Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 November 15 November >

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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 04:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farzad Esmaili[edit]

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

fails WP:SOLDIER Reza Amper (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 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) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dedering[edit]

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

I don't believe that Mr. Dedering qualifies for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG because all of the references cited either doesn't involve the subject directly or mentioned Mr. Dedering in passing along with other political candidates. Dolotta (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to all the reasons already specified above, it warrants note that the article was originally created by User:DederingforWI — so, not surprisingly because that's par for the course for this kind of thing, throw some WP:COI on the fire too. Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 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.  Sandstein  13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish mythology[edit]

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

It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_11#Polish mythology redirects that:

The (moreover, messy and unsourced) article "Polish mythology" should be deleted, or at least radically changed/written anew. There is not such a thing like "Polish mythology". This notion may be used metaphorically, or in some (for example, neopagan) circles, but it is not a real scientific term. The current article "Polish mythology" is a stange mix of the (real, but porly known) Slavic mythology, medieval legends, folk customs and believes, and espescially medieval and modern forgeries. Henryk Tannhäuser (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taken to AfD by me, Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, per WP:CLN, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided". Andrew D. (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since a long time ago, the very existence of the "Polish mythology" was questioned in the discussion of this article: [1]. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex and broad, a large number of articles about Polish folklore and Slavic mythology contain higly dubious informations... Henryk Tannhäuser (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, salt, and burn. This entry was started in November 2003 by User:152.163.252.37 from Kansas, as a misunderstood Wikipedia category. It consisted of nothing but internal links to relevant entries.[2] A year later, in October 2004, User:217.10.246.155 from Gurkovo, Bulgaria, removed the content and redirected this entry to Slavic mythology.[3] Three years later in March 2007 he was reverted by User:130.225.49.3 from Aalborg, Denmark.[4] After two more years, with almost no participation from the community; in July 2009 I discovered this entry, and tried to make it into a real article by adding (+2,860)‎ of copytext with {{reflist}} and first ever inline citations to reliable sources including Norman Davies.[5] The cannibalization of what I wrote began two months later by User:Seidr as well as User:79.182.133.63 (Kfar Saba, Israel), and User:79.184.231.131 (Kołobrzeg, Poland), and others, and continued uninterrupted through 2012,[6] until February 2016‎.[7] By this time, the actual article ceased to exist, and turned back into a misunderstood Wikipedia category with nothing but i-links. Poeticbent talk 14:52, 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 speedily deleted by User:Orangemike under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 01:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March on Drina - an open provocation or cultural heritage[edit]

March on Drina - an open provocation or cultural heritage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The PROD tag was removed by the author who unfortunately left no explanation. In any case, I stand by my PROD-rationale: this is an opinion piece but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Pichpich (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this "article" as blatantly promotional of a non-Neutral Point of View; it was original research promoting a particular ethnic and political point of view, and as such had no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 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) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nettech Ltd[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Nearly a speedy deletion candidate under WP:A7, but "In 2013, it was rated by Sunday times as the fastest growing small business." does constitute a credible claim of significance. However, it's not a sufficient indicator of notability by itself, and it also lacks a source (the reference attached to that statement is unrelated). Besides that, there's nothing on the page to indicate notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this was literally speedied as both no claims of significance and advertising only yesterday and both times it was blatant, thus showing not only the sheer consistency and blatancy, but how we need to take it seriously and save ourselves the time and efforts of another deletion and damaged articlespace (which is not tolerant of such unconvincing materials). SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: A WP:SPA article sourced to business listings and the company's blog. The apparent claim to notability through a Sunday Times award is sourced to - a local Yellow Pages listing. Nothing reliable; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:53, 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. North America1000 01:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MaiYap[edit]

See also Mai Yap - same person, currently prodded. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaiYap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems more like a CV than a Wikipedia article. I don't really see anything sufficient to establish notability -- the closest thing is that she's had a lot of gallery exhibitions and "2016 City of Miami Artist Recognition by Mayor Thomas Regalado". Besides lacking sources, neither of those claims seems sufficient for GNG. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No sources and looks like it was copy-pasted from another document (although I'm not seeing copyvio). Content looks promotional and peacocky Jergling (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom. Google finds hits on exhibitions of her artwork, but no independent coverage to establish notability. MB 04:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletevanity page for non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 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.  Sandstein  15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hamon[edit]

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

Removed prod, the article fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG Mattlore (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Prod was contested on the grounds that the player made a Challenge Cup appearance, but this only applies to players on fully pro teams. Easily fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 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.  Sandstein  15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Planet[edit]

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

Topic not notable. There is barely any information on the series, which is ten years old, and only one (OK) reference. Cindlevet (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't even have an IMDB entry. Looks to be a bumper from an early childhood channel. Jergling (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America1000 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeepTouchSA[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC/WP:BASIC - all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings or major label signings. McGeddon (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GNG from secondary sources. Just download links and blog posts could be found. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought he might be French-language/African web only like Kaysha, but even google.fr shows nothing. Jergling (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Delete as it's a blatant advertisement when all there is to list is his own websites, literally nothing else especially since the information is also trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Receptionists[edit]

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

Still a blatant advertisement since my extensive and specific PROD here since the listed sources are all simply publishing PR or republishing it, take the Forbes for example, it is literally from a "special contributor" who is a apparently some random journalist, likely hired or enticed by the company to publish their own advertising; the Fortune itself is simply part of a list of new minor companies to work with, and the others are equally blatant PR; my own searches had in fact found PR, and that's not surprising since that's exactly what both the article contents and history show in that this has literally not changed since the first user's contributions, Mxheil (which seems to have been a clever advertising-only account and I would even speculate it was a paid advertising account, the fact it's one major contribution was this one advertisement). Something else to note about this article is not only the blatancy of using PR and advertising puff here, but once again, my repeated searches are still only finding local PR advertising and PR words published or republished by the businesspeople or company themselves.

We never and never shall make compromises with such advertising blatancy wherever the information may be published, because one thing is certain, and that's that the information, even in the major news, are simply PR and republished PR, including by damningly blatant "special contributor". SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The Forbes link is in the External links section of the article. It is not used as a source or to demonstrate notability. North America1000 15:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article from Fortune you can't argue is PR, it is independent, and is mostly about the company. Taken in conjunction with some of the other sources in the article and others that are out there, there is enough to meet the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book also has a fair amount on the company (as in more than trivial coverage), and it appears rather independent. The fact that you get 167 hits on Google's Books search says something. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The article does not have a promotional tone. North America1000 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only good reference is the article in Fortune. There's a reason why WP:GNG specifies several references, in order to avoid making articles on the basis of a single magazine's or newspaper's humnb interest account. That just shows that an editor once decided to devote an article, not that there is any kind of general interest in the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there supposed to be apparent substance there? All the first 10 pages found were published-republished PR which then also included copypaste company quotes and its company activities along with quoted interviews with its businesspeople repeating said company activities, when there's literally nothing but that (from both local PR publications but also national ones), it shows there's literally nothing else better. This also shows since the entire article apparently was only able to the best that could also be found: Published-republished company PR. When we start compromising and allowing such blatant advertising and republished company-quotes, we're damned as a suitable encyclopedia.
Also, about these sources above, the Delete votes have analyzed and listed them all as simply republished company adverisements, therefore literally republished and offering the same link that consists of them, is not showing any different at all, simply actually emphasizes there is in fact nothing else but what the company has published about themselves and had republished. I'll go as far to even quote some of what's in that link above: "The company wants its clients to know it's a welcoming workplace and offers its clients the best services", "The company said today", "The company's businesspeople", "The company's finances are", "My company Ruby Receptions", "Today, the businesspeople from Ruby Receptions said", "Ruby Receptionist's services include", "Ruby Receptionists is good for its clients", "Ruby Receptionists's new offices today", "Ruby Receptionists offers its employees beneficial pay", "Ruby Receptionists announces here today", "Ruby Receptionists' employees include", "Ruby Receptionists' CEO says", "Ruby Receptionists has a perky office vibe and happy workforce,, etc. None of that was actual journalism, instead costumed advertising acting as "News". When all those pages have this, it shows there's no genuine news there, since it's everything company-published. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't feel there is sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. It is one of many thousands of small businesses and doesn't cross the notability threshold. MB 04:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also want to note that the author user themselves is suggested to be a likely paid advertising user the fact they only ever involved themselves with these subjects, and heavily focusing with PR-like information, therefore suggesting only one thing: A PR agent or otherwise involved person with such activities. Because of these concerns, the Delete votes have substantiated themselves with clear statements about this, hence WP:GNG means nothing if WP:SPAM and WP:NOT then apply, which are in fact policy. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you trying to say? What author user (and what does that mean) somehow has a COI here? A look at the person who started the article has infrequent edits and an eclectic mix of articles based on the most 50 edits. Further, even if someone had a COI, should we still discount that? Should we discount your arguments because you seem to have it out for business articles (aka a deletionist)? When you go into a discussion looking for reasons to delete, you will find your reasons to delete. If you go in looking for reasons to keep, you will find your reasons. If you go in with an open mind and without baggage, you will find reasons to delete sometimes and reasons to keep other times. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources while the articles in the news google search I linked to above do include multitudinous choices by the Portland Business Journal to mention/link to press releases [9], [10], sources also include a local prize covered in The Oregonian [11]; a RS Corvallis Gazette-Times article with details on the company's size [12]; what appears to be reported article by a paid, staff journalist in Business Insider[13]; that profile in Fortune (magazine) [14]; and also inclusion in a Fortune (magazine) list of 50 Best Small and Medium-Size Companies to Work For (with brief profile); a similar listing at NBCChicago [15]; in addition to coverage in essays by Forbes "contributors," including [16], [17]. Lots of photos in these and other articles; the company's unusual office culture seems to attract coverage... and prizes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Found another Oregonian article by staff writer specifically about Ruby Receptionists. Article is dated 11 Aug 2013. There are also several other Oregonian articles that mention the business … and could provide facts for use in Wiki-article. In my opinion, articles on businesses are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s body of work mainly because basic facts can easily be attributed PR. However, if article sticks to the facts and has reasonable independent sources like the Oregonian (which is largest/oldest newspaper Oregon) they should be kept.--Orygun (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON; local coverage in the Oregonian is not convincing as it does not meet WP:AUD. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep your vote, but actually read WP:AUD and follow the link there to regional newspaper. The Oregonian is a regional newspaper, just like any other daily in large metros. Local is the small town paper. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage in Fortune magazine certainly meets WP:AUD. North America1000 03:14, 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 redirect to Nosler. And merge whatever may be considered appropriate from history.  Sandstein  13:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.33 Nosler[edit]

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

Methinks we should merge and redirect to Nosler. See WP:PRODUCT, in particular the "explosive space modulator" example. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep Why should we treat this one differently than the 500+ articles of Category:Pistol and rifle cartridges? I think the reader is best-served if we're systematic because it increases his chances of finding the article he's looking for. Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the latter point, if a redirect is kept, it will pop up in search results. On the first point, see WP:OSE, unless you can point me to some form of consensus that individual round formats are notable (or notable provided they meet some criterion X). TigraanClick here to contact me 16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that I value consistency. This is not an OSE issue as nobody wants to delete the content of those 500+ articles. (And by the way, an AfD in the present case is odd since you're not advocating for the deletion of the article.) Pichpich (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pipchpich It is important to keep this article separate from the Company page as it needs to be linked to in articles such as List of rifle cartridges and Table of handgun and rifle cartridges Each cartridge provides unique information to a particular user, based on what type of Chamberings and Reloading that is performed.Jfarrester
  • Keep I totally concur with Pichpich on this. There are plenty of pages on wildcat rounds, many of which aren't super-notable, but I think that individual articles are useful so that the differences between the cartridges and their derivatives can be explained in greater detail. As long as there is a good amount of verifiable information regarding a round, I think it merits an individual page. R. A. Simmons Talk 19:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Neutral I see the points on both sides. It seems that there may not be enough reliable mention of the caliber for it to be a standalone article, but I'm not really an expert on these things. I'll leave it up to those with more investment, I suppose. R. A. Simmons Talk 15:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency should exist over the whole of Wikipedia, not just in a tiny niche area. We don't have articles on small variations of manufactured items in other areas, so why should we do so for pistol and rifle cartridges? I've had a look at a random selection of articles in the category linked above and they all seem to be just as unnotable as this subject, so the real doubt is about why those other articles should exist rather than why this one shouldn't. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the "keeps" above appear to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, also WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't cut it, this does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch does not bring up useable sources, just company/blog/PR pages may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, ok to redirect until/if it becomes notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment above. I didn't give a delete opinion earlier because I wanted to give people a few days to come up with a reason for keeping, but that hasn't happened. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:56, 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) 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbank Road[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a fairly run of the mill arterial road in a city, whose strongest real claim of notability is "has a shopping mall located on it". This was created in 2006, a time when there was still some support for the view that Wikipedia should have an article about every major street in every city -- but consensus now is that a road should only have an article if reliable sources discuss its historical, political or social context rather than just its physical characteristics. But three of the four sources shown here are just discussing non-notable people or organizations that used to have Greenbank Road as their address, and the only other source is a deadlink of a construction company's report on a road construction project. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make a road a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 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. North America1000 02:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rome Snowboards[edit]

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

I believe that this is thinly disguised spam. The list is basically a bunch of links to the manufacturer's website with no encyclopedic content. Pichpich (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete WP is not a webhost. This is entirely inappropriate. MB 04:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 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) 06:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mojib[edit]

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

I don't believe this person is notable--the claim to fame is a Radiohead remix, but the only reliable sources I can find that attest to this and thus lend the subject notability are this one review (which I suppose we are to think of as "professional"--OK, maybe) and incidental mentions like this one. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - One hit wonder by remixing a song. Subject only mentioned in passing in the very few RS out there. Meatsgains (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above and that there isn't even evidence that this remix was famous. It did technically exist but all the sites hosting it look like viruses. Jergling (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 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. Consensus is that there is not enough quality sourcing for this to be a distinct article topic.  Sandstein  17:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never Hillary[edit]

Never Hillary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Egregious violation of WP:NPOV with poor sourcing, weasel words and astonishing statements in Wikipedia's voice like "Some individuals simply did not like Clinton for a variety of reasons including her being a conservative in liberal clothing." If anything useful can be salvaged from this monstrosity, perhaps it could be folded into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Never Hillary" was never a "thing". I agree with the nominator that this page is a complete violation of NPOV, WEASEL, and poorly sourced. I don't think the topic is notable, so I don't think there's anything to save. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Karl Rove Super pac wasn't a legitimate thing? BlackAmerican (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep clearly passes GNG. Although I admit it needs an almost total rewrite. Would not object to deletion without prejudice for recreation Wikipedia:Deletion_is_not_cleanup ResultingConstant (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does it "clearly" pass GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep open to a redirect to Hillary Clinton Campaign Heavily Sourced Article included the sources of the Fox News, Slate Magazine, Marie Claire, Gothamist, The New York Times, New York Post, and Washington Post. This article easily passes GNG and the movement especially amongst the Bernie Sanders supporters led to the election of Donald Trump. It is diametrically oppossed to the Stop Trump movement. A Super Pac exists of the same name which was key in stopping the election of Hillary. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC) ( Note: this user is the author of the article.) [reply]
    • WaPo source is an opinion piece asking why we don't have a Never Hillary movement. Marie Claire uses "never-hillary" in their url, but nowhere in their article. Slate uses "Never Hillary" in their headline and nowhere else, speaking about Bernie or bust, which had more discussion through the election and has no stand alone article. "Never Hillary" is not a notable term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability by a mile. Many of the sources are not news articles; they are opinion pieces. A typical reference from the New York Post describes her as a "far-left, borderline serial criminal". Shame on us for even considering this to be a source. The article itself has many problems, but problems can be solved by rewriting. Nothing can fix the fact that the subject is not notable. As Moboshgu put it, this was never a thing. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times, and Washington Post aren't sources? BlackAmerican (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. Your jab at a clearly reliable shows NPOV view.Hilltrot (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like just like you have a problem understanding what "NPOV" means, you're not really clear on WP:IDONTLIKEIT either. MelanieN is not saying "delete this because I don't like it". She's clearly saying "delete it because it fails notability and the sources are garbage". And yes, the sources are garbage, not "clearly reliable". So throw WP:RS into the basket of policies which you appear to have no clue about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have a clear understanding of what it means. "A typical reference from the New York Post describes her as a "far-left, borderline serial criminal". Shame on us for even considering this to be a source. " The New York Post is just as reliable a source as the NYT. The NYP is more conservative and the NYT is far-left. The NYP has excellent circulation despite being printed in a ver liberal city. Declaring the NYP to be unreliable because you don't like what they say is taking sides. This is NPOV. Hilltrot (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post is a widely-derided Murdoch tabloid with a heavy right wing and fact-free bias that isn't fit for lining the bottom of a bird cage, whereas the New York Times is a world-renowned, much respected broadsheet with a largely impeccable record for investigative journalism. Please don't pretend otherwise. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been whole books written about the liberal bias of the NYT. See Media bias in the United States. Your opinion is just that, certainly not universal. MB 17:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but it's almost universal. Certainly in the context of this discussion, we can assume the Post is toilet paper compared to the Times. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost universal among people who lean left and voted for Clinton, including 90% of the voters in Manhattan. But that doesn't hold elsewhere. So, no you can't declare the NYT is universally or almost universally much respected. It's actually quite despised by people who lean right. Your words "toilet paper" and such indicate you can't be considered neutral. MB 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is why America has become so polarized. You can only think in terms of left and right, so your country is divided. The New York Times is a respectable paper known for publishing facts, irrespective of whether or not some people (fringe right wing, basically) see it as biased. That is what makes it a reliable source. But the New York Post is universally known as a crappy tabloid with poor record for facts, and so it is only used as a reliable source in the absence of anything else. It is also known to have close ties to the Trump family. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unmoved by this "movement". I wondered why I had never heard of this so I Googled it and, unsurprisingly, neither has any one else—that is no one other than those fine institution of journalistic excellence: Breitbart, The Inquisitr, and The New York Post. There are insufficient reliable sources that cover this in any depth. It fails WP:GNG by a substantial margin. The claim that the article is "heavily sourced" is to be rejected. For example, The New York Times article doesn't even mention the subject! The Washington Post article passingly asks "So where are the #NeverHillary Democrats?", refuting the notion that any such movement exists at all.- MrX 18:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is recentism at it's worst, and a mess in terms of sourcing and weasel words. I cleaned it up somewhat, but if I had removed all the SYNTH and WEASELing, it would be about 2 lines long. A few sources describe a hashtag and call it a "movement", but it's just another example of forgettable #Slacktivism. BlackAmerican, for the love of cat, please stop double-spacing after sentences and cites. Jergling (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is another name for "Bernie or Bust" phrased in a way to create symmetry with "Never Trump." In addition, several Republicans have used the hashtag "NeverHillary." So it is really two unrelated topics, one of which duplicates another article and one that is not notable. If I am wrong, and someone can find sources that support an article, they can recreate it. But at present the sources are not there. TFD (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Worthless trivia which does not meet GNG. --John (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
First, the clearly NPOV Never Trump is simply is allowed when the Never Hillary movement was obviously and through clear election results far stronger.
Second, We have plenty of evidence. [18], [19]

