Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 November	23 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Delvaux[edit]

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

Most of the coverage the subject has received appeared just hours ago. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON? Adam9007 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I nominated this because it was originally tagged for A7, which I removed. Not only was I afraid of another drama over it, but also I thought it might have been a little soon. But the subject clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO. Adam9007 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being part of Eurovision is notable. The article can be improved. No reason for deletion. Also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See above. --PootisHeavy (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I think the "see above" vote! is unacceptable per we just don't say "see above", the singer has been selected to represent Belgium at the Eurovision Song Contest 2017, which fulfils WP:MUSICBIO, as has the policy for other Eurovisiion artists. It is clear the article is still in early stages and required extensive work to bring it up to standards, and the creator of the article is a newbie and would not be aware of these standards. The article was reviewed by Kavdiamanju who has New Page Reviewer rights, and as such we are to follow and scrutinise policies very strictly. If Kavdiamanju pass the article based on policy, then this nomination is invalid, unfortunately. Wes Mouse ^Talk 00:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu Nepal[edit]

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

Non-notable subject with no significant coverage. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear self-promotion. The sole reference mentions subject only in passing. User:HopsonRoad 22:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Promo. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Nyavor[edit]

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

Minor blogger, could find any reliable reference for it. Kavdiamanju (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor, non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 29 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 12:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei N. Bauer[edit]

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

Non notable bio, meant only for advert; salt, burn and delete. (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reasons not to delete this article

Why would you want a deletion of this entry, and how can you consider your claim of: "meant only for advert; salt, burn and delete" to be factual evidence for deleting an article.

You have not justified your desire for deletion, merely issued condescending remarks without reason

According to Wikipedia's rules: Neutral point of view, verifiabillity and no original research are the three corners of a Biography.

Neutral point of view can be edited if desired. (But for that constructive feedback is needed, not bashing) Verifiability, is provided by the references. No original research is provided by referencing all claims.

Why did you place the Biography in WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Businesspeople? No anticipations to advertisement have been made, merely a claim where the subject has worked! Why did you place the Biography in WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Technology? No anticipations to advertisement of any products what so ever wree made. Why did you place the subject in the top section of the list?

Please justify these decisions.

This criticism comes since some users already have constructively contributed to the article, showing the articles significance and acceptance. If these are non-objective decisions please revert and remove them. A revision of the article will be made keeping the guidelines in mind.

Furthermore the guidelines state: Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". Please comply to Wikipedia guidelines!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serjinator (talk • contribs)
— Serjinator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Note to closing admin: Serjinator (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Yes, well, a passionate defence from "Serjinator," who quite possibly is the article subject. Delete per nom and WP:NOTWEBHOST, which clearly states that this encyclopedia is not a place to "post your résumé." Article subject fails WP:GNG: there are no independent references to be found. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Although @Kavdiamanju: when you're nominating autobio articles you may wish to be a little more careful in explaining why. Often people who post articles on themselves don't understand they're doing anything wrong -- and there are feelings at stake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal, I will keep this in mind.Kavdiamanju (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further reasons not to delete this article

You are right, therefore the article has been reworked in order to comply with WP:NOTWEBHOST as well as WP:GNG. No intention of advertisment or "posting a résumé" was followed when writing this article, even less after re-working it. This article is intended to increase the general knowledge of society about electronic waste, starting with the developers of the appliances themselves. Have you ever wondered where your electronic waste goes when it "dies". It is shipped to a third world country, disassembled and put in a landfill creating toxic wastelands. The subject in the article addresses this problem at the developers of the products and with his contribution of publishing a novel system helps to reduce the amount of waste. Please keep discussing.Serjinator (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: to enforce this claim, try googling for Sergei Nicholas Bauer, the subject is not on any social media or posting platforms, hence this article can not be intended to advertise, since no contact can be established to the subject anyhow. Serjinator (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that when you Google him/you, there is no coverage whatsoever in WP:Reliable sources for "Sergei Nicholas Bauer." He/you is not notable by our definition and you are not going to get an encyclopedia article on him/yourself. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Non-Notability

Keep, if you review: ftp://ftp.ni.com/pub/branches/germany/2016/events/nidays/austria/einladung_nidays-2016.pdf and search for the subject as well as https://www.k-ai.at/cms/publications/publications/ you will find the subject as well as the publications claimed. These are both reliable secondary sources.

Your definition of "notable" according to wikipedia is "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Please justify why you consider a deletion with reason and not with unverified statements. Serjinator (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply taking part in a conference or publishing a paper does not make you notable. Your comments about "unverified statements" is a bit hard to take -- as you don't clearly don't understand the most basic requirements of how WP:Notability works around here. I'm sure you're accomplished. You clearly are. But our notability requirements are quite specific and you don't meet them. Also, Wikipedia is not here to help you promote yourself. And furthermore, your insistence on using this public forum to attempt burnish your credentials doesn't look good, I daresay. Someone who's as notable in their field as you claim to be might have better things to do, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: I agree with you, taking part in a conference does not accredit a subject to be notable, developing a novel system which changes the approach of how hardware is re-cycled effectively, instead of the common industrial approach of discarding electrical appliances, changes a well established practice in its fundamental approach and therefore this is a notable contribution to the dicipline of the subjects field. It is sad, that some Wikipedians, are deceived by their conception of making Wikipedia a better place with destructive input, but do not put the effort into really discussing topics factually. Having looked under the hood of how Wikipedia works I now fully understand why Wikipedia is not recommended as a reference.

