an unremarkable event and only provides a list of country, not the contestants due to them being non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traedakidd[edit]

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

Spam created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Non notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. His claim to fame appears to be a 100k view youtube video, and a single local article. These do not satisfy GNG. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how its considered spam by AfD nominator. The artist does show notability; as mentioned by Vibe [10] and WQHT [11]. 84.255.215.92 (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is well known rap star which is shown by his mtv.com profile.Banty Banty 123 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MTV. "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form." Not an independent reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO - does not belong in an encyclopedia just yet. ‑‑Dstone66 ⑆^(talk)⑇^(contribs)⑈ 22:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McVey[edit]

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

Insufficient significant coverage exists to meet WP:V. Previously deleted once. —swpb^T 19:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BLP. Being hired by notable people/groups does not confer notability. No independent coverage either. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was created 10 years ago, deleted, and re-created two years ago, with little improvement. Video directors are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Bennett Williamson[edit]

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

Non-notable author of self-published books, search turns up nothing useful. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are turning up very little. I am seeing no evidence that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR or broader WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good catch. Superficially looks like an author but appears to be a blogger who collates her work into self-published books. I can't find any reviews to suggest she has an audience. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Davies (American actor)[edit]

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

Article on young actor created by WP:SPA, evidently employed by Advantage Models, the agency representing him. Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR, as he's so far only had minor roles in a few low-notability films. Did well in school and college athletics, but not to the level required by WP:NTRACK. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just interviews with niche film news sites and blogs, passing mentions elsewhere, and a lot of press releases. Sounds like a talented young man, but WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Wikishovel (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional article from a clear COI account. Routine/local coverage refbomb. On an unrelated note: how is AdvantageProducer not banned yet? 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has two roles in low budget films. If he had been the lead actor in either I might consider considering him notable, but he was not. In this case I think "multiple" needs to be more than 2. He is on track to make notability guidelines if he has a few more roles, or gets a lot better coverage, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo, COI and SPA account. Extremely minor actor. FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on filmography. I think the article can be cleaned up to remove promotional material and turned into a stub. Instaurare (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is worthy of deletion. He has credible roles in feature films and many coming up. He seems very notable, even according to sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolecrumbley (talk • contribs)

@Nicolecrumbley: I notice that you have so far exclusively edited articles on actors and films connected with Advantage Models, with a very similar editing pattern to that of article creator User:AdvantageProducer. Are you the same person, editing under two accounts? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the same person editing under two accounts. I am not sure who the user of AdvantageProducer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolecrumbley (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle sustainability assessment[edit]

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

Redundant article since we already have Life cycle assessment. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LCA is a method to measure environmental impact, LCSA is a new method environmental, social and economic impact. Method are similar but not the same, so article is not redundant. --79.216.125.62 (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible assertion that this is different from LCA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this like creating a page for something called a "Sandandwich" which is "A food that contains a sandwich, bread, and lunchmeat"? 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications on why this concept is notable or significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poker analyzer[edit]

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

No sources and its not even obvious what this thing is from the article. After googling, it turns out that its a mobile app, and only badly written advertising articles at that. Doesn't seem notable in any way. Scribolt (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:NONSENSE and WP:NOCONTEXT. Casual tone, no sources, not even clear if this is a person, product, or idea. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not quite sold on speedying it. Agree with the nom. The subject doesn't appear notable, and the article is not written clearly enough to give the reader that much context. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Jianbo[edit]

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

not notable as a teacher, in industry or a pianist. Looks like a misplaced social media page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this appears to fail WP:GNG. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable teacher who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Honestly, I would have tried it as a PROD first, but AfD works as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW 'Delete as I concur with the nomination, absolutely nothing here for actual notability for any of the listed capacities and nothing else at all close to it. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably hoax as well, as the Chinese name given in the article is completely different from the romanized name. Timmyshin (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iwaspoisoned.com[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed removed by SPA account with the sole comments of "1. The site is endorsed by the International Association for Food Protection - link to endorsement now added, related to the 2016 conference where the founder was a guest speaker. 2. Added another article wh...." and none of that satisfies what it takes for actual notability here, and how the article is such an unconvincing advertisement, it should not have been accepted in the first place. Note, the sources added along with the PROD removal are both unconvincing, this and this which are (1) and a trivial guide which only casually mentions them thrice and (2) a trivial passing mention (something that was noted in the PROD and also what the sources all consisted of, as it is). As it is, it's clear this was started as an advertising-motivated and business-listing-intiated and that's not tolerable, especially when all that could literally be offered as news sources were casual mentions! SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even though I really want to say WP:ITSUSEFUL as a public health service. Clearly no name recognition and only passing coverage, this is neither helpful nor notable. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting service. Honestly it could be useful to see the service become notable. At the same time, this is WP:TOOSOON. No notability yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vanity page of an unremarkable web site / business. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game exclusives (eighth generation)[edit]