[20]

Not only that, but we have tons of empirical evidence that the Never Hillary movement did exist.[21]
Third, an article is not deleted simply because there are problems with it. If there are problems with an article, you are suppose to improve it, not be destructive and nominate for deletion.
Fourth, notability. Seriously?! Hillary Clinton lost a race, all the liberal media were so certain she would win, they published this victory magazines before she lost. What caused her to fail isn't notable? If anything Never Trump is not notable.

Hilltrot (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilltrot: You have a point, but this warrants at best a couple sentences in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. — JFG talk 20:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh, the mere existence of Never Trump is not "POV", that kind of a statement just displays a fundamental ignorance of what NPOV is and how it affects deletion/keep decisions. Your sources do not show that "Never Hillary" was something notable. They only show that... some people didn't vote for Clinton (holy crap!). Going from "some people didn't vote for Clinton" to "therefore "Never Hillary" is a notable topic" is classic original research. Really clumsy and silly original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marek. Please read before you post. It's clear that you have not read my sources. It is very rude for you to refuse to read what someone has written and then lie about what was said. Here are some more LIBERAL sources for the existence and importance of the Never Hillary.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/bernie-breaks-never-hillary-movement-for-good.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-hillary-jail-20160721-snap-story.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html
Hilltrot (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is just false. NeverTrump got a lot of coverage. NeverHillary barely registered. Oh, and it's up to you to back up your statement with sources. Otherwise this is just a illegitimate WP:ILIKEIT vote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This passes GNG: There is clearly enough material in reliable sources on this topic for it to pass GNG. I largely agree with Hilltrot's analysis above. However, there are two considerations that give me pause on just voting keep: 1) The article may need to be substantially rewritten to pass policies and guidelines, and 2) It could be merged with existing topics. pbp 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Party Unity My Ass exists as a redirect, and this seems pretty comparable. I think the ideal would be a redirect to an actual organization rather than the concept itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – First, this skeleton of an article is a hopeless mess. Second, who cares? The election is over, folks, take a break, enjoy the supermoon or something! — JFG talk 20:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point holds no weight whatsoever. The election being over now doesn't somehow make this topic less notable. If it passed GNG before the election, it still does. pbp 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Purplebackpack89, my second point is not grounded in policy, just attempting to inject some light-hearted humour into the conversation… However I do disagree on notability of this #NeverHillary "movement"; it looks like a mirror reaction to #NeverTrump which was actually very wide-ranging, and keeps unfolding in the streets of America as we write. Sad! — JFG talk 00:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Man up generation Snowflake. You lost we won SaintAviator lets talk 21:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a !vote that can be totally disregarded for lack of anything behind it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete political meme that never got significant traction . my news search [22].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated above, looks like it needs a decent bit of work. But there are plenty of sources, its notable, and goes with the existing stop trump movement article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I have found more sources under "Never Clinton" and have added 2 to the article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are:

this LA Times op-ed that mentions Evan McMullin as a "last hope" or something.
[this] Atlantic article

I just found:

Time (official states that he is voting for neither)
this (mentions Republicans who choose Trump over against Clinton)
Are these good sources? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for adding new and bipartisan sources here. Please consider that these are opinion pieces which do not refer to "Never Clinton" as a movement. They do, however, show a trend, and if these opinion writers subscribed to the same movement it might be worth something. As it stands, they do not. Jergling (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your civility. I feel that the term "movement", however, is ill-fitting, though, upon reflection, this web-based phenomenon likely has little organization or anything outside Twitter. I suppose this might be a form of hashtag activism.
I honestly disagree with your interpretation of the last three writing pieces (Atlantic, TIME, the Texas newspaper piece) as opinion, rather than as political reporting. I hold the view that the Atlantic article is actually much stronger than because (a) the title writer (who is probably not the piece author) describes it as a "campaign", and (b) the hashtags are used in the publication, and (c), it is not clear to me that the article is an opinion piece because it is not labelled as such. Opinion pieces also do not generally contain interviews (as far as I am aware), so I think that the Atlantic article is intended to be some sort of reporting/analysis piece. (I agree IRT the LA Times piece; I felt it to be descriptive in usage because the writer is not arguing in favor of the idea) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/note to closer The policy-based "keep" arguments, except for Discuss-Dubious' above, have all asserted that the existing cites are sufficient. They clearly aren't, as none of them mention the subject at hand. Furthermore, suggesting that Never Trump's existence justifies this article is a pretty egregious case of WP:FALSEBALANCE given the coverage. Stop Trump should probably be deleted for other reasons, but undercoverage is not one of them. Jergling (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Never Trump article passed AFD. Keep, 5 September 2016, see discussion. Delete, 8 March 2016, see discussion. BlackAmerican (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never Trump is a redirect to Stop Trump Movement. They are closely related, but not the same subject. Of course, none of this has any bearing on this AfD. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.- MrX 00:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is WP:OTHERSTUFFy, but this furthers my belief that a redirect to a different article or even a rename is best. Party Unity My Ass being the better example in my opinion here as well. Consistency is important, and it just seems a bit odd as a title to me more than anything. Maybe a merge into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 even? I'm caught in the ground between thinking the concept is notable enough for coverage in Wikipedia, but also thinking the current form might not be ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a group of prominent Republicans who tried to stop Trump and replace him with anyone else, and some of them backed third party candidates, wrote in candidate names, left the presidential candidate on the ballot blank, or voted for Clinton. There was no equivalent Democratic phenomenon and the Democratic contest was essentially between two candidates. Some Sanders supporters became "Bernie or Bust" and similarly supported third party candidates, wrote in Sanders, left the presidential candidate blank on the ballot, voted for Trump or did not vote at all. But the emphasis was to back Sanders rather than oppose Clinton. TFD (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's actually pretty clear why Stop Trump passed AFD now that I read it. It was exceptional in that it was Republican politicians protesting their own nominee. "Never Hillary" seems to be almost entirely propped up by conservative pundits with little concern for Democratic or Republican representation. Jergling (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TFD's analysis. If anything Bernie or Bust would deserve the article, but it is included with the main Sanders campaign article. This was not a major organized phenomenon. Anything relevant can be included in the main campaign articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the arguments against are NOT "IDONTLIKEIT". Each one above very specifically points out that the sources are crap and that there aren't any that are actually reliable. Or that the sources don't actually cover the topic (instead, it's just a source about the fact that some people didn't like Clinton). Since your own comment - like every other keep comment here - actually is a vacuous WP:ILIKEIT (it's not "clearly notable". Prove it or stop making shit up) it looks like you're preemptively projecting your own biases onto others. As the good book says "Thou shall not project thy own failures onto others". Abide.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you following me around. You would also be advised to watch your mouth, as this AfD is covered by DS. Abide. Athenean (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, since you popped up on this AfD right after I made edits to the article, I think you're preemptively projecting again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree with User:Jergling that this presents an enormous WP:FALSEBALANCE problem. The NEVERTRUMP movement was significant, although, in retrospect, it appears not merely as losing, but as clueless. This, on the other hand, never got significant traction, and I wonder if the whole tit-for-tat nature of much of the recent campaign could most usefully be captured by redirecting this to a section on Never Trump. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are very few reliable news sources that mention "Never Hillary", and there are zero reliable sources that write specifically about it (the focus of the piece), unlike the "Never Trump" phenomenon. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly zero. We have this Washington Post article, and this article from the Atlantic. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first one isn't very compelling (it's barely even an article, and it only mentions the term once). The second article seems reasonably serious and reliable, but it doesn't really give credence to the notion that this needs to be a standalone article. It's a sentence or two at best in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both your sources are about Sanders supporters opposing Clinton, which is a notable topic for an article. But they did not actually say, like "Never Trump," that they would support any other Democratic candidate. Because their motivation was not opposition to her but support of Sanders. TFD (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is POV fork. There was very little coverage of the subject during the election campaign that had passed already. Whatever deserves attention should be included to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be an important story in the telling of the 2016 election - and could have a lot more content. If there is to be a separate Stop Trump movement article, it seems like this is also an important point of view to reflect, particularly since she lost. Even if "Never Hillary" isn't mentioned in articles, there was a "Never Hillary" mindset and activities, calling Clinton "Crooked Hillary", James Comey late-breaking federal investigation claim, hacking into Democratic campaign computers, media about Hillary, continued coverage of the email server scandal after how many investigations (8?), none of which resulted in an indictment, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every presidential election in US has a lot of people with mindset "Never this candidate", which always receives some coverage. The only question if that was something really notable and unique, which represents a separate encyclopedic subject, rather than objections by supporters of another candidate. Based on coverage currently in the page, it is not, and it will soon be forgotten after the elections. By contrast, the movement "Stop Trump" received a much wider coverage and was something highly unusual. But perhaps it should be deleted as well; this is not an argument. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Every presidential election in US has a lot of people with mindset "Never this candidate", which always receives some coverage.
I do believe that it has been notable and unique
I would say, IMHO, that there are a lot of people that will not soon forget this election. Again, IMO, there are a number of ways that this will likely change campaigns going forward for both the Democratic and Republican parties. There are significant lessons for both parties to digest.
I'm also advocating here for Reactions to Donald Trump's 2016 Presidential election victory.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:My very best wishes makes an important point. Many notable elected officials and prominent figures in the Republican party backed Never Trump; It was a significant and unusual political moment. But no matter how I search, I can find a mere handful of thin sources for Never Hillary, certailny not sufficient to support notability. This topic is not encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This turned out to be a larger movement than the Never Trump movement, and it is one of the main reasons why Trump routed Hillary in the general election. It garnered intense support from not only Trump supporters, but the Bernie Bros as well. There's adequate amount of sources in the article already so there's no questioning whether it passes WP:GNG. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The "Never Trump" movement was (and still is) a gigantic phenomenon that involved scores of high-ranking politicians, whereas the "Never Hillary" term was used by hardly anyone whatsoever, and the few who did use it were simply riffing on "Never Trump" anyway. Just look at the massive disparity between Google News hits on the two terms to get a sense of reality. That said, the existence/non-existence of a "Never Trump" article bears no significance to whether or not this rotting pile of non-neutral garbage should exist. There's nothing in this new article that couldn't be incorporated elsewhere, so it should be deleted. And in future, please make policy-based arguments instead of just claims with no basis in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear, hear. Moreover, assertions that something "garnered intense support," are useless without substantive sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's more than enough sources. I've already point that out. Acting like the "Never Hillary" or "Bernie or Bust" movement was too insignificant to take into serious consideration is one of the reasons why Hillary lost the election, and it is one of the reasons why the deletion of this article will ultimately fail as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're conflating "Never Hillary" (not really a thing) with "Bernie or Bust" (an actual thing) in order to give "Never Hillary" a false sense of legitimacy. You have no evidence this non-thing was "one of the reasons why Hillary lost" either. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. The article was rife with that sort of original research before I trimmed it out. - MrX 20:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
revert article to agreeable point until result of AFD has been completed. Reducing the article to such a short piece influences the AFD BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TFD. - --Enos733 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't have to document every minor slogan or movement in an election campaign.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was as big as the Never Trump movement. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable slogan in a political campaign. Lacks reliable sources to show that this "movement" is of historical importance. Edison (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look up you will see that there are many reliable sources for this article Fox News, Slate Magazine, Marie Claire, Gothamist, The New York Times, New York Post, and Washington Post. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need now, succeeded... hillary will never be president. 8 years for Trump!!! KMilos (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your argument though is what? BlackAmerican (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that there has been enough coverage that this passes GNG. Here is another one: [[23]] The arguments that it was or was not as "big" as Never Trump are irrelevant; it probably wasn't. But taken on it own, it's still notable. WP is filled with articles that are deemed notable with fewer sources that this. MB 04:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not mean that other bad stuff exists, so we should let this slide. Just the opposite. This topic meets normal criteria for GNG and has multiple instances of coverage in RS. We should remain neutral and not require a higher level because the topic is politically contentious. MB 16:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Here is another one": the Black Christian News? The fact that supporters of this article have to dig so deeply to find such obscure publications for sourcing only goes to prove how non-notable this alleged phenomenon is. MelanieN alt (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a stab at some sources, besides those already on the article page, Breitbart - Never Hillary: Mike Pence final rally, which seems appropriate for at least one source, Politico - Never Hillary, why women rejected Hillary, Atlantic - Toomey in the "Never Hillary" camp, Breitbart Students yell Hillary war monger, Dallas News - protest votes against Clinton, The Dartmouth “Never Hillary train.”, Never Trump / Never Hillary, Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats, Fox - 'Never Hillary' uprising...Here's a start.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those sources are garbage. If you have to dig up Breitbart and National Review to support your view, you have already lost the argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "dig up" Breitbart to support my view. If you don't think Breitbart is relevant to this discussion - look at who our senior strategist will be for the Trump campaign. I believe that I said that I would ordinarily not use Breitbart.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to "dig so deeply" to find "obscure" sources. I did a google search on "Never Hillary movement" and the Black Christian News article was right there on the second page of search results. I merely cited that one to demonstrate that I had actually done some research before making my decision on whether this topic is notable. Trying to exaggerate the difficulty in finding new source (it was quite easy) and deride them as obscure (google placed it in the top 20) shows your lack of a NPOV. MB 05:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will to take those sources seriously rather than just dismissing them. So, one by one,
Breitbart - Never Hillary Mike Pence final rally, which seems appropriate for at least one source, (supports notability).
Politico - Never Hillary, why women rejected Hillary (passing reference to the "'never Hillary' crowd")
Atlantic - Toomey in the "Never Hillary" camp,(supports notability)
Breitbart Students yell Hillary war monger, (cites a single student hand-lettred sign)
Dallas News - protest votes against Clinton, (supports notability)
The Dartmouth “Never Hillary train.”, (a student paper is inadequate to purpose)
Never Trump / Never Hillary, Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats, (supports notability) ::::Fox - 'Never Hillary' uprising (supports notability)
In sum; these are real sources, albeit mostly opinion columnists. But much too thin to support an article, in my opinion. A lot of opinions are expressed during a campaign. Very strong sourcing is required to pass the bar on this sort of article. Stronger sources might encourage me to look at a redirect target. Especially if there were RS published after the results were in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats" supports non-notability. In an op-ed, a writer says there was no "Never Hillary" movement. What should the article say? ""Never Hillary" was a movement that never existed." TFD (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am having such a hard time figuring out why the "Never Trump movement" has an article without question, but there are so many questions about "Never Hillary"... they are often mentioned together in articles. And, it would seem, that the Never Hillary crowd was more successful than the Never Trump folks, right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson:, Carole, (if I may), I would like to take a stab an answering your question. You are, of course, correct that many, many people felt an aversion to Clinton, others, in 2008 and again in 2016, preferred akmost anyone else - a relatively unknown Senator from Chicago, an aging Vermont Socialist, a radical called Jiill Stein, and a great many lifelong Democrats voted Trump. All of this happened. What did not happen was a significant movement to Stop Clinton, a movement with significant numbers of leading politicians, Newspaper editorial teams, and public intellectuals vowing to oppose her, with groups like Free the Delegates. The anti-Trump, Dump Trump, Never Trump, Stop Trump movement was reported on and analyzed in depth by a wide range of major sources from across the political spectrum. As I and others see it, there was never a specifically Never Hillary movement, only many, many people who worked for her opponents and voted against her. Also, she lost.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:, Based on results and coverage by the media, I disagree. What I see are: there's a "Never Hillary" facebook page and twitter account, wontvotehillary.com, many mainstream sources listed here and on the article page, Breitbart use of "Never Hillary" in article titles about the campaign, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the Never Hillary merchandise.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that we can continue to work together on future articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, E.M.Gregory, that would be nice.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has tons of sources that are being ignored NY TIMES, LA TIMES, WASH POST, etc. These sources prove GNG, and that is the standard for wiki. Politico - Never Hillary, why women rejected Hillary, Atlantic - Toomey in the "Never Hillary" camp, Dallas News - protest votes against Clinton, The Dartmouth “Never Hillary train.”, Where are the "Never Hillary" Democrats, Fox - 'Never Hillary' uprising BlackAmerican (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these sources barely mention the term. It's merely a vague, convenient way for this handful of sources to refer to people who didn't support Clinton. The reason why WP:GNG calls for significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail is so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The Chicago Tribune article that you linked is actually syndicated use of the Washington Post article that asks "So where are the #NeverHillary Democrats?" These sources are unusable for writing a comprehensive article because none of them are referring to an actual movement, or even a single cohesive subject.- MrX 20:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article can be written based upon the total sources. Never Clinton, Never Hillary as well as the hashtags have been a viable source of information. If this didn't exist we would not have had President Trump as we do now. BlackAmerican (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no benefit to this article whatsoever. It contains so little information, from such low-quality sourcing, that anything of value can be incorporated into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. An argument could be made for it to be converted into a redirect, but that's really a separate issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually thanks to EM Gregory there is a lot more information. All you have to do is look up anti-Clinton, anti-hillary, Dump Clinton, dump hillary, Never clinton, never hillary, Stop clinton, and stop hillary. There is a ton of information about that. BlackAmerican (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was an incredibly stupid thing to do, BlackAmerican. You should not have created all those redirects until the matter here had been resolved. Your disruptive behavior has been noticed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with WP:CIVIL ? That was extremely rude and mean and can probably get you blocked! I created those links because the Stop Trump article has many links to that page including The Stop Trump movement, also called the anti-Trump, Dump Trump, or Never Trump movement, etc. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? Maybe you should actually read WP:CIVIL before invoking it. Trust me when I tell you I won't get blocked for either my comment or my edit summary, because they are perfectly legitimate. Creating a bunch of redirects to an article under the AfD process is wrong on many, many levels. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if the result here is "delete" or "userfy" or "redirect" (actually a good idea; to what target?), the closing admin will have to delete all those worthless redirects. They probably would even if the result is "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user space? Maybe? As I see it, if this was a significant thing, there would be the sort of post-game analysis that is there in spades for Never Trump [24], but that I don't find for Never Hillary [25]. Article creator or one of the editors arguing for keep might want to offer to move this to user space and, when and if in-depth, post-election articles about this movement are published in reliable sources, we can reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a Bernie or Bust article: User:EtienneDolet/Bernie or Bust. Y'all are more than welcome to help out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Page size of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 (5,389 words) does not justify this split; no reason that social media reaction from Clinton's campaign cannot be covered in the main article. In comparison, the Trump campaign article is 17,000 words long, which means that some topics, such as the internal conflict in the Republican Party, should be covered in a separate article. Esquivalience (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Size of another article isn't a wiki policy. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The information page "Merging" says, "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." That is consistent with the guidelines "Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections" and "Splitting an article". It is not a "policy," but highly recommended. TFD (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NOPAGE. Splitting causes the loss of context. In addition, while not a permastub exactly, it is likely to remain a short article of little importance. Per the guideline, length should be considered when deciding whether a standalone article should be created. Esquivalience (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The occasional mention of the phrase is hardly significant coverage. Much of this would be recentism anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm not impressed by this article but I think the coverage is sufficient to pass GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with MrX and Jack Upland; we don't have to document every minor slogan or movement in an election campaign. A very short mention in United States presidential election, 2016 would be fine. Neutralitytalk 05:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're suggesting a merge or a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs)