You are right, I do have better things to do, but being in my position I have an occupation in which I simply can contribute to Wikipedia because I get my jobs done well and achieve a surplus in time. But don't worry I won't bother any more,I have understood that Wikipedia can do quite well without me, I'll stop wasting my time arguing with people who do not cherish the art of arguing. Thank you for the lesson Wikipedians, I have never made a mistake twice. Serjinator (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's quite safe to still say this is only a business job listing, regardless of anything, and the honesty is that Wikipedia is simply not a place for a business listing or PR webhost, therefore the current contents simply suggest nothing for a currently acceptable article with the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, this article should not a part of Wikipedia, even though a case can be made that the subject is notable, the community will not approve of this (yet). Serjinator (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is a private charity. It is not a webhost. It is not a place to post your resume. It is not a place to publicize your ideas. It is not a place to publish original research. This technician is run of the mill and not ready for prime time. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 29 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. No clear deletion rationale has been presented and a very recent AfD on the same subject resulted in a clear keep consensus. No need whatsoever to revisit at this early stage. Regardless of the nominator's view, it seems obvious there are WP:OWN issues going to me. The purpose of AfD is to discuss whether a subject is notable for an article. If an editor has issues with content, they should either be bold and make the changes or go to dispute resolution. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olufela Olomola[edit]

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

The original Olufela Olomola article created by yours truly, User:Kő Cloch had included more detail than User:HarrisonS4433's replacement. Why is this article not being deleted and my article resurrected? The user in question has performed exactly one edit to their article (when it was created), HarrisonS4433 appears to be somewhat incoherent as I have already left them a message and there has so far been no response whatsoever! Olomola has also never played youth football for Southampton F.C.'s senior team and there is just generally not much info on the player at all, in contrast to my article. Reinstate my article, give me the credit that I deserve for creating the article and then we shall be able to move forward. This has nothing to do with WP:OWNERSHIP - this has resulted from Wikipedia's silly policy towards non-notable players. If Wiki rules didn't stipulate that a player has to have represented a senior team on at least one occasion then I would have inserted my article straight into the mainspace. As I was aware of this problem, I did what I thought was right and managed the article in my userspace. Kő Cloch (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because no reason for deletion has been stated. If the nominator wants to improve the article with content from a draft then that can be done without deleting what we have already. It doesn't matter one jot who gets the credit for creating an article about a particular subject. The nomination obviously has everything to do with WP:OWNERSHIP, despite the claim to the otherwise of the nominator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Kő Cloch has given no valid policy grounds for deletion. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD was closed 10 days ago, so there is no reason for re-opening this discussion. Kő Cloch is correct that the present article says nothing about his youth career - Kő Cloch's draft article had some good content, which ought to be replicated here. I could copy this myself, but would rather that Kő Cloch did it so that he can gain the credit due. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:04, 23 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion[edit]

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

This article has different content to the very slightly differently named article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oblique lumbar lateral interbody fusion (that was deleted per G12) but has the same problems. As I said before: "A neologism about a surgical procedure that doesn't meet the general notability guideline." While it no longer suffers from the OR problem, it is obviously promotional in intent spamming the doctors website backachedoctor.com and was written by a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous !voters @Doc James: @Iztwoz: SmartSE (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article [1] does not even mention the subject in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar page that was deleted, re-introduced with slightly changed title- just a promotion of website.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:50, 23 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 Procedural keep. This isn't the place for a redirect/merge discussion. Refer to talk page of said article, where I have created a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical statistics[edit]

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

Turn into a redirect to Statistics. Further discussion, see talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question of how we should organise our content rather than whether our coverage of a topic should be deleted, so I think it should be decided on the relevant talk page(s) rather than by a deletion discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, procedural keep, that is. This is the wrong forum for merge or redirect discussions; those discussions are best done on the talk page, maybe with an RfC. This venue is for deletion discussions. --Mark viking (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Clearly is an elaboration of a subtopic of Statics that bears expansion. User:HopsonRoad 22:23, 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 Tony Hawks. No merge needed because all relevant info is already in the target article. Cerebellum (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the Moldovans at Tennis[edit]

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

After several years, the article still has no sources and no external links. There's no information synthesis here that wouldn't be obtained from the IMDb page; just a list of the plot and cast/crew members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irregulargalaxies (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article could do with some work, I don't see how the proposer's argument demonstrates that the film does not warrant a Wikipedia article. It seems sufficiently notable to do so. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is certainly notable, more so than the film, so this would better be refactored as an article about the book with the film being covered as an adaptation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tony Hawks - I don't think the film is notable (it had a very limited distribution), but there seem to be plenty of references to the book about (and I have read it myself). However, the book is summarised adequately in the Tony Hawks article. It isn't one of those cases where the movie is more notable than the source book, the book is definitely more notable than the movie.. and if the book doesn't merit an entry than it's hard to see a justification for this one. Any usable material could be merged into Tony Hawks. Shritwod (talk) 09:49, 23 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)[edit]