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

This article is compilation of three tables (List of PlayStation 4 games, List of Wii U software, List of Xbox One games) with non-exclusive games removed. It's redundant. It's console war heavy article with no encyclopedic value. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 05:43, 11 November 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 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you need to look up several genres and industry terminology several times before you can even grasp the article as a novice, it has failed. This is incredibly confusing and as the nom said, should be divvied as it is per console rather than as an industry-speak textwall. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant/unnecessary. This can be tracked by a simple column or color-coding scheme in the individual lists given in the nomination. (If it needs to be tracked at all. This is getting into fancruft/fanboy war type stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant. The same information is conveyed in the main list tables. — TPX 14:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console, closed as no consensus in 2009. The 7th and 8th generation lists are the only ones I can find. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the presence of other articles of similar nature don't automatically qualify this article for a keep (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), it seems that a WWI history page for at least the Ottoman Empire is appropriate. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Ottoman Empire during World War I[edit]

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

This article was specifically created in March 2015 by a Turkish nationalist editor (SelimAnkara1993) with the purpose of denying the Armenian Genocide. The proof for this was that he created another article, which was eventually voted to be deleted for being a POV propaganda piece: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire. The user SelimAnkara1993 started editing in January 2015 and stopped in June 2015. Compare with the main article used in Template:History of the Ottoman Empire for the WWI period: Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, which was eventually restored to the template after the Turkish nationalist user was done editing and creating political articles. 92slim (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Immense historical value, comparable articles on Wikipedia (such as Military history of Italy during World War I), and tons of links to this article within Wikipedia itself and multiple versions in multiple languages. Especially more relevant considering the Ottoman Empire dissolved a short while after World War I. There is definitely a disturbing overtone to the article and it is in bad need of a neutrality clean up, which I can see after a cursory glance: disturbing lack of mention of the Armenian genocide, slightly nationalistic overtone ("at silent predawn attacks in which officers with drawn swords vent ahead of troops and only the troops to shout their battlecry of "Allahu Akbar!" when they reached the enemy’s trenches.") However, I think the solution is a major clean up, not a deletion of the entire page. There is some good info here not to be dismissed. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any useful reliably sourced content here that is not covered in Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and Defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire? If we are looking at this as part of our coverage of World War I then the former article would seem to be the best place for at, and particular coverage of the history of the Ottoman Empire woiuld seem to belong in the latter. From the point of view of Ottoman history it seems very strange to have one article covering both 1908-1914 and 1918-1922 but a separate article for 1914-1918. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the former article has a lot on the Ottomans, but not as in-depth as this, I believe. There are {{main}} article links leading to Balkans Campaign (World War I) and Romania during World War I under the Ottoman section, but none leading to the Ottomans specifically. I think the proposed article has a lot of info that, if incorporated into Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, would make that article far too lengthy. I don't think it is strange at all to have an article covering the 1914–1918 period; plenty of countries have separate articles in their history timeliness specifically dedicated to the two Great wars. There is the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom (a starred article, by the way), and plenty more.