(talk) (cont) 10:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it pass GNG? Is there enough articles to show notability? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary split from a campaign article. ~ Rob13Talk 11:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does it pass GNG? That is the question. You can see that other stuff exists, such as Anti Trump Movement, but even that article is long. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:RECENTISM is our defense against the fact that every time a US presidential campaign spawns a new talking point it gets enough coverage to technically meet GNG requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay and not a policy or guideline. So it meets GNG, but it doesn't? The SuperPac isn't a talking point. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it meets GNG? Have you take a taken a look at Anti Trump Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs)
Have you seen Fuck Donald Trump? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally different and s till exists. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or possibly selectively merge and redirect. The depth of content is redundant and unlikely to require us to have a stand-alone article on the concept. --Jayron32 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Pacs is redundant? It isn't covered anywhere. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize, BlackAmerican, that badgering every single person who votes differently than you would have, is unlikely to sway the final outcome in any way, right? Like you're just wasting you're energy doing so. You are aware of that, right? --Jayron32 04:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as a few lines in the campaign article. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So a merge? But to which campaign? BlackAmerican (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the Bernie Supporters to the ad campaign, to the Super Pac, to the Hillary Haters, where does it fail WP:GNG. The sources range from the Washington Times to the LA Times, to the Washington Post, to The Hill, New York Magazine to the NY Times. Where are the issues with the Reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackAmerican (talk • contribs) 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of the Delete votes on here can be summarised as 'fails WP:GNG because the sources given are right-wing'. If we are to apply the barometer of balance then the NYP should be just as worthy as the NYT therefore WP:GNG is fulfilled. 151.229.53.102 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The barometer of balance? Please explain how the Post is "just as worthy" as the Times. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with analysis of sources and have serious concerns about poor sourcing standards, as raised well in statement by MrX (talk · contribs) who said it best among the comments so far. Sagecandor (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is non-notable and the sourcing is very questionable. -- Dane2007 talk 05:50, 22 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) 06:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Kaippallil[edit]

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

non notable actor--only minor roles. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 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 keep. Consensus s that simply saying "keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES" isn't enough and that editors are now expected to find a source for schools (that confirms its existence) otherwise they get deleted, In this case a source has been provided which obviously confirms the schools existence so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.V.R Educational Institution[edit]

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

I don't see any coverage by third-party sources and believe that this particular school does not meet the basic notability requirement. Pichpich (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 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 keep. All populated, legally recognized places are kept per WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamland Villa, Arizona[edit]

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

Dreamland Villa is a neighborhood/subdivison within Mesa, Arizona. It has about 350 homes and not notable. This subdivision is one of many thousands in Arizona alone and completely fails WP:GNG. MB 16:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is it incorporated? If so, WP:GEOLAND applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Populated places, regardless of their size, that aren't neighborhoods of a larger city are considered notable. This isn't actually within the corporate limits of Mesa, so it's notable in its own right. Also, WP:GEOLAND covers legally recognized places, not just incorporated places; for instance, census-designated places are recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau, and smaller communities like this one are recognized by the U.S. Geological Survey. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this site, which admittedly is a commercial site, says it is merely "an active-adult, 55-Plus community in Mesa, Arizona... Dreamland Villa is ideally located in Central Mesa." If that's correct, it would seem to be an in-all-likelihood non-notable retirement community within Mesa, not the sort of thing that WP:GEOLAND would confer notability on, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." (emphasis mine). This populated place is designated "U6", which as defined by the US Census Bureau means, "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name." Now "officially federally" is another way of seeing "legally", so it clearly meets Geoland. I understand the nom's perspective, but their view, in my opinion, would only apply to places which were neighborhoods which were not officially recognized, which would then have to stand on notability alone. Onel5969 TT me 12:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is a gazetteer-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – This appears to be one of a series of articles created as part of The 50,000 Challenge. While I'm happy to take part in this challenge, a lot of the obvious WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTNEWS violations I see, a microcosm of the way the encyclopedia has been going in general, reminds me of why my interest in the project is declining. The keep votes in this AFD appear to be based on the rationale that a GNIS entry = notability, which in itself blatantly runs afoul of NOTDIR, especially when there's not much more to be said about the topic. Category:Populated places in Juneau City and Borough, Alaska contains a slew of permastubs sourced to GNIS, created in 2009 and 2010 with no substantial improvement since. GNIS's own sources for those entries are predominately from the 1950s and 1960s, when those places stood a chance of being viewed as separate communities. Nowadays, not a chance; they're basically neighborhoods of Juneau, which has been the equivalent of a consolidated city-county for over four-and-a-half decades. That may or may not be the case here, but I see it's nonetheless tied to a decades-old source. Perhaps the nominator means that this area is within Mesa's ZIP Code market area?
A second concern regards the real root of the problem. It also appears that this was created to eliminate some of the many long-standing redlinks found in numerous "List of places in (U.S. state)". Without looking over every one of them, it appears that those lists were mass-created as an unsourced data dump in August 2005 by Brian0918. The only real "improvement" made since was to split the lists off by first letter. This revealed a number of size disparities between the upper range and lower range of the alphabet, which makes me wonder if these lists were complete when they were added to the encyclopedia. Since there were no sources offered, there's nothing by which another editor can go to and confirm that or not. I expressed concern with the List of places in Alaska entries in November 2015 in this discussion. The end result was that if it didn't involve picking low-hanging fruit, why bother. Poking around revealed that these problems exist with every such list, and that these problems have remained unaddressed for over a decade now. The lists do contain useful information, but not if there are no sources and not if it leaves readers with the impression that airports, post offices and railroad sidings (or in the case of the Arizona lists, trailer parks) are somehow of equal stature to actual communities. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a "populated place", under any sane definition of the term. It is a retirement community located within the sphere of influence (if not within the city limits) of Mesa. (I came here from WT:USA.) Some of the Leisure Worlds are notable, even though retirement communities. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farnsworth...began his company...in the late 1950s....Youngtown had just started up, and we thought it would be a good thing to put something like that out here because this is the prettier end of the Valley.

That led to the launch of Dreamland Villa, which in 15 years ballooned to 3,000 homes at University Drive and Recker Road.

Sunland Villa, Sunland Village and Sunland Springs Village, all in Mesa, eventually joined his inventory.

Farnsworth was actually about a year ahead of Del Webb, who gets most of the national credit for launching the postwar surge in retirement communities.

Dreamland Villa opened in 1959, but by late that year, Webb was making headlines with his Sun City development, which was to open on Jan. 1, 1960.

“When we first heard Del Webb’s plans, we thought we were ruined,” Farnsworth told The Republic in 1995. “Del Webb started doing all of this national advertising that was bringing lots of people in to look at the development.”

Farnsworth countered with a billboard on Grand Avenue, between Phoenix and Sun City, drawing customers to his own development in Mesa.

Notice that the nomination makes an unsourced claim that the community has 350 homes, whereas this reliable source states that it is over 3000.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official plat maps of Maricopa County, this housing development was developed in stages. There are separate plat maps: Dreamland Villa, Dreamland Villa 1, Dreamland Villa 2 through Dreamland Villa 19. There probably are over 3,000 homes. The majority of these subdivisions have been subsumed into the City of Mesa and are just unofficial Mesa neighborhoods. Units 5, 11, and 15, which total about 350 homes, chose to avoid annexation into Mesa and remain as unincorporated areas of Maricopa County (county "islands" surrounded by Mesa). This is an obscure distinction which only affects which municipality (the city or the county) supply some services. I don't think that these three sections of the Dreamland Villa development (which aren't even contiguous) are notable because they are not within Mesa. Nor do I think the entire development is notable, it is just another neighborhood of Mesa. MB 17:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From Google maps looking at Mesa, Arizona, there is an enclave of non-Mesa there. From Google maps looking at Dreamland Villa, it seems two non-contiguous areas are together named Dreamland Villa and are in that enclave. Also Velda Rose Estates, Arizona (currently a redlink) and Candlewick Manor, Arizona (currently a redlink) are non-Mesa areas that are populated places, probably all in unincorporated area of the county. All of these are Wikipedia-notable as named occupied places. We have to have a way to refer to these places, e.g. to identify a historic house or any other site within them. Note the sprawling City of Los Angeles is comparable in having non-included enclaves. I believe that all of the Los Angeles ones have Wikipedia articles. In the case of Dreamland Villa, the asserted fact that some of it has been incorporated into Mesa and some has not (while Google maps verifies only the latter), is all the more reason for having an article to explain this and to define all parts of Dreamland Villa. --doncram 03:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we have just as much interest in the Dreamland Villa of 1974 as we do the concept today.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it appears that this article's creator is continuing to do exactly as I described in my original comments, namely creating countless permastubs on particular geographic locations in Arizona and de-redlinking the list of places. From looking at a handful of these efforts, they serve little purpose as they are dominated by an infobox and contain no appreciable substance, instead containing more concealed linkspam to the GNIS and Census Bureau websites, something the encyclopedia hardly lacks as it is. At least this particular article does contain a difference kind of reference. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:20, 22 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) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Betrayal In Blood (novel)[edit]

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

There is no reason to think that this novel will be notable. It hasn't even been published. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete author has no page, book does not exist (yet), thus notability cannot be established. Article is WP:TOOSOON at a minimum. Jergling (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no sources, no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to argue that I have put up other Holmes novels by Titan on wikipedia before, and have not recieved this notice. This is a proper work, written by an established author and being published by a prominent publisher of science fiction and crime literature, with several recognized works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavageEditor (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a self-cited vanity page. The article Mark A. Latham does not exist, so the author appears to be non-notable too. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with the nomination, nothing at all since it's simply too soon, by far no actual substance as it's not even close at release. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 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.  Sandstein  15:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infrared marked cards[edit]

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

One of three unsourced invention articles by this author. No credible assertion that the subject actually exists. Appears to be an SEO play to direct searches to this guy's website (infraredmarkedcards/invisibleinkmarkedcards .com). See also: Poker analyzer and Infrared contact lenses. I AfD'd this one instead of speedying it because I think these might exist, just not in the way described. Jergling (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on - I distinctly remember having read something about this, though I cannot locate it right now. The author was a security researcher that ordered in China a "cheating pack" that included a few deck of cards marked on the side with IR-absorbing ink and a custom cell phone with an IR lamp and detector next to the headphone jack, which allowed to read the cards (a crafty feat of optical recognition). I am 99% sure it was a reliable source, so although it may still fall for lack of notability (the author said he did not find any other info about it and feared a scam), please let the AfD run for the full week. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:04, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Carvalho[edit]

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

Six years without references! (Carlos Emanuel) (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an afd on pt.wp for lack of source. Comte0 (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bilhauano (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: it's an autobiography – the article creator was the SPA "Scarvalho". Richard3120 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: Really, can be an autobiography, here, in en.wiki, not in pt.wiki. How it is an old article, I thought why is case for afd. It is case for speedy deletion? (Carlos Emanuel) (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classical Composers database is not enough of a source to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marlin OS[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. PROD contested by IP with no comment. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Warning: Joke incoming) Well, damn. I guess my site "VladimirPutinSexCam.fakewebsite.gov" should get an article because Vladimir Putin has an article. (Joke complete)
There are no real references in your article, just links to the developer's personal Youtube and github. Lastly, you are an obvious sock of the article creator, and you should stop editing anonymously immediately. If you're going to defend your own article, do it as yourself. Jergling (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no actual improvements to be made as they are non-existent, everything here is simply trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to what is needed for genuine improvements. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 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 redirect to Kogan Page Publishers. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GMB Publishing[edit]