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

Two-time congressional candidate who lost both races. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as he lost both times and hasn't apparently served any other political office. The 2010 race itself did receive significant coverage but that is covered in the article about the race itself. Mr. Miller doesn't meet other WP:BIO notability requirements, only press coverage was for aforementioned campaign. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is so little info on the page that I googled, but I could find no indication of notability. He has a very common name, but even keywords didn't help.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I only noticed those old AFDs after ivoting. Note 2 things about them. One is that they took place during each of his 2 campaigns for congress. the 2nd is that at least some editors saying keep were under the impression that he was running for Senate. The final iVote, by a an experienced editor, states asserts that it "will invariably be found that a major party nominee for a US senate seat is notable, by the GNG, and confirmed by common sense. The positions are of such enduring political significance, & therefore attract extensive national coverage of both possible senators. (This probably holda for the House of Representatives & state Governors, but the case is really clear for Senators.)" But this seems to have been an error; Miller was running for a House seat. He had then recently left the Marines and was some sort of small business owner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The inclusion criteria for candidates has changed since 2010. Back then we though we could support articles on all major party candidates for US congress, we have since realized it is an unworkable endevor, and bound to always lead to presentism and resentism problems. Beyond this, a primary is not an election, and winning it is not the same as being elected to office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but consensus has changed to exclude certain candidates as automatically notable. There is nothing to indicate this person would otherwise be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn, was trending "Keep" anyway. Joyous! | Talk 02:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie Davies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Seems to have only played a handful of minor roles in a few movies/shows. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's her IMDb. I only see one role that could potentially be called significant (Humans). -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references at all in the article, which we cannot tolerate. IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and as a listing of everything and everyone can not be used towards establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to what the nom says, the individual seems to qualify quite handsomely on NACTOR. She acted as Sophie Hawkins in Humans and as Bronwyn in the Miss Peregrine's...movie. Here's a book discussing the subject and her work in the movie in-depth. Here are two more sources confirming her role as Sophie Hawkins.[2][3]. Clarification: NACTOR does not require sources to be in-depth. NACTOR requires sources to confirm that the subject has played the said multiple significant roles, which these sources confirm. I'll suggest that editors improve this article. Deleting this might not be the procedure appropriate here. Lourdes 02:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to pass WP:NACTOR. Contrary to the nom's premise, has had multiple starring roles (not minor) in multiple notable television shows like Humans and 'The Secret of Crickley Hall.--Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As clarified by me above. Lourdes 00:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking over everything again, this AfD was a mistake -- article should be kept. Sorry about that. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Do you agree about a speedy keep? —C.Fred (talk) 02:30, 30 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 12:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People v. Sattlekau[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. This case is not from the highest court in the jurisdiction (which would be the Court of Appeals), and doesn't appear to be subject to much secondary source coverage. Brianga (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianga, I added two more RS sources to establish WP:N. Specific to Brianga's other comments - being a case "from the highest court in the jurisdiction" (or not), is not relevant to establishing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Legal case textbooks "participate in the classic pedagogical tradition of relying on appellate decisions in actual cases to explicate the doctrines and policy dilemmas of the criminal law" (Robert Weisberg) So a case can be notable because it is widely read as the illustrative case. Furthermore, they become notable as sources of when they are used as sources, such as when cited in other cawsses. Also, the WP:N criteria is "significant", not "much" - it is "significant". This case is an entire chapter (the entire Fraud chapter) of the case textbook used by Stanford Law School (and other law schools) for decades. As per previous consensus, that is significant coverage. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Westlaw, this case has only been cited 6 times in 100 years. Its inclusion in a casebook does not demonstrate notability. agtx 20:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agtx, I added two sources to establish WP:N, and generally commented below. What is the link for your Westlaw search (especially as there are multiple spellings - see comment below by Smmurphy)? Did the Westlaw search turn up the three sources that are now in the article? Six secondary sources may in itself establish WP:N. Also, a Westlaw search is not a required criteria to establish WP:N, although it would add to the significance of coverage. Significant coverage (an entire chapter in a widely distributed and used textbook) in a reliable secondary source is a criteria.

~~Delete~~ MBUSHIstory has been making a bunch of articles just taking stuff out of their textbook. None of these subjects is notable and most rely on a single source. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sources as to why its notable, in addition to commenting below. User:Chris troutman wrote an article on The Raising of Lazarus (Rembrandt), which is one of my three favorite paintings in Los Angeles (the other two are Rembrandts at the Getty). These must be seen in person to see the linen of the shroud, and to let your eyes adjust to the dark (there are minutely detailed objects in what looks black in an art book or computer screen - same goes for the other two at the Getty, and more!).MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak keep - I agree that notability is not shown here and not easily verifiable. I'm sure lots of stuff in Kaplan, Weisberg, and Binder would make notable improvements to wikipedia, but I don't see that this article does. The defendant, whose full name I think is Ernest Paul Sattlekau (or Sattelkau or Sattlekan or...) may be notable, there seems to be a bit of coverage about him, but my guess is not. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added two more reliable secondary sources, which now clearly establishes WP:N. However, the following points from previous similar discussions should be reiterated as to one using one RS, when that RS is a major textbook used in major law schoools for decades.