I'm not saying the current page isn't biased and doesn't need a lot of work, but I don't think the solution is to scrap it entirely. Even if this particular article is so unsalvageable and chock-full of biased sourced that the vote goes to delete it, I still do think a History of the Ottoman Empire during World War I should exist and would be a great addition to Wiki. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have similar articles on almost all participants of WI and WWII. Those articles usually concentrate on the countries instead of a theater and also contain more than just bland military action. This way they are usually very valuable. An article being biased or badly written is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason to rewrite it, maybe even from scratch, depending on how bad it is. The Ottoman Empire was a major player in WWI and lots of events happened during WWI, so it definitely warrants its own XYZ in WWx article. Generally this article should therefore be kept. Now regarding the bias: Yes the article has obviously been written by some nationalistic Turkish individual, but that can be fixed. The Armenian genocide and related events were completely missing from the article. This is a major point which needs to be in the article. Therefore I added it using material from the main articles. So at least it is now mentioned, but this section should ofc be more expanded. Dead Mary (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As said by the above two editors, there seem to be many such articles. That is not an automatic argument for keep. I think some of them are of very dubious notability, such as History of Vietnam during World War I, and there seem to be a very wide range of article titles (for example United States home front during World War I) - it would be better to standardize these titles in some way. But I think for this article the assumption would be to keep it. 92slim needs to present more than content issue arguments. If there is still a problem with pov forks, then they can be dealt with on an article by article basis (I took part in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire so I know 92slim is correct in his assertion regarding that problem in the past). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see on the article's talk page that I had expressed concerns for the article back in May 2015. My question about whether its subject was perhaps covered already in an existing article is worth answering in relation to this AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I wasn't saying the existence of other articles justifies keeping the Ottoman one, I think the Ottoman one is important in the context of WWI (for reasons given above). The History of Vietnam during World War I (which I also think is a keep, as an aside, if that issue of deletion is ever raised--or at least a salvage) seems to be based on two or three sources. The Ottoman article is extensively sourced...although I have not personally checked the validity of such sources. Again, I think it's also particular important, as this was the last truly great war the Ottomans were in. Not every country deserves a "During WWI" article, but if ever one did, it's the Ottoman Empire. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Why Grand Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Non notable shopping mall with only 28 stores. Looking back into the history of this article, the editor had an AFC declined several times but removed the AFC template and created it as an article anyhow. Fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. it barely gets any coverage in the Sydney major newspapers . Too small by Wikipedia standards. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promo-only coverage, no assertion of significant events/history as a location. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with above. Nothing given to establish notability. MB 02:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Chan (Canadian veteran)[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability, there is no indication of notability besides being mentioned in a museum exhibit. Just another soldier who served well Gbawden (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article fails GNG. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a memorial. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MILNG. MB 02:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Gomes Pacheco[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never managed in a WP:FPL. His three only interim matches consisted of Campeonato Pernambucano matches, non-notable per FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 03:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and also seems to be a bit of a CV. Joseph2302 09:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G11 by DGG (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Lloyd Mahaffey[edit]

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

Despite the article's impressive claims I do not see that Mahaffey meets the standards of notability. Four of the references are press releases, a fifth is an interview, the ancient Computer World article only quotes him withouth covering Mahaffey himself in any detail. All key claims in the article are unsupported by the given secondary sources. My own searches, both news and books, have not yielded anything better. Huon (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think this article is great and certainly notable. References are certainly notable as well. So I'm going to go with Keep on this one. ThepoliticalLib (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC) ThepoliticalLib is a sockpuppet evading a previous block. Huon (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has had a successful career, but it doesn't seem to have attracted enough attention to generate in-depth coverage in reliable sources by independent writers. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of notable, which is noticed (already written about in other places). Business publications don't make content easy to see however. If there are significant articles there it would be another story. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all successful businessmen are notable, as per previous comment. Google doesn't find anything not already referenced. Article also contains irrelevant peacock language and appears written to praise him. That isn't a reason to delete, but it does explain why the article was written. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Williams Companies#Telecommunications. Anyone interested in merging content can access the redirected article's Revision history to view its content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WilTel Communications[edit]

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

Previous AfDs for this article:

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:GB fan with the following rationale "ecline PROD. Article is ineligible as it was previously at VFD". While I comment GB fan for finding this piece of wiki history, all it shows is that this spam has survived more than 10 years. It is time to put it out of our misery. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I noticed when the article was PRODed and when it was taken to AfD here now, and I concur with the nomination, even if it was nominate 10 years ago, this current article still speaks for itself and there's nothing actually convincing; I'll note my own searches found nothing but published-republished PR and trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this back into Williams Companies#Telecommunications, where it's briefly discussed and could be productively expanded. This Williams venture was a significant early player in the fiber optic sector. Here is a detailed 2002 AP story on the history of the company up to that point; here is The Wall Street Journal. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is an acceptable solution, thanks for finding a good target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I didn't want to decline the PROD but just wasn't eligible but the redirect option found is the best solution to this article. -- GB fan 11:52, 10 November 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 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Agreed, this should lead to Williams Companies#Telecommunications via merge and redirect. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Redirect to Williams Companies#Telecommunications. Anup [Talk] 17:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Philippot[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "certainly seems to hold a senior enough post to be notable". This is, however, not a valid argument for notability - it is nowhere to be seen in Wikipedia:Notability (people). WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME does note some exceptions but only for "Presidents, Chief Executive Officers, and Chairpersons of the Boards of Directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK)". Granted, this needs to be globalized, but I don't think this unreferenced bio fits this treshold. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator seems to have misunderstood what this man is. He is not a businessman. He is head (or maybe deputy head) of a national public broadcasting network (the Walloon equivalent of the BBC, for example) and president of the European Broadcasting Union, an exceptionally notable international organisation. Even a very brief Google search will confirm he holds these positions and bring up numerous references. I fail to see how on earth someone in this position could not be notable and how deletion would benefit Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I classified him as businessmen because this is the closed specialized guideline I could find. If you don't want to use it, we fall back on general WP:BIO, and you still have not made any argument other then "I think he is important" here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apart from (a) I think he clearly meets WP:GNG - there's quite a lot of coverage out there - and (b) Wikipedia is, of course, largely governed by common sense and not unwavering "rules" (if it was then we wouldn't even be having this discussion - there would be a clearcut set of criteria that determined whether he was or was not worthy of an article). And I can't believe anyone's common sense would tell them that the president of the EBU wasn't notable! Given your long experience here I'm frankly very surprised you would think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is exactly of my long experience that I think I am able to see the big picture, which is that we are drawning in quasi-spam like this: entries on people or organizations which would never appear in any traditional encyclopedia because they are just having semi-successful careers. I don't see why a CEO or director or such are notable simply by the virtue of their position. If they do something special, they will be written about and they will pass GNG. Simply doing their managerial job reasonably well is not enough, IMHO. Just like a reasonably big company is not notable because it is reasonably big, if there are no sources for it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - "people or organizations which would never appear in any traditional encyclopedia". What, you mean like every minor pop star or person who's played in a single professional sports game? Oh wait, we do include them on Wikipedia! The problem is, if you delete every article on a person who's notable just for holding a major post in a national or international organisation then you risk drowning in articles about minor celebrities who are gushed about on the internet for five minutes but will be completely forgotten in three years time! I don't think that's what we want Wikipedia to be, do you? An encyclopaedia of pop culture which ignores people who have actually done something in a significant but not populist field? I don't know about you, but I don't devote my time to this project to see it go that way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Necrothesp, first, note WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Even through I do think that we are way to inclusive for "every minor pop star or person who's played in a single professional sports game", this problem is something to discuss elsewhere. We cannot argue "keep it because of bias". Just like while I am very understanding of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and under-representation of women, for example, I'd never support and argument that we should include articles about women just because we need them to balance the number of articles per gender. Now, I am actually thinking of writing an Op-Ed to signpost about the over-represenation of sports and music bios, and I'd be happy to collaborate with you on this if you'd like, but at the same time I do not believe that the solution is to lower the bar (or not enforce the rules) on other types of bios. For such middling CEOs, I think the best that they deserve is the same as those musicians and sportspeople: a note in the company that such and such had a position. They merit a mention in the organization's article, but not an article themselves. Because they do not pass GNG, and that's the bottom line here, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not arguing for "balance"; I am arguing for application of common sense. It was you who said we should not have articles on people other encyclopaedias wouldn't have articles on. I was just pointing out that we do already; many thousands of them, mandated by guidelines. Sorry, but I am at a loss to understand how you could possibly describe the president of a major international organisation and the head (or even deputy head) of a national broadcasting organisation as a "middling CEO"! If you tried to delete articles on senior executives of the BBC (or equivalent organisations in other English-speaking countries) you would be laughed out of AfD! In any case, I do not agree that he fails GNG. There is plenty of coverage on the internet; I'm sure there's even more in the print media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would have said delete for an unsourced BLP, but simply clicking on the "Find sources" bar turned up lots of stuff and I've put the most obvious in the article. Hope it won't be taken amiss if I suggest that WP:BEFORE might have avoided this AfD. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure complete independence of sources I have not included news published by the RTBF itself (which he heads), nor press releases from the EBU (which he heads), nor interviews with him. Doing so would much increase the range of coverage.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or the whole "Poland could be excluded from Eurovision if they adopt illiberal broadcast laws that contravene EBU norms" thing, which gets the bulk of coverage in English and Polish. Too much of a can of worms. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references are available. Clearly meets WP:GNG. --Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan McHugh[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:JWhitman39 following a discussion at our talk pages. Unfortunately, upon my second review of sources (which have not increased since I prodded it) I stand by my conclusion that this bio fails NBIO requirements. There is no independent, significant coverage, and the only saving grace is if someone could argue that this meets #3 of WP:CREATIVE as a film director, however, even if we accept that, there is the question of whether the works he directed represent "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Given the near lack of coverage of his work by other sources, I am, as I said, not convinced here. Still, I agree with the creator this merits a wider discussion. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that this person has had success over the years in behind the scenes roles in show business. However, I see no significant coverage of Jonathan McHugh as a person in independent, reliable sources. Therefore, he is not notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Short of winning an Oscar himself, we almost always delete producer articles. Notability is not inherited from other talent. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable producer; notability is not inherited. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kurdistan Free Life Party. Sandstein 18:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Kurdistan Defense Units[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Women's Defence Forces