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

The 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. This was AfD before, and closed as no consensus, through we had 4 delete votes to 1 keep and 1 weak keep. The article hasn't improved since. While I am open to discussion on whether perhaps all book publishers are notable, thee is no exception for them currently at NCOMPANY or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. I'll ping User:DGG who made the most convincing argument for keeping this last time, as well as all other participants of the last AfD: User:Oo7565 , User:Schuym1, User:SteveLoughran , User:ChildofMidnight, User:LeaveSleaves. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The former references were industry listing sites whose pages are no longer available, presumably due to GMB Publishing Ltd. ceasing operation (see the Companies House reference now added). While this firm went about its business publishing reports (though the "Doing Business With Jordan" book cited in the previous AfD appears to be published by Kogan Page), I am seeing nothing to indicate that it achieved encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The firm was a split from Kogan Page Publishers, sand the simplest thing to do is to include some information there. I could probably find information on its formation and bankruptcy in appropriate UK trade journals, but that's difficult (tho not impossible) to do from the US and I don't have time to make a project out of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 14:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kogan Page. I don't see anything useful worth keeping in the current article, as it does not cite any independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:26, 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 Speedy Deleted per CSD G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europhoenix[edit]

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

Created by known SP. Non notable firm with history about purchases of locomotives but nothing notable. Nordic Nightfury 07:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 talk 14:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the looks of it, AfD is not the place for this. An admin should be allowed to delete this guy's articles without individual consensus. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:25, 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 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tay[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, no significant sourcing, very few roles to his name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 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]
  • Delete Seems pretty uncontroversial. WP doesn't really have anything to say about him that IMDB doesn't, so it's not even doing anything to help googlers. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm unsure; this is a very marginal case. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as only known as a child actor in his young characters with nothing else beyond it hence delete, since we're not IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 24 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative folk[edit]

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

No explanation what this music in fact is. Only source is a commercial link, but none of the 7 articles I have checked point to this music style. Possibly just a sorting music style, not a real one The Banner talk 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Indie folk, which doesn't rely on iTunes categories as sources. Then we can fight about deleting that, since it's sourced to a single blog on about.com. I personally agree that this genre is "common knowledge" but there should be some critiques or something to confirm that. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't mind:
  1. Robbie Woliver in The New York Times (Stepping Out of Dylan's Shadow—"Like many contemporary folk musicians, Dan Bern has been saddled with a curse: the singer-songwriter has been deemed the new Bob Dylan. For alternative-folk fans who do not have a historic perspective, the comparisons are well-grounded.")
  2. Reggie Ugwu in Billboard (Angel Olsen Breaks Down Her Smoldering New Jagjaguwar Debut—"Olsen, the 26-year-old alternative folk singer, is about to release the best album of her career so far, but she’d rather not think too much about that. She writes as much for her own personal wellbeing as she does for anyone else, a subtle distinction that you can hear in her music. Olsen’s songs, often dealing with themes of emotional isolation and self-reliance, tend to rise and converge like the billowing smoke of a stubborn fire.")
  3. allmusic.com, once published as All Music Guide ("While contemporary folk often retains the gentleness of its more traditional parent, alternative folk combines acoustic sounds and a strong singer-songwriter bent with a more energetic, aggressive sound.")
  4. WP:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion. — Neonorange (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are overlapping but different genres. Usingthe example just above, I don't see how anyone could have called Dylan "indie". DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to have the same problem as a lot of the 'genre' articles we have, in that the term 'alternative folk' does not refer to a distinct coherent genre (or sub-genre), it's just a term that has been used somewhat inconsistently through the years. As a result, we are never likely to have even a satisfactory article, so I would recommend redirecting somewhere, perhaps to Contemporary folk music#Specialty subgenres. --Michig (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of music criticism that discusses folk music using the term "alternative folk" exists—over fifty years of it. A redirect to an essentially empty section of an article like Contemporary folk music#Speciality subgenres which links to Wikipedia articles on those genres seems to be a bit a circular. This article can be developed—it took me only a few minutes to find three reliable, useful sources (which I listed above), and to add a cited lead sentence to it—in fact, for me, using Wiki–syntax properly took longer than finding and reading the sources. 'Alternative folk' is discussed in WP:RS to such an extent that it is notable. — Neonorange (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some folk songs (or bands) that simultaneously have elements of Latin, folk and electronic. The term "alternative folk" can take care of that. -User:Meganesia (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: but man oh man, does this article need work. Montanabw(talk) 19:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't actually know if this should be deleted, but this looks to be headed for a WP:SNOW keep when I haven't seen even one single reliable source providing significant coverage of this subject. You can find usage for [alternative/indie/neo/new/classic/alt-] + [any genre]. 137k hits for alternative jazz, 50k hits for indie classical, 900k hits for indie alternative, 28k for alternative disco... Some of those hits may be in reliable sources, even, but usage does not an encyclopedic topic make. Every genre that has a typical sound has an "alternative" when someone wants to describe a member of the genre that breaks from some typical aspect, and every genre that has a "mainstream" has an "indie". Sometimes those genres aren't just used but written about. Those may well exist for "alternative folk", but I haven't seen it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- This is a legit genre. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a real genre, discussed in many possible places online in reliable sources. The article is not so bad it has to be destroyed. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And do you have any sources or are you just waving with some pages? The Banner talk 21:28, 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) 06:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Walls (novel)[edit]

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

Previously AfD snow deleted, but not identical (same book, different text in article). CreateSpace self-published novel with no indication of notability, and currently Amazon don't know when or if it will be available again. Peridon (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khao Chang Puek[edit]

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

Unremarkable... hike? KDS4444 (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 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 Keep as SNOW, considering it's a few days before, but the consensus is clear, and there's nothing else suggesting there are in fact concerns for WP:PROF (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Dickie[edit]

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

My principal concern is that she appears to have received a series of non-notable awards, and therefore does not qualify for WP:ACADEMIC. The article certainly implies her importance, but the references, as given, do not support the actual claim of notability. KDS4444 (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I would (again) argue that inclusion in the NLM's Changing the Face of Medicine confers notability; however, even without that I found a couple more sources to bolster her notability. [26] [27] Keilana (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I argue the same as Emily, but I would also add that she has held several leadership roles in the American Thoracic Society as well as at her university, and helped near eradicate tuberculosis on her campus - no easy feat. Since the call for deletion, new sources have been added to the article. As recently discovered, she has had an award named after her from the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Chapter of Physicians. (LizBajjalieh)(talk) 19:21 November 14th (UTC)
  • Keep: Per Keilana's note. Her accomplishments were as a doctor and scientist, so even if she failed WP:ACADEMIC (which she passes, see #7) she'd still be notabile. Jergling (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The first sentence backed up by the first reference is well-evidenced notability. I really am surprised to see this taken to AfD. Bad call. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the National Library of Medicine has declared her to be one of the people who "changed the face of medicine", then she's notable. 32.218.37.243 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Hongjian[edit]

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

Non-notable short story. Refs consist mostly of citations to a primary source (Sondergrad). Significant discussion in secondary sources appears to be lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At least 5 useful English-language results in Google Books. More in Chinese. Timmyshin (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • Keep (SondergARd, by the way) One of the more notable (and longer) Liaozhai entries. Easily passes GNG at the very least, and I can tell you that the Chinese-lang coverage on this is way more extensive, so perhaps one should not let his EL bias (if any) get in the way. A rule of thumb is that most, if not all, of the Liaozhai stories warrant entries in the project. My goal is to actualise that. It will take some time! Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even as far as EL sources are concerned, there is ample coverage. (See references section and other relevant ones.) I have found at least two studies examining the story as well as the two plays it was adapted into -- more on that in a later time. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jageshwar Prasad Khalish[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. Speedy was declined, but no sources provided. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources by myself. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, state legislators are notable per NPOL. --Soman (talk) 16:07, 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 keep. Mostly a procedural keep. There is consensus that at least some of these are notable and they should not be bulk nominated. No prejudice against individual re-nominations. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Lea Public Library[edit]

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

Hi! I am Pual98 and I am new to Wikipedia, so please feel free to correct me on my information. However, I have done a LOT of research on policies and believe I am right in my group proposal for deletion of the following libraries.

Rochester Public Library (Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cannon Falls Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mabel Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rushford Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Preston Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spring Valley Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zumbrota Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spring Grove Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St. Charles Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northfield Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wabasha Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Austin Public Library (Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Houston Public Library (Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chatfield Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caledonia Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kasson Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kenyon Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brownsdale Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blooming Prairie Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northfield Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Owatonna Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LeRoy Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Albert Lea Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The grounds for deletion is primarily a failure to meet the standards of WP:CORP. None of these articles meet the standards of notability. As a context, the author of these articles, Winterstar74, has openly admitted the creation of these articles as a conflict of interest on Usertalk:Elkman/Archive12 where he says “I have been tasked to do in my position at SELCO (Southeastern Libraries Cooperating).” While I understand that COI is not a grounds for deletion, this makes it clear that the authors only goal (by the way this is not an active user) was to create a page for each SELCO library that only included a link to the website and the hours of the library. The libraries listed are not notable. On a side note, this is not a deletion of every library the author created. Those libraries that were significant have since then been updated into fuller articles or redirected to the main article (because the author did not think to look to see if the libraries already had pages). There are eight libraries that have nothing wrong with them.

Although this meets grounds for speedy deletion, many of these articles have failed speedy deletion. The reason being for some was the issue not being properly addressed in the speedy deletion and for others because the administrator who reviewed them making what I believe is a false connection. For example, in Albert Lea Public Library’s speedy deletion process, SarekOfVulcan denied it because “odds are, a public library is notable enough.” This rationale is completely off. The WP:CORP clearly says “No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.” I do believe SarekOfVulcan was acting in good faith, however the fact of the matter remains, just because these are libraries does not make them inherently notable.

What was a little worse than this is the same SarekOfVulcan saying “decline speedy - I would presume a public library to be notable in the absense of evidence otherwise” in the speedy deletion of LeRoy Public Library. Are you telling me that libraries are notable unless there is evidence saying, “no, this library was not a notable library.” Where are you going to find a source like that? It’s not “notable unless proven otherwise”—it has to be proven notable.

Overall, I would say the best solution would be the deletion of these articles and the creation of an articles for SELCO as the overarching backbone of all of these articles. I wouldn’t be surprises if I missed a library or two in the creation of this AfD, so please notify me if you find one that fits in this category. On the other side, I would not be surprised if one or two of these libraries can be proven to be notable, so in the case of this, please notify me which one is notable and I will remove it. Pual98 (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Many town libraries are independently notable, scanning this list I clicked on only 2 Northfield Public Library, a library built in 1910 with funds donated by Andrew Carnegie, the old Carnegie are something like prima facie notable. Then I clicked Rochester Public Library because I thought I recalled that Rochester is a pretty large city. I think this entire list is on the aggressive side, and that we would do much better to tag these articles for sourcing in place of this massive deletion. Most civic libraries in the U.S. are notable (for their architecture, role in the community, speakers series and so forth.) Like so many topics, these articles need sourcing, not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many town libraries are notable, however this is the exact thinking I am fighting against (that because some are notable, all are notable). As I said, almost all of those that were notable which the author created on SELCO have since had their own articles made. Take the article Northfield Public Library which you mentioned. You argue that it was made in 1910 and had funds donated by Andrew Carnegie. It is my belief that that date it was made is not related, notability is built on its own. As for Carnegie, WP:INHERITORG says, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Carnegie was notable, this library, ehhh just another run-of-the-mill local library. As for Rochester Public Library, you said you clicked on it because you recall that the city is large. Does the city being large have anything to do with the notability. On a side note, Rochester has just over 100,000 people; maybe a large town, but not a large city. Pual98 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not misquote me. As I stated, Carnegie libraries are something like prima facie notable; this is because they are by definition a century old, and virtually always beloved by the towns that have them, and, therefore, sources almost always exist. I ought to have been more specific, perhaps, but most editors working on libraries know this about those old libraries (especially library directors who have tried to renovate or replace one).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A city the size of Rochester is almost certain to have a library that can be reliably sourced; the photo on Rochester Public Library (Minnesota) demonstrated to me that the city has recently invested in a substantial, new building. Nice design; article can almost certainly be sourced with info about the architect, funding.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just sourced this to the Minnesota Historical Society's Centennial History of the Northfield Carnegie Library.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be a frequent patron of the Rochester library. Due to its proximity to Mayo Clinic and its role as the leading public library for Southeast Minnesota, it has more cultural programs, speakers, author visits, and so forth than you might expect in a city of this size. Jonathunder (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pual98: Hi. I apologize for sounding a little impatient above. I do know what it is like to be new(ish) at Wikipedia, and I am sorry to have snapped at you. I also admit to having an old-fashioned fondness for libraries and older library buildings. Since you are new, you may not be aware that you can close this by withdrawing, just say so at the bottom of this page. I also want to suggest that the most useful contributions to Wikipedia are made by editors who source and expand pages. I can almost guarantee that there are pages in dire need of expansion, sourcing and editing on every topic that you are interested in. I hope that you will stick around, heaven knows that we need all the good editors we can get. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: No problem. All I am trying to do is help wikipedia. It seems necessary to challenge beliefs, and while I still dont agree with everything you have said, thats the beauty of discussions. There is no reason, IMHO, to ever get impatient about something on wikipedia. We are all here to help. I mean, I spent 4 hours on this AfD, and it will probably not pass, but im not mad about that. Ha. Have a nice day! Thanks for the input.Pual98 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A bulk nomination of unrelated subjects is rarely a good idea. In this case, at least 3 of these libraries are on the National Register of Historic Places. We generally consider NRHP properties as notable because the documentation to support notability exists even if is is offline. The 3 NRHP substubs are poorly written but they probably can be expanded. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that this is a poor approach-- Northfield is listed twice; libraries in Chatfield, Leroy, and Owatonna (and perhaps more) are on the NRHP. I agree with SarekOfVulcan and E.M.Gregory. Libraries, just like the cities they are in, should be treated as notable. Kablammo (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, at least procedurally. I'm not convinced that all libraries are notable, but many of them are, and three of the ones included in this nomination are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are therefore unambiguously notable. If any of these are to be deleted, they need to be considered on an individual basis, not as part of a bulk nomination. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NRHP ones should definitely be kept. I'm open to discussions of mergers or perhaps even deletion on some others, but I think the best thing to do on this mass nomination is to decline it. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't agree more. Some of these libraries may well be entirely lacking in notability. If, after performing WP:BEFORE Nom thinks that some of them lack notability, he is welcome to bring them individually to AFD;although it would probably be more useful to merge the smaller, un-notable ones into the pages of the individual towns. But I can see no reason why they should be rounded up and mass deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One approach would be to make articles on smaller city libraries sections of the pages for the cities than own them (and public libraries typically are owned by, and departments of, those cities), with appropriate redirects directly to the sections from the present article titles. But we should not put them into one article on SELCO, which is just an association of independent libraries (which is different than Great River Regional Library, a single entity which has branches in two dozen communities in six counties).
At Wikipedia we should want to make information about libraries easily available. They have resources which we need, including the ability to borrow books from other libraries to meet the requests of researchers including our article writers. There is a lot to be said for the principle that all public libraries are inherently notable. Kablammo (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that merging in to SELCO would be dysfunctional, unfriendly to users. And that redirecting some of these into article on the town works well. This is also Often a good solution for small museums; churches with a small degree of notability and similar in smaller towns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most should probably be deleted; public libraries are certainly not inherently notable unless they're very large, very famous, very historic or occupy historic buildings. However, they probably do need to be discussed separately. Incidentally, the suggestion that every public library is notable is ludicrous. There are hundreds of thousands of public libraries in the world, many small establishments in portakabins and the like. They do need to pass some sort of notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by previous users, several of the nominations are nationally historic, have sources, or are architecturally interesting. To the nominator, mass noms are generally a bad idea. One or two exceptions and they all get kept. Changing your nom in the middle of it, as you suggest, is bad form. The best way to nominate something for deletion is to actually do the research on every article, then nominate them individually. Following someone around because of presumed COI, then nominating everything they've added is the definition of a bad faith nomination, and shows a lack of effort on your part to check that the articles are not notable.  The Steve  02:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, procedural close please, some of these should be kept, some merged/redirected to town articles, some might be "deletes", this can be discussed on the article talkpages/library project page. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, hi Pual98, its great to see your enthusiasm, the more involved with afds the merrier:)), may i suggest observing and becoming involved in ongoing afds, group afds are very complicated as can be seen by the small number that are started, way less then 1% of all afds. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Thank's all for the input. I will most likely take this down, however a few things first. Thesteve, it wasnt "presumed." The author said himself he worked for SELCO and was told to do this as his job. Also everything I did was with good faith. I believe there is logic in saying, as I did, that he may have thought he was doing right when he made a majority of wrong articles (which most people agreed that a majority were wrong). The good faith is my belief that he wasnt doing it to harm Wikipedia, just like I started this nom with the goal of helping Wikipedia. So please, please, dont get hostile and assume I am in bad faith. Necrothesp and others, thank you for helping me. I said going into this nom that it was my first ever and that I would be willing to take some articles down. Going through 23 different articles or so at once to find any source of notability for every article is hard. The reason I felt I had to do them together was because this is what I thought group noms are for, however many have made it clear that group noms will not usually pass. It honestly surprises me that the notability of 3 give or take a few of 23 makes the whole thing invalid. However, I will continue arguing in the future that notability is not inherent, and all articles do need to pass the same threshold. As for the future of these articles, can someone give me guidance on what happens to them when removed from the nom? They have sat here on wikipedia for a LONG time, and no change has happened to those that were recommended for change in the past. Again I am new to everything and dont want to see this whole discussion go to waste. Pual98 (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass nom with no prejudice against individual nominations. Addressing the earlier comments about my speedy declines, I would point out that according to the Deletion policy, speedy deletion should "not be used except in the most obvious cases", and "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page." If there's any doubt about a speedy, or a prod, it should go through a full discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Yet another small shopping centre in Australia. 11,000 square metres is tiny by any standard. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, another small run-of-the-mill shopping centre that isn't notable enough for an article. Ajf773 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while there's a possibility of pre-internet news coverage there's nothing here to suggest it is of particular note (even the Dictionary of Sydney cited in the article doesn't bother to mention the Gordon shopping centre). Sounds and looks like a run-of-the mill 1980s shopping development.Sionk (talk) 15:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Western Daily[edit]