A case textbook published by a major publisher, written by notable law professors, is a reliable secondary source.
Being an entire chapter in a case textbook (as is Sattlekau), used by major law schools (Stanford, Harvard, Yale, etc.), read by hundreds (or thousands) of law students each year, is significant coverage.
(Additionally, the fact that three of the most famous criminal law professors in the US found the case to be so notable that they made their entire fraud chapter about it, is objective evidence of those experts' opinion of the notability of the case.)

We already had this exact same discussion on these two points, many times, for numerous other articles about cases. These discussions were posted at Wikiproject Law, not just at a meta-Wiki law-sorting forums (and nonrelevant history and New York sorting forum pages - this is an article about a textbook case, not a history article, and not an article about New York or notable New Yorkers). I ask that those editors' consensus comments be taken into account in this discussion. It makes no sense to keep revisiting this exact same discussion on which there is previous lack of consensus to delete. These are literally textbook cases.

User:Smmurphy writes, "Ernest Paul Sattlekau (or Sattelkau or Sattlekan or...) may be notable, there seems to be a bit of coverage about him". This is not an article about the person Sattlekau. It is an article about the case, Sattlekau, which is illustrative of a principle as to the elements of false pretense, especially as to the change in legal policy as to intentions and promises meeting these conditions in the same way as a material fact.

If editors have to spend time re-arguing the same points as above (and in previous discussions), over and again, about the most cases so basic that they are first year textbook cases, they will simply stop editing altogether, and Wiki will continue to forever be the very poor encyclopedia as to legal articles that it currently is. MBUSHIstory (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, editors do have to re-argue points at AfD, and given there was no consensus at Wikipedia:Notability (law), I don't see clear guidance from WP:Law here. Looking through the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, I find: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law/Archive 9#Notability of cases and doctrines from January of 2009, is that the discussion you are talking about? I don't see a clear consensus there in favor of notability given publication of a case in a casebook and it isn't clear this subject passes @Bd2412:'s test. That leaves GNG, which requires multiple independent sources. Both of the casebooks covering this case are written by Guyora Binder, and thus not terribly independent, although they are published by different editors. In any case, I'm happy to change my !vote if more notability were shown. For instance, has the US Supreme court cited the case? Have casebooks not written by Binder discussed the case in any depth? How much discussion is/was there in newspapers about the case? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smmurphy, sorry, I should have provided at least one link if I was going to refer to past discussions. Here is one example of a recent discussion. I am adding the link I omitted above Smmurphy commented Once I pointed out that that case was an entire chapter in a major law school text book, used for decades, is significant secondary source coverage. The selection of a case by three famous law professors means that they consider the case notable. The Supreme Court did not hear the case, to my knowledge. The case caused a change in the law, as in the third RS I cited. MBUSHIstory (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In the closing of that debate, the closing admin noted, "No prejudice against individually nominating some of the weaker ones if someone wants to take a closer look", indicating that their wasn't a general consensus established. If the page were not an orphan (and thus I could see how it fit into the greater fabric of law and history on wikipedia), that would be another point I would consider. Perhaps someone else from WP:Law can chime in? In the meantime, looking up the other two authors, I think they are clear experts and have struck/changed my vote. Binder's discussion in [4] is in depth enough, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - inclusion in a major casebook for law students does indicate notability, but does not make it automatically notable. Looking deeper, it seems to be a precedent even if it's not been widely cited. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We routinely keep precedent-setting cases like this. Furthermore, the case did, in fact, receive a fair bit of coverage in contemporaneous publications. See, for example:^[1]^[2]^[3]. The discussion about this case in those sources is sufficient to confer notability per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ 21 New York Criminal Reports. Reports of Cases Decided in All the Courts of the State of New York. Together with Leading Cases from Other Jurisdictions Involving Questions of Law and Practice. With Notes and References 579, 630 (1884-1925) (discussion of the case's holding and significance).
^ 11 Bench & B. o.s. 62, 70 (1907) (same).
^ 104 The New York Supplement 1153, 1228 (1888-1922) (same).

Comment - Here is a link to 11 New York Times stories on this case. This is significant coverage in a reliable mainstream media source. (Thanks to User:Smmurphy for researching this). MBUSHIstory (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note/correction, that is nine NY Times stories, two from the NY Sun. Many of the stories are copies of each other, and a few are routine mentions of the defendant being in court. That said, my favorite headline is: WOMAN PERSONAL VICTIM HAS HER DAY IN COURT; Appears Against Paul, Who, She Says, Took Her $1,000. HE ADVERTISED TOO OFTEN, The Second Time Rosa Kaiser Awaited Him with Pink Roses and a Detective [5] (nb, the defendant, Ernest Paul Sattlekau, called himself "Ernest Paul"). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:47, 29 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 withdrawn by nominator. Withdrawn per WP:HEY and WP:POLITICIAN, with the intention to focus solely on that aspect of his history until proper sourcing can be obtained. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Hessabi[edit]

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

I genuinely do not believe the majority of the information in this page. Whether through citogenesis or a really slick advertising campaign, the only information I can find regarding Hessabi is the information disseminated by his son through his "Museum". Nearly every source has the same list of accomplishments, and quite frankly I can't verify a single one. This includes the "father of modern physics" title, which is only verified by his own website and the user-generated "Iran Chamber Society." Some of the sites in Persian make him out to be some sort of Iranian Prometheus, bringing Science to the country.