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

Fails to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Merge with Kurdistan Free Life Party. Pahlevun (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I find 2 more news sources: [12], [13]. Perhaps there are more in English. I would be hesitant to delete it without hearing more from others and seeing what they can find. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are trivial mention, not deep coverage. Being subordinate to notable organizationsdoes not prove notability, because notability is not inherited. Pahlevun (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a separate article, make a redirect to Kurdistan Free Life Party (there doesn't really seem to be anything to merge). --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurdistan Free Life Party as the coverage doesn't seem to warrant a separate article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)
'Redirect to Kurdistan Free Life Party, or merge it into that existing article. I don't see this section of a male armed wing expanding. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kurdistan Free Life Party. Any content for a merge can be taken from the page history. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yehey![edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Prodded and deprodded almost 10 years ago, which still makes it illegible for prod, so we are here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a strange thing to make an article for. Imagine if we had a catalog article for every search engine/directory service that died in the dotcom bubble... 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources added by the IP are mostly local, and so do not fix the concern raised by the nominator. The only good source is [14], and one source is not enough to establish notability. Cerebellum (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Allison[edit]

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

No information available except from his home city paper. No recordings are listed, and other indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources available to support notability 104.163.140.57 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New sources added to show notability.2605:6000:FB03:1F00:C0F2:E244:8B63:96D3 (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting a three line stub, this is extensive with an obituary and television new coverage. No Bob Dylan Nobel Prize winner but well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I in fact meant to comment sooner, the IP above is not at all convincing because the sources themselves are still not enough for genuine convincing, I concur with the nomination and the concerns listed. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local theater performer. Not notable in the encyclopedia sense. I suspect there's some sympathy in play here because the subject is deceased, but remember Wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it exists seem to discuss two different people, Don Allison and Don Caldwell. Is the claim that these two are the same people? Is the article just messed up? Something else? @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Hobit (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not. Don Allison was a vocalist and is deceased. Don Caldwell is a saxophonist and until recently ran the recording studio that bears his name in Lubbock since the 70s. He's alive but (as far as I know) retired. I don't know if they ever played together but likely knew each other as Caldwell's studio was the only one in Lubbock for some time. Of the two, Caldwell is more notable, mostly for running the studio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Article seems well sourced and somewhat notable. Not orphaned -- although most of them linking articles themselves don't seem that important, e.g., Allison (surname) or List of people from Texas. There is at least one incorrect reference, listing him as one of the actors who played LBJ on The Kennedys (different actor, same name). Have removed those accordingly. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:MEMORIAL page on a subject that does not show signs of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was curious to see why two editors have mentioned WP:NOTMEMORIAL, so here is the text:

Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

Shortcut

WP:NOTMEMORIAL

Wikipedia pages are not:

. . .

4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements (for the Wikipedia page for deceased Wikipedia editors, however, see WP:RIP).

Analysis WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to wp:notable topics. Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not Wikipedia editors who decide what topics get covered in our system. For WP:GNG, this decision is reserved for reliable sources. Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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