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

no apparent evidence for notability, just for existence DGG ( talk ) 08:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable regional daily newspaper. Massively unhelpful to delete articles on reliable sources we're likely to use in any of our coverage of a significant chunk of the state. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A daily circulation of 6000 isn't going to cut it by itself. I don't see any notable distinctions/awards. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator and supporter might not have knowledge of the Australian National Library website http://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=central+western+daily, historic and notable with multiple sources. Pity the Trove item isnt somehow included to inform outsiders misuderstandings of Australian media, or for that matter the Australian newspaper projects specifically setup to tabulate and outline the significance and notability of newspapers. All it needs is a vamp from the trove refs and this can be closed. JarrahTree 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me it seems obvious that a regional newspaper published by one of a country's largest media companies, with more that 70 years of publication, should be included. As JarrahTree says, its inclusion and digitisation by the National Library demonstrates it is an important element of Australia's media history. Dismissing it because of its current circulation (and in Australia, 6,000 daily is actually very high) seems to me to be missing the point. --Canley (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You;ve made a good argument for including it in the article in the main company and redirecting. Not all the newspapers owned by a major media company are likely to be notable -- see WP:NOT INHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps missing the point slightly, Australian newspapers that are broadly captured in both the the Trove system, and the articles about them are part of larger scope that takes current status as less of importance than the historical context - the newspapers are both subjects and sources of Australian history and used as such in the Australian project - the 'major media company' and the current information is less importamnt than the historical context. Current status is a logical fallacy in relation to the Australian newspaper project(s) - where the historical context and evidence of notability in the past should carry the article rather than current owners JarrahTree 02:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be fair, I'll acknowledge that at the time DGG first nominated this, it contained no references at all and was essentially a marketing brochure which said little of substance beyond "this is a newspaper that exists, and covers things that newspapers cover". But the content and referencing has been significantly improved, and per WP:NMEDIA a newspaper does not have to have won awards to be notable enough for inclusion (although that certainly wouldn't hurt, it's not at all a precondition) — the only claim of notability that a newspaper actually has to make to be kept is that its existence and at least a bit of history is verifiable in sources independent of its own self-published content about itself, and that's now been amply shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, nice history description, and good encyclopedic content. Sagecandor (talk) 02:50, 22 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 International Data Group#IDG Global Brands. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Network World[edit]

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

I prodded 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:DGG with the following rationale "well known trade journal, there should be no difficulty showing notability". 2 years down the road, nobody has added any new sources, and I don't see anything that would help support's DGG position. I am afraid that we need to cite sources that call this an important, well known publication, our own views are not sufficient. And all the article has so far are WP:PRIMARY sources, and claims of numerous awards, out of which the only ref is not for being a winner, but just one of 10 finalists for [30] - non-notable awards from American Society of Business Publication Editors, an organization of dubious notability itself. I am afraid this will need a much better rationale for keeping, DGG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw ,I will deprod and send here when I think refs can be found by the greater exposure here,even if not necessarily by me. I however note we have no clear standards for technical magazines: GNG doesn't often hold except by stretching the definition of RS for N enormously;we solved that problem for scientific journals by using indexing in selective indexes, but that doesn't work well in this area. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: You know I tried to get some discussion about trade journals going... but in any case, while I am all for including entries about important trade journals, we need some sort of measure to judge which are important, better than WP:ITSIMPORTANT. A single source that would call it an important publication would help... one would hope that some book about the related industry would mention it, for example. I tried looking for mention in Google Books, but it is spammed by copies of magazine itself, so I am not sure how to even go about checking if it is well cited, which could be some measure here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add a mention at International Data Group. It's just one of far too many sub-magazines distributed by the same company. Network World appears to contain 100% syndicated articles from other IDG properties. Jergling (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is another frequent PR webhost and one that is frequently offered by advertisers here as "independent news" when it's far from it, there's nothing else to suggest what independent and genuine substance for an article, and it simply suffices as a IDG-owned company, the parent who has their own article. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to International Data Group#IDG Global Brands, where it is mentioned and merge any reliable sources. This is a 30 year old trade journal and now website. It used to be a solid print magazine and has more recently become a web site with a mix articles and PR fluff. I share DGG's unease with deleting lots of trade journal articles. More than 100 WP articles link to this article. This is obviously a plausible search term, so at the very least, a redirect to its publisher is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, but I don't see any notability criteria where the number of articles linked to the subject matter worth a damn. Nor does the longevity of a publication matter -- if that were a factor, there'd be any number of 100+ year old village weekly newspapers which would qualify. If it was, at one point, a solid print magazine and trade journal, where are the reliable sources saying so? Ravenswing 01:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I was not talking about notability criteria, I was talking about redirect criteria. That it is linked from 100 articles makes this a plausible search term. --Mark viking (talk) 01:17, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeping Computer[edit]

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

This seems like a niche portal. Interesting - I am a reader of TechDirt myself - but sadly, it does not seem to be notable, failing WP:NCORP and WP:NWEB and WP:NMEDIA. Except primary sources, the best it has is the minor coverage from similar niche portals, Network World [31] and Digital Trends ([32]), and that coverage is related to one lawsuit (so, WP:ONEVENT logic applies). If anyone can suggest good reasons to save it, I'd love to hear them, but as much as many Wikipedians, including myself, like those kind of portals, they still have to meet our policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even though they are a huge SEO abuser these days, BleepingComputer is the main general tech support forum/helpdesk on the web (compared to Sevenforums or Majorgeeks, which are more specialized). Refs 2 and 4 refer to Bleeping Computer as a place to "post logs" (ask for help) which confers some notability. Wikipedia has a confusing standard when it comes to sites that mix forums and news, but Bleeping Computer is so popular (even just as a forum) that I don't think it should be deleted. Jergling (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BleepingComputer is the primary source of ransomware news. Their ransomware support forums and their news section is the de-facto source for getting help with ransomware infections, which ironically, the main article doesn't mention for some weird reason. If anything, the BC Wikipedia entry needs to contain the right information, not deleted. There are countless of sites that claim to help with ransomware infections, the only difference is that none, except BleepingComputer, has been quoted in almost all major media, ranging from the BBC to ArsTechnica, and from Computerworld to TheNextWeb. If you need me to copy-paste a few hundreds links where the site's reputation speaks for itself, let me know. Campuscodi (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable in its particular niche. Alexa rank is within the top 5000 sites globally. Shritwod (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several sources including the BBC reference and the PCWorld references meet WP:RS and establish notability as per WP:GNG. -- HighKing++ 13:28, 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) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mason (Canadian-Dutch ice hockey player)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hits are somewhat fouled by the considerably more famous hockey player Steve Mason (ice hockey), but this level of play isn't enough to pass the subject through NHOCKEY, and the sources in the article (those that aren't broken) don't meet the GNG. Ravenswing 22:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable player. As Ravenswing mentioned there is a bit of background noise as there is a much more notable player with the same name, however, I cannot find anything that would meet GNG for this player. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 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) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joren van Pottelberghe[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He plays in a top professional league (Swiss NLA) and enough sources/references have been added. In my opinion there is no reason to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamekrizeni (talk • contribs)

He still fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNGJoeykai (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His level of play does not qualify him for NHOCKEY, and the "sources" -- all to webpages, rather than to reliable sources -- are casual mentions and routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. No evidence of him meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 15:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too early for this guy.18abruce (talk) 13:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rūdolfs Balcers[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails NHOCKEY and not finding evidence of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 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.  Sandstein  17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by hdi by 1960[edit]

List of countries by hdi by 1960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable enough and I don't think we need to have article for the countries by HDI listing for each year. Nickrds09 (Talk to me) 06:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Yearly rankings smell like WP:NOTSTATS to me. It's not even clear how "by 1960" relates to using 1955 data. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 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 redirect to Pendragon_(band). Don't see anything useful to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Vincent Velazco[edit]

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

I prodded 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:Jvvtheater (WP:SPA, creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Few months later, the article has not been improved in any way that would make me think the subject is notable. Thoughts? The best I can think of is a redirect to the band article (Pendragon (band)). PS. Also pinging User:Paste who prodded the article before I did. PPS. [33] by GMA News and Public Affairs is the only source about him, and I don't think one source is sufficient for aforementioned policies, which usually require multiple coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn musician: no in-depth coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur, there's nothing at all establishing independent notability and the only claims of significance are the other group. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have found these 2 links, one from IMDB and one from Philippine Star newspaper article about the performance at the London 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony. [1] [2]

I apologise but I'm very new to Wikipedia so I appreciate all the help I can get. Many thanks Jvvtheater (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pendragon_(band), of which he is a member, but he doesn't appear to be notable by himself. The Phil. Star is not that reliable. IMdB by itself is virtually meaningless, since it is user-created content. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 22 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  15:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frad zwaz[edit]

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

This was prodded in 2008 by User:Craw-daddy on the grounds of failing WP:GNG, and deprodded by creator who argued WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Sadly, I don't see any sources for this, and as fascinating as this may be on many levels, we need sources to prove among others that this is not a WP:HOAX, and then that the game is notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 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 redirect to various Cruelties. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam O'Donnell[edit]

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

Non-notable British songwriter. Sources in the article are not reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 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) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Gleesh[edit]

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

This music biography was previously deleted on August 18, 2015. The user who restarted it is a user who registered an account one week later. There are no references to establish notability, and per WP:BEFORE I have been unable to find any reliable sources describing his career to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, the news accounts of Yung Gleesh are about his skirmish with the law. He was accused of rape[34] and then charged and arrested in March 2015.[35] In September 2015 he described how the charges messed up his career.[36] However, he was not convicted and so he is not deserving of a biography as a criminal. I just don't think there's enough music stuff here to host a rapper article, and not enough to host a criminal article. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but could you provide diffs regarding your accusations of sockpuppeteering? If this is a WP:DUCK it should quack like one. Jergling (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got no diffs for ya. The editor starts lots of borderline articles, many of which get nominated for deletion, like this one—the trail is visible on the user talk page. It was suspicious to me that the username was registered so soon after the last Yung Gleesh article was deleted, but I didn't find anything else to establish a sockpuppet case. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a snowball's chance in hell, nothing at all actually significant since the works are minor and unconvincing, the information and sources are trivial and unconvincing, there's literally nothing else and this simply follows the classic example of what's barely in the barrel of "information". SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 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) 06:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard W. Suscha[edit]

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

Mr. Suscha's major source of notability was his 12 years as mayor of Sheboygan, Wisconsin (2010 population: 49,288) which, by my extremely humble opinion, does not warrant an ex officio article under WP:POLITICIAN. Dolotta (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While 49K is large enough that a mayor could keep an article that was well-cited to reliable source coverage, it's not large enough that a mayor gets an automatic presumption of notability just for existing if the article is sourced this poorly — the only source here is a blog entry on the website of the local minor league baseball team in the town where he was mayor, which is a reliable source in no sense whatsoever. And for added bonus, there's a probable conflict of interest here as the article was created by User:Csuscha. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good-effort article to catalog a former mayor in my city, but as-is, he was a pretty generic public official and the article glosses past the negatives of his time as mayor (Plaza 8 and the cost of I-43 to local commerce, for instance); doesn't help that the article starter seems to be a family member. Nate • (chatter) 21:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article stands now. It needs reliable sources to back up everything (a local baseball team blog doesn't count). If the article was reliably sourced I would !vote for its being kept. I think that Sheboygan is large enough of a city to justify inclusion. No prejudice against recreation if it were properly sourced and I would be willing to undelete for work in userspace or draftspace for that purpose. Royalbroil 13:59, 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 Attack Vector: Tactical. North America1000 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Astra Games[edit]

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

This company appears to be defunct and there is another company that uses the same name so be careful when you search. My search was unable to locate anything for this company that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 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. MBisanz talk 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stinkety Pinkety[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline." It was deprodded by User:DGG with the following rationale "Given the famous originator, this needs a source in published sources about Kaufman". I am frankly a bit confused by that, as this does not read like a deprodding rationale, merely a criticism of inadequae sources. I don't see a single mention of this in Google Books. At most this could be redirected and merged to the creator's biography, but it doesn't look likely that it can be kept as a game of stand-alone notability. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I myself also found nothing and there's simply nothing else suggesting otherwise including significance and then significance for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Has anyone searched for this in theextensive biographic material about George S. Kaufman ? DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, it does not appear to exist as a searchable keyword in Google Books or in Google Scholar. Frankly, it may be a WP:HOAX, with ~200 web mentions being based on this article, through it might be mentioned at Gyles Daubeney Brandreth (1986). Everyman's word games. Dent. ISBN 978-0-460-04711-1.. That book only has a snippet view in Google Books, but in theory it should be searchable, but this phrase does not return any result. It seems to be pretty low profile ([37]), and since it is not in LibGen (I looked), well, the venerability of this is hard. There is also the issue of Everyman's Library works as a source. Anyway, can someone prove this is not a hoax? The more I look into that, DGG, the more non-notable (at the very least) this looks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Kaufman attribution is almost certainly a hoax, but the thing described in the article is a kind of "folk game". I remember playing it in English class in middle school, I think as part of a lesson from Michael Clay Thompson's The Word Within The Word. Jergling (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember this concept from puzzle books when I was a kid, but they were called "hink pinks," "hinky pinkies," and "hinkety pinketies." Google results] Joyous! | Talk 18:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this term is used widely. Joyous! | Talk 04:38, 24 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 moved to Draft:Pascal Stil. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Stil[edit]