TL,DR: Non-notable individual being hyped by his son. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and (in a way) WP:FRINGE. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes several factual claims among all the hype that would, if reliably sourced, grant notability. If he was a distinguished professor, as listed under "accomplishments", rather than an assistant professor, as stated in the lead, then he would pass WP:PROF criterion 5, and if he served as education minister and as a senator then he would pass WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my main concern, really; a complete lack of verifiability for the claims made. Until I see good source he has as much chance of passing PROF/POL as passing WP:MUSICBIO for making a platinum-selling record. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick glance at the book sources linked by the searches above confirms that the subject was minister of education, passing WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure. He may have been inthan the Ministry but so far still fails The Golden Rule. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are independent and reliable. We wouldn't dream of deleting an article about someone who had held this position in the UK or the US, so why should we do so for an Iranian minister of education? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it sounds like you're saying we should have a one-paragraph stub saying little more than "Mahmoud Hessabi was the Education Minister for Iran." I'm not trying to be cheeky, genuinely wondering what can be included when there are no sources for the rest. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't find any more reliably sourced content than that then I don't see why couldn't have such a stub. I would add that I don't read Persian, so am unable to check what would presumably be the vast majority of potential sources, and that there seems to be a spelling of the name in the Roman alphabet that's as least as common as the one given here:

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

86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that one of the greatest claims of notability that was present in the article when it was first written in 2002 has been removed since, that the subject was instrumental in the founding of the University of Tehran. See doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0336-z. Also the lead of the article was changed at some time to say that he was an assistant professor, when he was clearly far more than that. It looks to me as if the misinformation has been added here by people opposed to the existence of this article rather than the original creator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I removed that claim is because a) I couldn't find a single source that mentioned it (though clearly you found one), and b) his name is not mentioned a single time on either University of Tehran or History of the University of Tehran. You'd think the founder of a world-renowned university would get a sentence or two in the Wikipedia article. Primefac (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, upon re-reading the section about his founding in your linked article, I see that the author cites Wikipedia. It makes me seriously consider the academic rigour that was put into that journal article. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a lot of manufactured hype about the subject, but little of substance. For example, being called the "Father of modern physics in Iran." This is a WP:REDFLAG claim. If indeed he were such an important physicist, there would be ample evidence on Google scholar of his significance as a research scientist. But Google scholar shows only a handful of publications, each having garnered fewer than 10 citations. The current references for the "father of modern physics" claims do not seem to be reliable sources. Anyone can create a conference entitled "60 Years of Physics"; anyone at a conference can call anyone else a "father of modern physics". That does not mean that this makes the individual especially notable. A reliable source would indicate what official body made this pronouncement, and what it is based on. If Hessaby indeed founded the University of Tehran, then that would probably make him notable, but there do not seem reliable historical sources that clarify his role (if any) in the foundation of the university. Furthermore, a site search of the University of Tehran reveals no mention of the subject. If he founded the university, there should be some clear, official evidence for it. The claim that he was Minister of Education from 1951-2 does appear to be supported by reliable sources. So if the article is kept, it should be drastically reduced in length, possibly a stub containing only this and other verifiable claims. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete. There is no pass of WP:Prof. Can notability be found in POLITICIAN or GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it can obviously be found in WP:POLITICIAN as already discussed above. I really don't understand these "delete" opinions, as I've never before seen an article about a national government minister get deleted in contradiction to that guideline. If necessary this can be cut back to one sentence saying that he was minister of education of a country more populous than France, the United Kingdom or Italy. It seems that editors are hung up on the many claims in the article that are unsourced rather than the one claim that the subject is verifiably notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly won't put words in other people's mouths, but I wouldn't say that the others are "hung up" on the unsourced claims; when 95% of the claims are unsourced, it makes people suspicious about that last 5%. And you cannot deny that the main focus of the article is to present him as a world-renowned scholar and educator (which there is no evidence for). His political career gets barely a sentence. I'd still like to see him mentioned as more than a footnote for proof of his political career, though; the Minister of Education has to do something to merit the title. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced claims are irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and so do not subtract from it. If this article had simply said, with one of the book sources linked above, "Mahmoud Hessabi was minister of education of Iran in 1952" it would never have been nominated for deletion. We can put the article into that state rather than delete it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good move. His scientific achievements are negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 29 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Womack[edit]

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

Delete. Biography of a former mayor, in a place not large enough to hand an automatic presumption of notability to its mayors under WP:NPOL. But the referencing here is not solid enough to give him a WP:GNG pass under the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our notability criteria for mayors -- this is based entirely on just three pieces of local media coverage no different in either volume or range from what all mayors always routinely get. If this were based on a lot more distinct sources, or if the coverage were expanding beyond the purely local, then there'd be a stronger inclusion case per WP:GNG -- but what's shown here is not enough sourcing to constitute "significant press coverage" for the purposes of passing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom. Mayor of small municipality fails WP:NPOL, no other claim of notability per WP:GNG cited. MB 04:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Novato is not large enough to grant the mayor default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 25 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael DiGiorgio[edit]

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

Delete. Biography of a former mayor of a place not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors per WP:NPOL. There's no evidence of meeting WP:GNG here, as the article is referenced mainly to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like city council meeting minutes, with only a small smattering of WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that all mayors always get in their own local media. For added bonus there's a conflict of interest here, as the article was created by User:Adigiorgio (the "personal life" section says he had a son named Anthony) -- and there are parts of this article that read like POV attempts to get the last word in against people who wronged his dad in the past. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can locate evidence that there's more than just local media coverage of him to salvage this with, but every mayor who ever mayored in every place that ever existed at all is not automatically a valid article topic. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom. Mayor of small municipality fails WP:NPOL, no other claim of notability per WP:GNG cited. MB 15:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable mayor of a San Francisco suburb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Farman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/James Curtis (footballer)

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

This article was previously deleted by AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Curtis (footballer). Though five years have passed, the underlying notability issues remain the same. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 23 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 02:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Griffin's Sound Chaser[edit]

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

This is premature. I wish the band all the best but currently, they have only released a single and have not yet generated sufficient media coverage. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are social media - Facebook. I am unable to find any evidence of RS coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Jbh ^Talk 20:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A band does not get a Wikipedia article so long as the sourceability is limited exclusively to their own social media profiles — it takes reliable source coverage, in media independent of their own PR machine, to get a band in the door here. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 07:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to a bug in the relist tool and Cavarrone's double-relist on 2 November, the transclusion on that day's log page was commented out. Fixing now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 15:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As for my own view, I found no reliable sources to support this article. Looks closer to A7-speedy bait, actually. --Finngall ^talk 15:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As cited above, article lacks independent third party sources, only self-generated references. Such an obvious case for deletion that I'm surprised it has required numerous relistings for over a month. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:07, 27 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. Wikipedia is not responsible for proving/disproving advanced mathematical equations, but we do note that few others have commented on it in widely-read works on the subject. Joyous! | Talk 03:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of infinitely extended particles[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe theory presented as if it's the best thing ever. Legitimate sources are cited, but have no relevance to the subject of the article. Dukwon (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, and it definitely fails the sniff test. The references are red herrings, reliable in their own right but having nothing to do with the article itself. The article itself even states that the theory has only been referenced by two other individuals since its conception. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. I am also concerned that the article on the subject's creator, Mahmoud Hessabi, seems to be a eulogy of a non-notable academic, rather than a reliably-sourced biography of encyclopedic value. I believe this should also be nominated for deletion. The biography article describes the subject's paper on "continuous particles" as "classic", and yet a Google scholar search returns almost no hits. Via "What links here", it seems that there is a walled-garden of non-notable Iranian scientists, e.g., Alenush Terian. This whole area needs some pruning, I think. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for the reasons described by PrimeFac and Dukwon. --Steve (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Dilaton (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and as not even wrong. I am something of an amateur scientist, and this strikes me as nonsense. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to the Delete Requests

The page should be kept for the reasons below:

->Dukwon 1) This theory is neither claimed to be "the best thing ever" nor "fringe theory". This was your own impression. It is only a different approach and mathematical formalism, and is capable of reproducing some useful results.

->Primefac 2) Naming references first as "red herrings" and then irrelevant does not explain how a theory should not work.

->Sławomir Biały 3) Calling the writing as an "eulogy of a non-notable academic" and referring to "walled-garden of non-notable Iranian scientists" is a very inappropriate means to evaluate a mathematical model. This is not the domain of politics, nationalism, or heroism. You may dislike the deceased author, or hate a nation, or tend to disregard your unfavored non-notables, for whatever reason you personally might have. But this is science based on clear mathematics, and not being referred to as "classic". Where did you find it on this page ?!. Better to check the derivation steps out yourself, and tell if calculations are wrong instead. The "only two" citations are quite correct as claimed.

->Steve 4) Answered in the above

-> Dilation 5) Is "Insufficient notability" how you deal with mathematics?

-> Bearian 6) Referring to the [3] on arxiv, it is actually falsifiable, and hence a valid scientific claim. There are some physical assumptions, mathematical derivations, and then predictions. Some predictions agree to within the accuracy of present-day experiments, some may not. Using "Not even wrong" is wrong here.

In summary, if anybody out there feels inconvenient about this theory and Wikipedia post, then it would be nice to disprove it mathematically through a fair scientific approach, than to humiliate and take prejudice in someone. Exposing a less known methodology increases chances for critical evaluations in future, corrections to the known theories. This is what science is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.177.67 (talk • contribs)

Disproving or proving unproven scientific theories is not consistent with Wikipedia's aims. In fact, there is a policy against original research. If this theory is important and significant enough for an encyclopedia article, it would be discussed extensively in independent secondary sources. The lack of secondary sources implies that it is not notable enough to have an encyclopedia article devoted to it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Unless some other independent and reliable academic source has proved it, for our purposes, it is not verified. I'm not sure the proponent of this article understands what Wikipedia is, and is not. Therefore, it is not even wrong as far as we are concerned. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., arXiv is notable, but is not technically peer-reviewed. With 8,000 entries added each month, much of what's on arXiv is run of the mill. Any previously published scientist can post anything new on that website. In any case, by definition, arXiv is a primary source. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 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 List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions. Sandstein 12:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of vetos exercised by the US government in the UN Security Council[edit]

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

This page appears to be a poorly sourced, highly editorialized, and factually incorrect page that was translated from a non-English Wikipedia page.

1. According to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions and the official UN source, the last US veto was in 2011. This page alleges that there has been 20+ since then. This article seems to be a list of nay votes by the US (however, I suspect it isn't exhaustive), as opposed to veto votes by the US.