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

No indication that this person satisfies WP:GNG. There are various sources cited, but none of them seem to provide the significant coverage in independent reliable sources which is generally needed to establish Wikipedia notability for a stand-alone article. The primary claim of notability appears to be that Still was the first player to represent Ireland in international draughts, but I have been unable to find any coverage at all of this in any Irish newspaper. The same editor who created this article also created and 2012 European championships of international draughts and 2014 European championships international draughts around the same time, and Stil is listed as finishing 64th and 75th respectively in those tournaments. Even if the tournaments themselves are notable per WP:NEVENT, finishing so low would not be any indication of notability in and of itself. I've tried to find better sources for the article and have asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#Pascal Stil. I've also tried discussing things with the article's creator on Talk:Pascal Stil#Notability, but no better sources have been provided and the only comment from anyone else was that "he [Stil] looks notable". The notability issue was also discussed at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 525#Notability issue and the same concerns were pointed out by others. Maybe this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON and the article can be redirected to one of the two tournament articles. Otherwise, I think is should be deleted for a lack of notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated above by Marchjuly and also by myself in previous talks about this page, there have been newspaper articles, but it's basically impossible to find these. If that means it results in the article being deleted as WP:TOOSOON I will have to accept that. Stil has indicated that he intends to take part in the 2017 World Championships, which is of course already more noteable in itself, and hopefully that will get some more media attention which might make it possible to recreate the page then.Belfastchild1974 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another alternative to deletion or a redirect Belfastchild1974 might be WP:USERFY. The article could be moved back to "draft" status where you could continue working on improving it why looking for better sourcing. It might seem like a step backwards, but if Stil does receive better coverage in the future that "draft" could then be moved back to the article namespace. An administrator probably can do this for you, if it looks like Stil will eventually satisfy WP:GNG. You could then re-submit the draft via WP:AFC so that reviewers can assess it and provide suggestions on ways to improve it if necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for that suggestion, Marchjuly. I wasn't aware of that option, but I think that would be a good option for pages that are considered WP:TOOSOON. Is there anything I need to do to make that happen rather than deletion of the page? Belfastchild1974 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Userfication may be possible as long as WP:USERFY#NO does not apply. The closing admin will assess the comments made here and determine if a consensus has been established either way. As long as there are no strong opposes to the idea, I think it should be OK. The only thing to do is wait until this AfD discussion is closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:25, 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 and redirect to Supernumerary (disambiguation). The rough consensus here was that the article fails NOTDICTIONARY. I have redirected to the existing disambiguation page Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supernumerary[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline as well as Wikipedia is not a dictionary – article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by numerous examples that lack a unifying context and are only related semantically. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article is in need of a reorder and a rewrite. The lead is too long and doesn't go straight to the point, however I believe it is a notable enough concept, just the article is, as stated, written like a dictionary entry with examples. It's problematic and work needs to be done, but I say keep! Uamaol (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is determined by whether a topic has gotten significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources used in the article make only trivial mention of the concept of supernumeraries, therefore the topic seems non-notable unless more significant coverage is found. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but if you want to be picky, a huge number of the articles on this Wikipedia lack significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There are BLP articles for people only because they have a title, who aren't mentioned anywhere on the internet and sometime not even in Burkes Peerage, but still remain despite not being notable. A huge number of geographic and taxonomic article also feature no references and are often incredibly difficult into hunting them down, yet exist. Sure they need work, but so does this article. What makes them any more notable than the article? Uamaol (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is not the issue here. The only issue is whether this article meets the criteria for deletion according to Wikipedia's Deletion policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • That clearly is the issue. To say this article does not meet the criteria for notability it to also say that the vast majority of this Encyclopædia is the same! Uamaol (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Anyone is perfectly free to nominate other articles besides this one for deletion if they meet the necessary criteria. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, but wouldn't such an undertaking be hugely counter productive? Would it be possible to have your opinion on my suggestion? Uamaol (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Uamaol. One problem is a lack of discussion of its nature and its main characteristics, and goes straight to types and concrete examples. I started a new section with this in mind, but it is still bare bones. Marax (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, the sources used[38][39] in that section make only trivial mention of the topic. More reliable sources would be needed to establish notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added something from the enciclopedia juridica. Marax (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solution I suggest we make this a disambiguation page and expand from there. Such pages offer definitions and redirect users to where they need to go. How does that sound? @Marax: Uamaol (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would make sense only if Supernumerary had several meanings that were themselves notable topics. Disambiguation pages are not for listing dictionary definitions or trivia about other subjects. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As shown by the numerous different examples on the article, this would suit the creation of a disambiguation make with numerous articles created for the various types. Yes disambiguation pages are not dictionaries, but a faar few do provide simple difintions of words with a link on the right hand side to Wiktionary. Uamaol (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictionary definition plus random trivia.  Sandstein  14:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in thinking that Supernumerary actor is the most common meaning? It is the only one I knew about before reading the article.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Extra is a disambiguation page and (in the opinion of the WP community) Backup is mainly about taking care of your data, with other uses like backup singers and police backup listed on Backup (disambiguation).Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no logical reason a opera director doesn't say: "We need some more backups for the crowd scene," and a police officer: "I'm calling for supernumeraries." Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:DICDEF, and otherwise consists of a random collection of trivia, which does nothing to show the topic is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete The word basically means "member of temporary staff". We don't have article staff (organization) because the term is extremely generic and nonspecific. The disambig page must site here instead. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- article consists mostly of a dictionary definition, followed by a huge trivial example farm with very poor sourcing. I suggest that the content be deleted, and Supernumerary (disambiguation) be moved here in its place. Reyk YO! 08:49, 26 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 with no prejudice against anyone creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.5 20:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pluggd[edit]

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

The 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. The company was mentioned in two reliable sources, but in the context of discussing its founder, who may have a bigger claim to notability; the company's coverage was pretty much in passing. I looked for other sources but except few more mentions in passing (ex. a sentence in [40]) I don't see much. I don't think such mentions are enough to make this pass cited notability policies. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, and WP:CORPSPAM. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The Economic Times piece linked above is about <pluggd.in>, which was a different venture (subsequently NextBigWhat). AllyD (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The 2006-7 start-up coverage related to the firm's original proposition before they "witnessing iTunes “suck the air out” of the market" [41]. I have added a brief summary of their subsequent refocus and then acquisition by another firm. There is already brief coverage at Limelight_Networks#Acquisitions which seems sufficient but perhaps could be expanded to "August 2011 the company acquired Delve Networks, Inc. (formerly pluggd.com), a privately held provider..." if it was felt appropriate to selectively merge a trace history of the original start-up. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is mentioned at the parent company article as is, that's all there's to say since it's no longer an active independent company. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 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. Hut 8.5 21:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle & Hunter Rugby League[edit]

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

No notability. A local league with zero coverage. Abbottonian (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This competition is very popular and important to the Hunter region. I suggest you view the 2016 Grand Final, Shortland v Windale on you tube, which was broadcasted by BarTV. You will see that there is a large crowd and that the coverage itself gives the competition notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladnara (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To prove notability, you must cite reliable references on page. Here's how to: Help:Introduction to referencing. Abbottonian (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:58, 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) 09:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal intellectual and spiritual guide[edit]

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

PRODed by @Some Gadget Geek: and endorsed by me. Non-notable self-published book that appears to have been created by an account with some link to the author. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG TonyBallioni (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

  • Strongly suggest this article to stay. Per tsfromusa

The reasons are: 1. This book is new, but highly valuable to humanity. Most fellow humans have problem improve themselves intellectually and spiritually on their own because they are not conscious of The Human Intelligence System and the human intellectual process, "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process(CSIP)". The author is hoping humanity will bring "The Human Intelligence System" and "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process" to conscious level sooner than later. 2. Up to now, humanity is only semi-conscious of The Human Intelligence System and the human intellectual process, "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process". For examples, in Buddhism guide, Sandhinirmocana Sutra, the author described the 9th intellectual and spiritual stage is "liberating one's mind from (words) / (linguistic expressions)". On page 108 of The Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle asked his book readers to "look beyond the words". On the first page of How to win Friends & Influence People, Dale Carnegie provided a page of instructions to tell his reader to look beyond words . In section "Inside-Out" of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey attempted to ask his reader to look beyond words. Of these famous authors and many more self-help book authors, they used "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process(CSIP)" unconsciously or semi-consciously. Hence, they know that to develop the intellectual capabilities they found valuable, a person needs to "look beyond words". However, none of the authors explained how to do it consciously. The capability to "look beyond words" to develop intellectual capability on one's own is to "CSIP at level of interconnectedness, mental object, and physicon", as explained in the book "Universal Intellectual and Spiritual Guide". To speed up the intellectual and spiritual advancement on individual level and humanity as a whole, The Human Intelligence System and "Complete and Successful Intellectual Process" to conscious level. "Universal Intellectual and Spiritual Guide" is created to accomplish this goal. Once a person masters CSIP, the person can consciously gain the full value of all books that is ever written. I sincerely ask you to let this article to stay.

  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a book newly self-published through CreateSpace. There is no evidence of attained notability. (Responding to the Keep opinion above, in time this book may prove "highly valuable to humanity" but that is speculative prediction at this point.) AllyD (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notabilty of book not established by secondary sources.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find nothing that would suggest that this book passes notability guidelines at this point in time and it's borderline promotional enough to speedy under that criteria. This book is pretty much a good example of why I wanted a speedy deletion guideline for books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- is there such thing as "book spam"? If it were, this page would qualify :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: You seem to be right - we have WP:G11 and if everyone agrees this page qualifies for it we might as well RfSD and SNOW this discussion. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh -- Thought Wikipedia would be something different than the commercialized aggregate place or a socially hyped compost, but a place where people would search, validate, and collect valuable and useful knowledge for betterment of humanity. Looks like Wikipedia editors are also just like a bunch blind men keeping themselves busy with an big elephant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.142.115 (talk) 21:35, 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America1000 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eptic[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP. No reliable source to verify notability. Abbottonian (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:57, 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 16:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangir Khan Jani[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of Jani in lists of castmembers, or "John Smith at Big Company said" style quotations. Article appears to fail the "significant roles in multiple notable films" criteria of WP:NACTOR as of the three bluelink films listed, two are flagged as "may not meet notability" with a weak single source and the other is currently at AfD.

Blocked sockmaster User:Nouman khan sherani has a history of creating articles about non-notable films and adding them to Jahangir Khan Jani's filmography: most have since been deleted. McGeddon (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nomination. When distinguished from another actor of a similar name and appearance, seems to have no confirmed roles beyond homemade YouTube efforts by the originator of the article (see above). Plutonium27 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a mistake in identity here asthis actor has appeared in many Pashto cinema films and their dvds as reported in the press sources in the article which would not report on homemade youtube efforts, passes criteria one of WP:NACTOR but reviews are admittedly hard to find. If the plug is pulled on him it should at least be as a film actor lacking rs rather than a youtuber. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irandokht[edit]

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

No independent significance. Abbottonian (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Abbottonian: She was a PRINCESS. So the page meets notability criteria. (I just made some changes in article to show this issue obviously)--Freshman404Talk 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide reliable references to verify it. See WP:VERIFY. Abbottonian (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbottonian:  Done --Freshman404Talk 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are in Persian and hard to verify but Wikipedia does not require English language sources. Considering who she was and when she lived there are likely other sources in Persian or offline English sources. JbhTalk 14:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Nominator was blocked as part of an AfD vote stacking SOCK farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JessikaRita. JbhTalk 15:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:51, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zetavault[edit]

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

Pure promotion, just a litany of features and some promotional links instead of any independent sources. W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prod was reverted without comment. Only one editor who has touched only one other article. W Nowicki (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion is not justified. The page describes features of the product without any promotion. Chiz (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiz: Article lacks references to reliable sources (reviews, news coverage in magazines/renowned sites, books about subject of the article etc.). Pavlor (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references provided that meet WP:RS and nothing in the article that suggests notability. The article is purely promotional. -- HighKing++ 20:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, nothing here for any actual substance since it seems to be a minor software. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 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 redirect to University of Jaffna. What if any material to merge over is up to editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Business Studies, University of Jaffna[edit]

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

Individual faculties are rarely notable. This article has no independent sources, is mostly unreferenced, and full of promotional stuff like "We have the Internship Training for our Accountancy and Finance specialization students in their fourth year. They are going for ... Actually it is a very great opportunity for them, to compete in the job market and grasping the job opportunities." WP:DUCK quacks "spam". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sol H. Weiss[edit]

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

WP:BIO notability not met. Some of his cases were notable but notability is not inherited. The article bears signs of puffery (e.g. questionable awards from nn publications and their press releases) and was created by a now blocked editor. There are no substantial biographical details provided such as year/place of birth. Many of the sources are primary court records and have no bearing on subject's notability. The article's creator was blocked for advertising; see DGG's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry E. Coben for another of his nn attorney bio creations which had very similar problems with article formulation. Brianhe (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Keniston[edit]

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

Delete. Article that was deleted earlier this year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Keniston, then recreated as a redirect to his party, but was then revived as a standalone WP:BLP in August (but is different enough this time that G4 speedy is not suitable.) The subject is still a minor party candidate for president, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass, but the sourcing still isn't appreciably stronger than it was the first time: of the eight sources being cited here, two are primary ones (his own campaign website and a press release from the party); three are glancing namechecks of his existence in "all of your third party options" overview articles rather than substantive coverage about him; one is a "local man runs for president" article in local media serving the town where he lives; one is a Q&A-style interview with him (which is not a class of sourcing that can assist GNG, as it represents the subject talking about himself rather than third parties talking or writing about him); and the one reference left that's independent and non-local and appears to have been substantively about him is an unverifiable deadlink. No prejudice against recreating or restoring a redirect to the party afterward, but the quality of sourcing here still is not good enough to earn him a standalone BLP just for being a minor candidate who has no actual chance of winning the presidency. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:41, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lucadello[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirayadar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The article was previously prodded by Comatmebro and deprodded by its creator Tolly4bolly on 10 May 2012. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 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.  Sandstein  17:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janu clan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:45, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold Frankenberger, Jr.[edit]

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

For many years, it was a redirect. Then, in 2009, a standalone article was created. It was AfDed, with the nomination quickly withdrawn. Subsequently, there was consensus at the talk page to merge the content to Alois Hitler, since the very existence of the individual is doubtful. A couple of days ago it was recreated by a user in good standing. However, I still do not see how we need a standalone article, and we should have once a proper AfD discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something akin de:Frankenberger-These Agathoclea (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to invalid sourcing. The subject is alleged to have been Adolf Hitler's father Alois's biological father. The first cited sentence states, "Nazi claims have disputed that Hitler had any Jewish heritage", sourced to [42], a book which states that "Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz, and that the family's 19-year-old son Leopold Frankenberger had fathered Alois". So that contradicts the sentence it is being cited for. For that matter, the book's next sentence states that "no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence". The second cited sentence states, "Frankenberger was born early in 1818 in Graz, Austria to Leopold Frankenberger, Sr. and his wife, likely during the annual trade fair in Graz", sourced to [43]. That page has no mention of Frankenberger. This article appears to be based primarily on misinterpretation or misuse of the sources that it cites and partly on unsourced speculation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • More on the misuse of sources:
  1. The article says, "19-year-old Leopold fathered Alois Hitler out of wedlock", cited to [44]. That book says, "Attorney Hans Frank speculated that the Fuhrer's paternal grandfather, Maria Anna Schicklgruber might have been impregnated by 19 year old Leopold Frankenberger, son of her alleged Jewish employer. Most historians reject this theory because no Frankenberger family resided in Graz circa 1836 when Alois Hitler Sr. was conceived."
  2. The article says, "He [Frankenberger] was alleged to have paid the child-support money as hush money", cited to [45]. That book says, "The third possibility [of candidates for Alois Hitler's father] was that Maria Anna was working for a Jewish family known as the Frankenbergers. She could have been made pregnant by one of the sons, Leopold Frankenberger. In an effort to hush up the matter, the Frankenbergers paid her some money as compensation. [¶] The problem with this theory is that there were no Jews living in Graz during this period. They had been banished and did not return until around 1860s, long after Alois was born. Even if the Frankenbergers did exist, this theory implied that they had the money to buy Maria Anna's silence. Since Adolf Hitler's paternal grandfather was poor, then the possible father of Alois Hitler could not have been a Frankenberger."
  3. The article says, "Leopold and his father paid child support for Alois for several years, so he probably played at least a moderate role in his son's early life", cited to [46]. That book does claim that the Frankenbergers paid child support to Maria, but says nothing at all about whether Leopold had any role in Alois's early life. In addition, the book says that Leopold Frankenberger died circa 1860, whereas this article portrays him as living an additional 52 years until 1912. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. since the article can be improved with better source-s-se the German WP article mentioned above. The present article should be rewritten on the basis of the information there. The subject is notable. I'm not sure what the title should best be. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 03:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will ping K.e.coffman who is generally knowledgeable about this topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm not familiar with the subject of Hitler's ancestry; I'd like to ping @Kierzek, Obenritter, and Diannaa: who have edited on related topics. I would add that in the current form I do not find the article adding value to the project; I thus believe it should be redirected to Alois Hitler until such time that it's sufficiently improved to warrant a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as stand alone article; per WP:fringe and fails WP:RS for WP:V. This "article" remains me of what Sir Ian Kershaw wrote about the rumors of Strasser's statement on Hitler's sexuality: "ought to be viewed as the fanciful anti-Hitler propaganda of an outright political enemy"; p. 219 of Hitler: A Biography. He goes on to state there were other tales, which have "hinted darkly" at Hitler ancestry. Hitler's family tree is on page 4 and shows Alois his father and Johann Georg Hiedler with a strong arrow and a smaller secondary arrow to Johann Nepomuk Hiedler (Huttler) possibility Alois father. Johann Georg Hiedler was during his lifetime the stepfather and posthumously legally declared birth father of Alois. p. 2. Kershaw gives the story no validity as to Frankenberger. As noted by historian Frank McDonough, Leopold Frankenberger's existence has never been documented. p. 20 of Hitler and the Rise of the Nazi Party. It should be remembered that Wikipedia is not a tabloid and not a newspaper, either. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per assessment by editor Kierzek. If anyone wants to create an en.wiki article similar to de:Frankenberger-These, this can be done from scratch. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with both @K.e.coffman: and @Kierzek:. This article should be deleted.--Obenritter (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In light of the above concerns, particularly those by Kierzek and Metropolitan90, we can at least TNT the article. The sources are either not reliable or do support the content. Accordingly, a TNT works well here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per improper sourcing and the fact that he hasn't even been officially proven to have existed Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:30, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Class[edit]

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

fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all we have here is thinly hanging claims of another group and he worked with them, there's literally nothing else beyond that and examining both the information and sources, even casually, shows this. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 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 redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7. Implemented by author during the AfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 07:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yong Muhajil[edit]