2. The formatting is a complete mess. One column alternately displays years and vote counts, with many vote counts being '?'.

3. The references are a mess with reference number 8 including up to 'ci' but also having about as many different Wikipedia links. Additionally, the references are used to editorialize. One reference to a 1985 vote is "To learn more, see: US support for the Nazism" which is another non-English translated Wikipedia page of questionable quality that doesn't even discuss anything beyond the 1920s. Another reference is "The efficiency of the questioned National Security Agency is zero, as shown | here". There seems to be a heavy anti-US slant in this article, as exemplified by the "see also" which includes the unrelated topics of Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden, List of wars involving the United States, and Israel and the apartheid analogy.

List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions is a perfectly good resource for all of the US veto votes. No other country has their own list of vetos, I don't see why the US would need one. Especially, one of so poor quality as this article is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User578918 (talk • contribs) 20:45, November 3, 2016 (UTC)

Merge to List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions per nom's rationale which I find well reasoned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The advantage of a country specific listing is that these vetos are generally done for ideological or strategic reasons and this is best illustrated by dividing the vetos up into country specific groups. They are also very much influenced by the era in which they took place so it is useful to also have them in chronological order. Yes, List of vetoed United Nations Security Council resolutions has the option to order ALL the vetos in chronological order and has the option to break down the vetos into country by country order, but it does not have the option to group an individual country into their individual chronological order - so some usefulness will be lost in such a merge. If a merge is to take place, the article content on what a veto is and criticism of their use should be retained and expanded to suit the other article. Content detailing the number of UN votes the veto effectively ignored also seems important data, so woiuld need to be transferred. The more descriptive detailing of what was being vetoed given on this article also seems more useful. If such data cannot be transferred, I would be against a merge. Also, regarding the claim that nay votes are being counted as vetos, in news reports there often is a colloquial use of the word "veto" to describe a situation where either Russia or America votes against, or threatens to vote against, a resolution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will reproduce here the comment I made on the merger discussion. I do not think that the two articles should be merged. They do not address the same issues. This article is not limited to the explicit uses of the veto, but acknowledges rather the use of US international influence to stop resolutions from passing. This should be made more clear in the article. The article has also been justly criticized for being editorialized. If these issues are addressed then there is no reason the article could not exist independently. However, I do not think that a merge is the solution. Auguel (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the various lists of terrorists and terrorist groups cost to upgrade, the UN website has this delay in information as well.201.17.176.35 (talk) 12:10, 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 14:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A page listing Security Council resolutions vetoed by the United States (and comparable pages for each of the other permanent members, i.e. the U.K., France, the USSR/Russian Federation, and China) would be worthwhile. This page seems deeply confused, however, in that it combines votes in the Security Council with votes in the General Assembly, in which the veto power does not exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santangelo field[edit]

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

This is unpublished, uncited new material, with just one arxiv article and nothing in Google Books or Google Scholar. DVdm (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - see also article (and subject) creator's comment on my talk page: [6]. - DVdm (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Pure OR, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote your unpublished original research.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this violated the policy against original research in Wikipedia, but maybe restore it later if refereed secondary sources appear. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pure OR and the arXiv paper is not likely to be published in any respected journal. Theory is likely to be vacuous as no examples are given to show otherwise (but this is not Wikipedia's concern).--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, original research/blatant self promotion.Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:24, 29 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) Ya sh ! 12:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese football transfers winter 2016–17[edit]

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

An unreferenced article that consists of a list of... transfers?? Are we keeping things like this? How should its "notability" be assessed? KDS4444 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Japan has a professional football league, so the transfers involving its clubs would seem notable to me. It's possible this article may have been created too soon, depending on when clubs are allowed to start signing players in the relevant transfer window. That article says the Japanese window doesn't open until 8 January, so Japanese clubs would not be able to sign players from other clubs until then. They would only sign players who are free agents before that date. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists of transfers are notable, being unreferenced is not a reason to delete. Giant Snowman 18:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Transfer windows from professional leagues are notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:17, 28 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 G12 RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chord group[edit]

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

Another really odd "article". Would have nominated for CSD but no suitable code seems to exist for this. KDS4444 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion G12: Along with a misspelt title, this is a copy-paste of a section from a textbook. (There seem to be a number of probable copy-paste articles being created just now.) I have flagged this for G12, but would see no notability for this Chore/Chord Group even if worded differently. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 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 speedy deletion as a copyright infringement of this text. De728631 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3S CONCEPT[edit]

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

Not sure how to even categorize this one. Appears to be instructional. Anyhow, it ain't a Wikipedia article. KDS4444 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced discussion of concepts. It probably qualifies to be speedy deleted as a WP:COPYVIO, as most of it is a verbatim copy of this Neiltonks (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Studios[edit]

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

WP:MILL production company that was JUST founded. WP:TOOSOON to have any notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising started for exactly that hence there's simply nothing else to suggest close to anything better, especially since we've established such subjects are also going to be heavily involved in anything about them, especially given they're both paying and motivating it, hence delete solves it. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is WP:TOOSOON -- tends to inherit notability from notable founders. Let the production company produces some more notable films and only then one can give it a try. Anup [Talk] 03:03, 25 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Feuillassier[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:50, 23 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Óscar Rodríguez Arnaiz[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:51, 23 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Gómez[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination - has only played for underage teams XyzSpaniel Talk Page 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:51, 23 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. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion - nobody did explicitly oppose a redirect, but only one person did explicitly support it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Segura[edit]