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

Known for just being a contestant of a reality game show. May not meet WP:BIO. WP:TOO SOON and WP:BIO1E also apply here. Hitro talk 20:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing, only gossip magazine type stuff on his reality show appearance, show up on google search XyzSpaniel Talk Page 23:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 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) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Pak Hang Patrick[edit]

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

Aside from the first sentence, everything is copied/pasted verbatim from the article Chu Tien-hsin, who cannot possibly be the same person. Every single reference is about Chu Tien-hsin (also romanized as Zhu Tianxin). This writer, "Lee Pak Hang", does seem to exist, but it's unclear to me how notable he is. Page is orphaned. Timmyshin (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparent hoax. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Ref. 2 is clearly bout Chu Tien-hsin, not about her. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas everything here simply confirms an attempt at making an article seem genuine, when it is in fact simply copied from another subject, not this one, and the sources are also mirroring this. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per WP:HOAX. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 18:33, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Govind Man Shrestha[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. Unable to establish notability. Unable to deorphan. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - little to verify, and no facts to back up assertions. How popular were his songs? Were they hits on a well-documented chart? Bearian (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 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. I'm closing this as delete, but treating it as a prod. There was only one !vote, and it appears to mainly go towards Anyoption. There have been 2 relists, and the last one didn't garner any additional participation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyoption[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP notability. This article was created by a promotional editor (now blocked) with absurdly weak sources, mostly Forex websites deemed non-reliable at RSN in a September 2016 thread.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a circle of Belize/Cyprus financial entity related promotion by several other socks (see September 2016 COIN thread), with identical sourcing issues plus vague assertions of awards from non-notable sources:

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

— Brianhe (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the awards themselves are not significant, so at this stage I do not yet see them as having sufficient notability. That their url ends up on the blacklist makes them more spam than ham. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Billinghurst: Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein. Your !vote comes across that it may be only about the Anyoption article listed at the very top of this page, per the singular grammar used in your !vote. North America1000 02:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone! Does anyone know why the official website (iqoption.com) is blacklisted and how can I remove it from the blacklist? I'm currently trying to make this article more relevant and source-based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrusl u (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion in this discussion. North America1000 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 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 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Skadarac[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable Chetnik. No article in Serbian Wikipedia, and Google Search turns up only mirror sites which all say the same thing: "Chetnik of the Macedonian Struggle" and "a member of the Serbian Chetnik Organization. His band ranged from 8 to 12." And that's about it. Quis separabit? 23:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for further discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 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 speedy keep. I was holding off withdrawing the nomination because of the relatively large number of delete !votes, but almost half of them have changed their opinions (as have I). The article has been significantly improved and I have no further objections. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comet appearances in china[edit]

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

This seems like a rather arbitrary cross-categorization, which falls under WP:NOT (in addition to having no references). Comets are not "fast" events, so I see no reason why we need to specifically narrow the country of viewing (e.g. everyone in the world saw Halley's Comet in 1986). Primefac (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comets do not respect national borders, so this is not a sensible way to classify them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Historic comet observations in China. The historic observations seem to be the actual topic of the article. While comets appeared everywhere, for much of history only the Chinese astronomers were recording them systematically. The article gives no references and needs text in addition to lists, but there are books and papers on the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that seems to make sense, so I've stricken by "delete" above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have moved the table about Halley's Comet to that article, as) it should be there, and b) a vast majority of the information wasn't specifically from China. This leaves the page with a generic repetition of "a comet appeared". Primefac (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I have restored it. Deleting it has the effect of removing all mention of Halley from the article. Chinese observations of Halley were important to modern astronomers. Your deletion also had the effect of making the first entry in the AD era whereas there are sources citing Chinese observation of comets as far back as 1059 BC. SpinningSpark 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark, fair point, but I have taken the liberty of removing all non-Chinese sightings. Also, as a point of note, the Halley's table starts at 240BC, so I'm not sure how I "removed" 1059BC. Primefac (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did remove 1059BC. I said there were sources citing it. A very large number of sources in fact. SpinningSpark 23:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename: China is rather unusual in this respect given their lengthy history of naked eye astronomical observations. It's not just a random cross-categorization. Cometary appearances can be useful for determining the chronology of other events. Praemonitus (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Old comet appearances are already listed in List of hyperbolic comets, with these new ones added- the source is from a 1960's book on ancient chinese comets, if I can recall correctly. Either way, the article is redundant and serves no useful purpose. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That list does not even include Halley's comet, one of the most important items being discussed here, and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it could not be put on that list because it is not hyperbolic. SpinningSpark 23:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an irrelevant method of classification - we don't split up any other astronomical object by the nationality of the person who observed it. The correct place to highlight the long history of comet observations in China would be observational history of comets. This contextless list doesn't add anything useful, and almost all the entries have no information beyond the year. Any data on this page that isn't already in the various lists of comets can be merged into the relevant already-existing list(s). Modest Genius talk 18:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep China has an ancient tradition of comet observations, independently of Europe. Historically, their observations have been of the greatest importance in confirming and adding to European/Near East observation, and crosschecking dates. The Needham references is a famous encyclopedic work by the great scholar of Chinese science--any thing to which he devotes a section of his magnum opus is notable. What the aarticle needs is additional material. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the current form. What I take away from the above is that an encyclopedia article that covers the history of comet observations in China would be greatly appreciated, as per DGG's argument, but that a contextless bare list of observations is indiscriminate information and of very little value to readers.  Sandstein  17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as LISTCRUFT -- HighKing++ 18:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand that China has a singularly important history with regards to the observation of comets, but this article is not the one to highlight it. It is a barebones list that does nothing to link these observations with any sort of historical significance. Joyous! | Talk 18:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, interesting list but did not receive significant coverage from independent sources. Maybe interesting to add some content about comet watching in China instead. Icebob99 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per SpinningSpark argument. My delete vote was based on the fact that it seemed to be more of a logbook than an article, but if there are those sources as he lists, then it swings my vote. Icebob99 (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's really nothing to the article. If it could be properly referenced, the entire list could be summarized as a paragraph (perhaps in "Chinese astronomers noted comet appearances in the years 13, 57, 60, etc." and achieve the same effect. Observational history of comets seems the best place. Matt Deres (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per DGG. Many of the delete !votes are based on the state of the article as it is now, not what it could be. That's not how AfD should work; if a topic is notable, it remains notable however badly it is written, and I hope the closer will discount such !votes. And it undoubtedly is notable; Chinese observations are not only some of the earliest, but they are used by, and are important to modern astronomers. There are numerous sources verifying this importance. I am busy with something else right now, but I will highlight some of them below shortly. SpinningSpark 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information. Besides the two excellent sources added to the article by StarryGrandma, there is also
  • "Oriental tales of Halley's Comet", New Scientist, 1984, a four page article including this "More than 1000 years ago, Earth's gravitational pull disturbed the orbit of Halley's Comet. Now astronomers cannot calculate it's original path; they have to rely on ancient Chinese observations"
  • East-Asian Archaeoastronomy has a whole chapter on Chinese observations of Halley's comet and the chapter includes a 3-page section discussing Chinese observations of comets generally.
  • John Williams, Observations of Comets from B. C. 611 to A. D. 1640: Extracted from the Chinese Annals, 1871 [47] a widely cited English translation.
  • Science and Civilisation in China devotes a chapter to Chinese comet observations and says "While there exists a few Babylonian cuneiform records of comets as far back as −1140, and observations of them were quite frequent in ancient and medieval Europe, the Chinese records are by far the most complete"
  • The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China has a five page discussion of comets [48]
  • "Ancient and mediaeval observations of comets and novae in Chinese sources", Vistas in Astronomy
  • "Orbits of ancient and medieval comets", Astronomical Society of Japan
That is just a small selection of what is out there. More than enough to work up the prose into a decent article. SpinningSpark 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. Too many dels to simply withdraw, but if these stipulations are met I can agree that a good article could come out of this page. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move, this seems like an interesting article at the new name and with sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article starts with making the point about ancient astronomical observations in China, and then uses the history of observations of Halley's Comet to make the point. That's not encyclopedic. Either this is about the history of observations of Hally's Coment (most of which is poorly-sourced listcruft written by Muhammad Umair Mirza) or it's about Chinese astronomy (written by Spinningspark), which already exists. The portion anyone can agree to keep is the portion that's not developed and some editors are voting keep for an article that is not present. I think WP:REALPROBLEM applies here. I'd be ok with userfy-ing this until it can be perfected. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think this article has the ability to become pretty decent, but it has to avoid being just an indiscriminate list of occurrences and provide context. It seems like it's on a good start and I'd like to see if it could become more. South Nashua (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it should be noted that SpinningSpark has overhauled the article to remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and incorporate the sources that he found. Here's the diff from the article at time of nomination until now. Icebob99 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Lovaglio[edit]

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

I prodded 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:QatarStarsLeague (creator) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). I have looked at the refs in article and on the web, and the while he is mentioned in media it is either in passing (ex. the Polish ref added [49] is misleading, it is not about him - it is about the bank ownership, and the subject is only mention briefly in the context that his job as the CEO is likely safe) or in the recurring context of being the most highly paid bank CEO in Poland, something that is discussed in passing in major newspapers, and a bit more in depth in tabloids. Note that there is no in-depth coverage, the only articles about him are few tabloid rants about "this Italian person works in the Polish bank and is earning a lot of $$$, yadda yadda". I don't think that this sufficient to be notable, and being a CEO of a medium bank is not enough to meet WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Lastly, pl wiki mentions he received an Italian government award, but it seems minor and not sufficient for notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've been watching this article since the PROD and I quite honestly concur with everything, there's simply no actual notability or significance and we should not mistake it as otherwise when it's clear this is only an existing business listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- notability is not inherited from the companies the subject worked for. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 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 keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hillmann[edit]

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

I had been open and honest with my concerns about this Draft to the user showing how the sources, even though about 4 news reviews, were still not enough because even the foreign sources such as Spanish in fact only consisted of interviewed quotes and other self-given information by the man himself, another thing was the fact there are no significant library holdings and he has merely published 3 books in the past few years, nothing is yet actually amounting to substance. Therefore I still confirm my my PROD here and examining this article finds nothing for genuine independent notability and substance aside from having attention for a few events, particularly the bull riding. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Totally borderline. Outside the review of his book by Chicago Tribune at [50] I don't see anything else that would help establish him for WP:NAUTHOR. He got coverage for being gored, some in quality journals ([51]), but this is WP:ONEEVENT notability. He was subject to a reasonably good interview at CT too, [52]. This seems very borderline to me. Sources are reliable, but neither suffices for notability on their own. Together... tough call. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hillmann is notable. The Chicago Tribune named him a Remarkable Person in 2011. Hillmann's notability falls into three different categories.

1. His Books and writing: I just added yet another review of The Old Neighborhood done by Barbra Hoffert of Library Journal. Hoffert is one of the most important librarians in the country. The Old Neighborhood is collected by over a thousand libraries, there is a link provided to The Chicago Public Library the third biggest chain of libraries in the country. The Old Neighborhood was named best new book of 2014 by the Chicago Sun-Times a major news outlet. Coverage of Hillmann's second book Mozos appeared on several extensive National TV segments in Spain and the United States. Hillmann appeared on the cover of the Diario De Navarra a regional newspaper in Pamplona, Spain for an interview about his book. There is a pure review by a national outlet in Spain El Imparcial which is cited in the article. Hillmann was published in Spain by the biggest most prestigious publisher in all of Spain, Planeta. Hillmann's audio essay "Running With The Bulls" won a Great Lakes Regional Edward Murrow Award for Radio Excellence in 2010, it was a finalist for the National Edward Murrow Award. Hillmann received the Encierro Divulgation Award from the organization Eh Toro for his writing on the bull run in Cuellar Spain in 2012.


2. Expert Bull Runner Hillmann has run with the bulls more than 300 times over more than a decade. Hillmann has been called an "Expert Bull Runner" by CNN International during a segment they did about Hillmann and his book Mozos. The LA Times called him "The Best Young American Runner". Hillmann appeared on the back cover of Diario De Navarra regional newspaper in Pamplona for a story about his experiences running 200 bull runs in one summer. Hillmann was gored in 2014 and stories appeared in, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Australian, The Hindu, El Mundo Spain, CNN International, NBC Today, The Economic Times of India, and numerous other outlets. Hillmann has been a guest commentator for NBC Today, CBS This Morning, The Esquire Network, on the running of the bulls. Photos of Hillmann running with the bulls have been published around the world including in Life Magazine.

3. Storyteller and Windy City Story Slam creator and host. Hillmann created The Windy City Story Slam a show that was the first of it's kind in Chicago. The show recieved attention nationally in Salon and The Chicago Tribune, and internationally in The Guardian UK. The show attracted massive crowds in Chicago, Philadelphia, London and the Edinburgh Festival. Hillmann also created the first National Story Slam which took place on the main stage of the Chicago Tribune Printer's Row Book Fair and included storytellers representing storytelling series from 10 different cities across the USA. Hillmann won the Boulder Story Slam competition in Boulder Colorado. He has told Stories broadcast on National Public Radio three times for The Story, and Snapjudgment. Hillmann's told stories across the United States and in England, Mexico, Spain, and Scotland.

The notability of Hillmann is obvious. The logic that Hillmann hasn't published enough books is ludicrous many authors only publish one book and become very notable. There are 22 cites for this article from some of the biggest news outlets in the world. I'm worried this article is being targeted in an attempt to censor it due to political reasons, or potentially personal reasons. I have never found a more extensively cited article for an author. DanHamilton1998 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all clarity and honesty, I mentioned this at the help noticeboard when you came, and I said that simply because one author becomes notable with a few books is not a basis itself, because usually that means there are either significant library collections or a significant number of reviews, and that's not the case here. All of us can assure you there are no political motivations against this AfD and it's simply there are not enough reviews overall, regardless of publication names. I acknowledged the Chicago Public Library having it, but it's still not enough at this time. If his notability had been better convincing, there would've at least been better reviews available. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your arguement is what you consider significant. The Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal, The Week Magazine, El Imparcial, have all reviewed the works. I'm sorry you feel those outlets are not significant. You are incorrect. They are all extremely significant. Not to mention, your idea's on an author being interviewed and quoted about their works by major outlets as being insignificant is also false. Where do you get these nonsensical ideas? An author interview means that a major outlet has deemed the book and author significant and notable. Your logic there is extremely weak and incorrect. I don't know where you draw your experience in the publishing world but it clearly is not a background in real publishing. What is your background? What makes you an expert on this subject? Your lines of logic are vague and weak and rely on your personal opinion which clearly has no merit. You continue to perpetrate this lie that the works in question are not collected in libraries. They are collected by over a thousand libraries, that is a fact. You are incorrect about there not being enough here to merit an article. There is more cited evidence for this article than any author article, I've been able to find. Swister Twister please step aside this is getting strange and feels personal. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I simply am going to note that El Imparcial was in fact an interview and this is obvious in that everything is stated by the man himself, I also never said the publications themselves were "not significant", I said the contents were not and that's caused by said interviews in the man's own words. An author interview means the man is talking himself, and there was no journalism, and if this is emphasized by the fact there are no actual reviews aside from the 4 listed, it shows there's nothing else. Also, where are the supposed thousand libraries? WorldCat explicitly listed none and you actually begin by saying there was in fact one library, not "over a thousand". SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,SwisterTwister. now you are outright lying, or not checking the links. You acknowledged El Imparcial was a review in our chatroom discussion now you are just contradicting yourself.

[3]

Anyone can follow this link and copy and paste this review into google translate and see that it is a review of the memoir Mozos.

Ok now, I took ten seconds to go to the website, she just used to argue that Bill Hillmann's books are not in libraries. I dropped the name Bill Hillmann in the search at WorldCat and the books popped up. So either she forgot the second n in Hillmann or she is just lying or potentially mentally ill and fixated on trying to block this article.

[4]

I'm sorry but Swister Twister has absolutely no touch with reality on how the publishing world works. You can not go to a news publication and tell them what to write, or make them publish words you've written about yourself. These are multi-million dollar award winning news outlets who give attention to whom ever they see worthy. These outlets contradict everything SwisterTwista has written. Is this what Wikipedia is? A place where a person who has no touch with reality, no expertise, can delete quality articles? What SwistaTwista is arguing is that a group of the biggest news outlets in the world conspired to allow Bill Hillmann to write things about himself and then they published them. Do you really think that is how journalism works? Please tell me a logical person will read this. Her argument is a conspiracy theory that more than 22 world renowned news outlets have allowed Bill Hillmann to write about himself then publish it in their outlets. Then her argument is that a website called "worldcat" says that Hillmann's books are not collected when The Chicago Public Library system consisting of more than 50 libraries and libraries across the country say otherwise. So who do you believe swistatwista and worldcat? Or the dozens of world renowned institutions Chicago Tribune, The Guardian (UK), Chicago Public Library, New York Times, Toronto Star, People Magazine, The Times of India, NBC Today, The Australian and dozens others that have given a tremendous amount of attention to Hillmann and his works? Those outlets say he is notable, twistasista says he is not. Who do you believe? DanHamilton1998 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5224371/
  2. ^ http://www.philstar.com/arts-and-culture/808675/filipino-drummer-greatest-show-earth
  3. ^ http://www.elimparcial.es/noticia/170464/los-lunes-de-el-imparcial/bill-hillmann:-corriendo-con-hemingway.-un-mozo-americano-en-los-sanfermines.html
  4. ^ https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_bks&q=Bill+Hillmann&fq=dt%3Abks
  • Keep: I'm going to argue for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG based on following sources ([53], [54], [55], [56], [57]) in addition to above submitted ones. We've notability guidelines because we need independent reliable sources to be able to write an encyclopedia article and imo sources available at this time are able serve the purpose. Anup [Talk] 16:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I am a native speaker, I can confirm the SanFermin is an interview and this is also obvious in that it's listed as Q&A, ElMundo.Es is then simply a summary of what he published and information about it. The MySuburbanLife.com is clearly an indie blog piece therefore cannot be considered substance. All in all, as Piotrus said, this is still a borderline case, therefore a questionable keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 14 November (UTC)
  • Keep All these major outlets summarizing and asking questions about Hillmann's books is a vote by these publications toward legitimizing Hillmann's and his book's notability. They are evidence that legitimate outlets believe Hillmann and his books are notable. There is a limited space in these outlets and they can't talk with or write about everyone's books. They make choices about what books and people, merit words in their publications. They are voting against your opinion about Hillmann and his books. They are saying Hillmann and his books are notable. The people who run these publications are world renowned experts in their field. Their opinions are worthy of your consideration. Their opinions on this matter might have more value than your opinion. I'm not sure, maybe you are a world renowned figure in the publishing world. But the arguments you've made here are a clear indicator that you are not an expert in this field. There are plenty of reviews of Hillmann's books, in fact there are more reviews cited in this article than any other author article, the reviews are from top outlets. Suburban Life is not an indie blog. Suburban Life is a weekly print newspaper that circulates to thousands of people. Feel free to google it. Or in fact you can just search for it here in Wikipedia. It is an award winning newspaper. Have a nice day. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. The reviews are sufficient to meet NAUTHOR. Sometimes the decision is simple. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nota bene* If this AfD is archived please be sure to update its corrosponding ANI thread WP:ANI#DanHamiltion, if it still existent to prevent confusion. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this normal procedure to have an article placed in limbo for 14 days, when there is a tremendous amount of evidence from world renowned sources to merit notability? From what I've read if an article is relisted, it is supposed to be for less than seven days. We will hit the seventh day of being relisted tomorrow. Please can someone explain this behavior? We have six keeps here. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: DanHamilton1998 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
This inst the election we do not count the Keeps and deletes we count what arguments are best supported by guidelines/polices and act respectfully! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Zppix your comment above is unprofessional and belittling. I feel disrespected by it. I also feel that you are acting out as a form of revenge. The only evidence contradicting this article is vaguely stated opinion and false statements which have been proven false by factual evidence. All of the evidence supporting this article is from world renowned sources like The Chicago Tribune, NPR, New York Times, ABC Newspaper (Spain), Toronto Star, Publisher's Weekly, NBC Today. Is there any way to police the behavior of the detractors of this article? Are there any places I can list this where a true authority can look at it objectively? I feel very disappointed by the conduct of these few editors who are using vague and weak arguments against this article which has a tremendous amount of evidence cited. Please tell me Wikipedia is run by objective editors and not people who behave like SwisterTwister and Zppix, that would just be sad, unfair, and pathetic. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: DanHamilton1998 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
  • Keep and snow close - sources indicate the subject clearly meets WP:GNG, and we don't seem to have a more specific notability guideline for bullfighters. Whether his 300-or-so bullfights constitute a single event or not, his career has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and that's good enough. Yes, some of the sources are less reliable than others, but that's not enough to question their validity here. Furthermore this should be closed per WP:SNOW: Piotrus called it "borderline" (which I don't interpret as an argument to delete) and nominator SwisterTwister said "confident keep" above although I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that comment, but that leaves nobody calling for deletion here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the "confident" to questionable, I was not aware I actually typed something else.... SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps not a snow case then, but this probably has been open long enough to demonstrate consensus. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Loads of significant coverage in very notable reliable mainstream venues all around the U.S. and beyond. Added to his articles, broadcasts, and books, this is a no-brainer. SwisterTwister, please do WP:BEFORE before AfDing an article. Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns I had began with this AfD, were about the advertising motivations, I had completed WP:BEFORE so WP:AGF applies here; also, because there was enough to suspect the article was made for advertising, that for sure necessitated an AfD. Also, FWIW, my concerns of at least half of the sources simply being republished interviews and then they being falsely listed as "reviews" were concerning, hence my nomination. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not at all believe you did WP:BEFORE; you are still even now only referring to the citations in the wiki article itself, not on WP:BEFORE research (which can be done now by clicking the links at the top of this page: 20,000 web results including 6,200 WP reference results; 200 news results; two independent Book results; 20 Highbeam results; etc.). There are dozens of cases of significant and varied independent coverage in extremely notable national venues, and there is significant international coverage as well. Your mysterious "concerns about advertising" have no place at AfD; you should know that by now. When you don't do WP:BEFORE, you just waste everyone's time. If you don't know how to do WP:BEFORE, do this: paste the Template:Find sources on the article's talk page and click the links that way. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 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 no consensus. Poor participation. Renom if appropriate. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 15:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Touring[edit]

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

The "Chrysler Touring" is not shown as a model in the 1926 Chrysler brochure nor can I find evidence of any such model on the Internet. I note that the 1926 brochure lists the Chrysler 58 as being available in Royal Sedan, Crown Sedan, Touring & Roadster bodystyles, however the 58 was a four cylinder model, not a six. GTHO (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This shows [[58]] three Chrysler models in 1926 (E80, F58, G70). This [[59]] says the same and adds the 60. "Touring" is only mentioned as a bodystyle of the F58. It would be reasonable to have an article on each model (but certainly not each bodystyle). There is an article on the E80, the Chrysler Imperial, and the F58 is mentioned in Maxwell automobile as the Maxwell became the Chrysler F58 in 1926 before becoming the first Plymouth (automobile) in 1928 (although the Plymouth article say the car was called the F52, not F58). And it was a 4-cylinder as stated above. These early models aren't covered well in List of Chrysler vehicles or in the template Chrysler vehicles. So perhaps this article could be moved to Chrysler F58 and kept as a stub if some editor wants to work on the early Chrysler models. (the specs in the article would have to be removed since it's not clear which car they are actually about). But clearly this article should not remain as is. MB 03:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Lưu Hải Đăng[edit]

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

The sources seem to be links to lists and to the subject's own works. I do not see anything that looks like a reliable source and when I search on the name all I see are social media pages and the like. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Since the top search results are this article and social media the article is likely WP:PROMO. JbhTalk 16:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. JbhTalk 16:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article (if kept) needs to be moved to Ưu Đàm Hoa, his pen name, and you need to perform searches under that name.
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Leaning Keep for authoring a large number of novels, and I was able to verify many of them. Timmyshin (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously sources are almost entirely in Vietnamese, but that's allowed. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not the language it is the content. None seem to be RS. Several are just lists and one [60] is about a flower and says nothing about him. There is not, as near as I can tell, a single independent RS on the page. JbhTalk 14:19, 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 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purplemath[edit]

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

Not notable; no evidence of notability, or even a credible claim. The refs simply prove it exists and has some traffic, but do nothing more, and are not reliable sources. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 10:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (perhaps Soft Delete) - Article about a commercial site that cites no reliable independent sources other than for traffic data. Nothing on which to have an article, and no sources jumping out at me when I do a search (soft delete because it's been around a while and is the sort of thing that can be hard to find sources about due to the many pages that link to it, but not provide significant coverage about it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:27, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion about the article, such as concerns about original research and sourcing can continue on the talk page if desired. North America1000 02:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide energy supply[edit]

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

As the original author plain refuses to add the detailed sourcing as requested by two other editors (including me), it is clear that this article is WP:OR. See discussions on User talk:Rwbest (largely removed) and Talk:Worldwide energy supply. By and large, every excuse not to give the sources is used. The Banner talk 09:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a technical article. The reader is supposed to be familiar with concepts power and energy, units watt and watthour, prefix giga, tera. A technical minded reader will not have problems to read the tables and to verify the data with the given sources. It won't help to add separate sources for every country as The Banner wants to see. I'm afraid that even then he does not understand. It would clutter the reference list. "this article is WP:OR" is nonsense. Rwbest (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And again a refusal to give proper sources as requested many times before by multiple editors. Do-it-yourself-sources (i.e. here is a report, try to find the details yourself) only strengthen the suspicion that the author is creating is own version of the truth. The Banner talk 01:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article sources and a WP:BEFORE style search shows multiple in depth reliable sources for this topic, e.g, [61], [62]. This topic seems solidly notable and just the sort of topic we should cover in an encyclopedia.Although it is clear that there is some sort of long-running editorial dispute, we don't delete articles because of contented sources; rather we build consensus and delete any original research. A notable topic with no insurmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good, that is exactly why I nominated the article: original research. The Banner talk 02:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources. Meets the GNG. Also, to nom, if one source has information about 20 things in a table, it is not necessary to use 20 inline citations. A single reference, or even a general reference, is sufficient, and "proper" support for the entire table. The important part is the existence and quality of the source.  The Steve  07:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing could be made clearer, but that is not an excuse to delete the entire (useful) article. The Proffesor (talk) 22:07, 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. MBisanz talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Danai[edit]

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

A long way off meeting the notability requirements for notability since I'm unable to find any substantial coverage in RS. (Created by undisclosed paid editors). SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this company that he owns for deletion alongside this, since I'm unable to find any coverage of that either, as required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as there's not only no actual significance, it's all clear advertising and there's literally nothing beyond that, there's also then clear advertising-motivated actions as shown by the history, therefore we have all we need for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America1000 02:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nassuvan[edit]

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

I couldn 't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:38, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LDN Noise[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:37, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Mondo[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. Nothing in the article describes the character in real world detail, and the only non-primary sources are irrelevant fluff. TTN (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple editors believed that sufficient independent RS existed last time, but Google's API has changed and those results are no longer viewable. TTN, I'll consider withdrawing my keep and swapping for a merge if you can find what they found and help me understand why the last AfD outcome was in error. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources in the article are likely what they "found" and those sources are irrelevant fluff stuck in the article to give the air of notability to anyone taking a causal glance. If they found anything of actual substance, it would actually be in the article. TTN (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Machine Empire, where the character is already covered. As the current article stands, all but a few of the sources are primary sources, being the episodes themselves. And, if one actually looks into those few third party sources, you'll find that in each of them, the character is mentioned exactly one time each, and only in context of stating "the name of the new villain is..." with no discussion showing any sort of notability. After doing a search for additional sources, I'm not finding any additional third party sources. All I'm really finding is mentions of the character in wikia pages and fan sites, neither of which are reliable third party sources, and nothing seems to extend past simple plot summary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was the original nominator back when I had a narrow mindset regarding sourcing and verifiability. That's changed quite a bit and seven years I'm inclined to keep and even way back when a completely uninvolved editor at the time managed to find sources. A quick glance at the article should show everyone there was a comic book interview, a Chicago Tribune article regarding the toys, and three other sources wholly independent of the media itself. So any claim that this is just "irrelevant fluff stuck in the article to give the air of notability" is as pessimistic as it is false. This article contains plenty of sources and probably meets Wikipedia's guideline on notability more than most articles on fictional subjects that get nominated for deletion. The fact the last AFD outcome was an almost unanimous keep speaks volumes of how well this article has done in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and on notability, even more so now than even seven years ago. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:36, 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.  Sandstein  19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of surveillance technology companies[edit]

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

Rather random list full of links to disambiguation pages. I have checked several articles that do not refer to any type of surveillance. Unsourced. In this state fails WP:LISTCOMPANY. The Banner talk 19:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the list, which I got from the organisation Privacy International, I believe that someone erroneously added links without checking if they were correct. I have removed the incorrect links but left the names of the companies to encourage others to create articles for surveillance technology companies which do not currently have them. Many of the companies which do have pages are full of non-neutral corporate language, and I believe the page should not be deleted as it provides a source for people who want to improve articles on these companies to reflect the controversial nature of the business they pursue. Jwslubbock (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this should really be "List (...) according to Privacy International". I would suggest to the article creator to perhaps add a section on this project to the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, because I'm not a part of PI, and the whole point of putting it here is so that others can go and check whether the companies on their list are surveillance companies. If they're not, then individual companies should be removed, rather than deleting an entirely useful list of articles, some of which need to be created. Look at some of the pages for some of the companies; they're awful articles put there by people working for the companies themselves. They're not neutral, they violate many of the 5 pillars, and need to be improved. Why delete a meta list which is trying to organise work to improve Wikipedia? If you want to delete something, look at some of those shoddy articles, rather than playing whack-a-mole with useful work that's being done to improve Wikipedia. Jwslubbock (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like is for those who believe this list should be deleted to explain which one of the deletion criteria the list has violated. So far the person above says it should be deleted because I got the list of companies from an NGO who specialise in tracking surveillance companies. To me, that's a pretty good source, so I'm unaware as to why that should be a cause for deletion. If someone would like to make a case in reference to the deletion criteria, perhaps we could have a productive discussion about this. Deletion Policy Jwslubbock (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the article fails WP:V as no sources are listed to substantiate the claim that these are "surveillance companies". That's why I recommended including such as list in the Privacy International article. Lists are not generally created to provide a roadmap for improvement; that's not the reason why list articles should exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the Electronic Frontier Foundation count as a reliable source for this? I can't find the 'Who's Who' referred to on that page, but maybe Archive.org has a copy. Nev1 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would consider EFF to be a reliable source. If this is added, then I suggest moving the article to Mass surveillance technology companies according to EFF (to match how they position it). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That can be worked into the article then. I think the list would benefit from an explanation of what surveillance technology is (I don't think Wikipedia has an article does it?) and how the companies on the list were decided on, namely EFF or PI say so though ideally there would be a more detailed explanation. As for title if the article was to incorporate information from both EFF and PI the current title would work for simplicity's sake. Nev1 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would recommend Mass surveillance technology companies -- the privacy advocates are mostly concerned about mass surveillance, as I understand it. It would also be nice to ses the PI list; I don't think it's been linked yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 16 Novmber 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sirius XM Radio channels[edit]

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

The channel lineup described in the page has been obsolete for at least two years. Nobody has stepped up to edit the page and bring it current. This information could easily be replaced with a hyperlink to the relevant live page on SiriusXM's site. Dkendr (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 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 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechViz XL[edit]

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

No sources of any kind or any indication of notability or significance. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 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. czar 19:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is Feudal[edit]

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

No indication of notability or significance. No sources at all. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Ninja. - hahnchen 12:53, 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. North America1000 02:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleCentre[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place for promotion fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX Domdeparis (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable.  MPJ-DK  11:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as literally nothing here for notability or significance at that, see "one of the [claim] companies" is not convincing at all, let alone a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promo stub. Fails, WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 23:26, 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 merge to Ruth (band). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Ruth[edit]

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

Insufficient sources to confirm notability, and I cannot find more online. Allmusic lists just one album from 2004 which is not even mentioned in the article. – Fayenatic London 09:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America1000 07:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dollhouse (Melanie Martinez EP)[edit]

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

not notable - did not chart. few references. the page claims 2 different release dates. Kellymoat (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 4 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) 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually charted at #4 on the US Heatseekers..... Aleccat (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Love on the brain -- any article can be "expanded". But that still doesn't mean that it is notable. You didn't mention if you thought the article met the criteria to be an article, you only mentioned that it could be expanded.Kellymoat (talk) 14:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Flog Gnaw[edit]

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

No indication of passing WP:EVENT. No sources or any kind. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google News has recent coverage in LA Times, Forbes, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utsill (talk • contribs) 02:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are passing mentions. The articles are not about the festival but about other events and happen to mention the festival. They do not demonstrate notability. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This to name but one in music industry trade Billboard is not a passing mention, nor are enough of the others. Keep per above. Moreover the nominator is expected to do a basic amount of BEFORE. How much effort would it take him to click on the auto-generated link for "news" above and see that there are "available sources" in abundance. A second? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 14 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) 03:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I stumbled across it in a news piece while looking for something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_November_14&oldid=1136472432"