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

Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the article's unsourced assertions to the contrary, he has not played in a fully pro league, nor has he received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:CBALL, article can always be re-created if subject meets WP:NFOOTBALL in future. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father, Antonio Robaina. This is a typical outcome of these AfD's with a non-notable athlete related to a notable one. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Fitzgerald (ice hockey), etc. See also Tate Matheny, Tyler Nevin, Mariano Rivera III, and Ryan Ripken, all more non-notable athletes which are redirects to their notable fathers' articles, but were always like that and thus never subject to AfD. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shonda Schilling, where she wasn't an athlete, but was well-known enough that some people might have heard of her, though not notable enough to pass WP:GNG, so her article was redirected to her husband's. So there's significant precedent to redirect here rather than delete and I'm curious to know why nobody above considered it. Agree with Sir Sputnik, GiantSnowman and Inter&anthro that he doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY, but he's well-known enough that he's a plausible search term, so it should redirect to his father's article where he's mentioned. Smartyllama (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. → Call me Razr Nation 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Razr Nation: Why not redirect given the ample precedent I mentioned above? And if you need yet another example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph LaMotta. And same question for @GiantSnowman:, @Inter&anthro:, and @Sir Sputnik:, all of whom voted before I pointed out the precedent and may wish to change their vote if they so desire in light of it. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 30 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. Malformed nomination, but properly tagged and uncontested, and also plainly justified, in that Dudhra is entirely unsourced. Sandstein 12:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify that it is notable Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 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 speedy delete. Appears to be part of a mass spamming campaign in various wikis, creator is blocked on de-wiki, {{WP:Not here]] Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Geutebrück[edit]

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

Dubious notability, a minor researcher whose claim of notability seems to rely on having found a gravestone. Reads like a self-promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its an Movie Actor and Director. Writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottesacker (talk • contribs) 09:37, 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 keep. Sufficient roles that have satisfied notability per the consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junko Okada[edit]

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

ANN search results:

1) Kei Shindo (EF - main)

2) Nozomi Fujimiya (Wind: A Breath of Heart - supporting)

Subject has only one main role, and is not notable enough to warrant her own article. Fails WP:NACTOR. Severe failure of WP:WHYN as well. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is part of the main cast in Ef: A Tale of Memories, Wind: A Breath of Heart, and Sentimental Graffiti, so she passes WP:ENT with multiple major roles in notable works. Furthermore, Hitoshi Doi's seiyuu database lists fairly extensive coverage in anime and seiyuu magazines [7], which would almost certainly allow her to pass WP:GNG (though I'm doubtful anyone here would have those magazines available to actually use them to add to the article). Calathan (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only EF is considered to be notable among the three, given that it has received a dub. Most anime adaptions of visual novels are considered to be not notable. Also, regarding those books, who can actually verify how much the subject is covered in them? Until that has been clarified, due to the subject lacking enough significant roles, and that the JP article being almost a credits dump (the Eng article on the other hand is nothing more than just a credits dump), these concerns all lay the grounds for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving a dub (in English or any other language) has nothing to do with notability. For how much the subject is covered in the magazines, the site I listed indicates the number of pages in each magazine that are about Junko Okada. The ones that are less than a page may not be significant coverage, but the ones with 2+ pages just related to her are much more likely to be significant coverage. Calathan (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is not uncommon to note a work's localization to the west as an assertion of its notability. AFD participants do use it as an argument. Do bear in mind that English is the international language, so localized Japanese media that are imported into the US with an English language dub produced will further increase its notability. Also take note on how Angus dismisses anime adaptions of visual novels as non-notable in this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each VA should be treated independent of the others. I'm merely saying that the visual novels should be notable, have a decent presence on Wikipedia. It doesn't help if the VA has acted in a bunch of minor direct-to-videos or dime-a-dozen visual novels. If she's getting coverage in Japanese magazines, that's going to help her notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes WP:ENT, in addition I have found coverage about this person from Japanese news media [8]. (WP:BEFORE?) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is that article even about, anyway? If you don't mind elaborating, that is. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she was involved in dubbing The Amazing World of Gumball for a Japanese audience. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but has the article specified WHICH role the subject is playing? If it's merely a bit role, then it's not an assertion of notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep I wouldn't count Sentimental Journey (anime) as starring as each of the heroines in that series only appears in one episode as a narrator/star, and then that's about it. The video game may be different though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About half the magazine articles on the page I linked to are coverage in relation to Sentimental Graffiti, and Hitoshi Doi's page also lists a radio show related to it. In terms of the amount of attention the role generated, it actually seems like her most significant role. I do think that is more in relation to the game than the anime, since as you point out, each of the main characters is only featured for one episode in the anime. Calathan (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more promising as a lead role in the Sentimental franchise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But even then, that's just two significant roles. Since when is Wind: A Breath of Heart considered to be notable? I honestly don't think that a voice actor that has only garnered two main roles is enough to warrant her own independent article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's also in the Haru no Ashioto series as one of the main heroines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given her sourced involvement in the promotions for the Sentimental Graffiti franchise and the lead roles mentions above that's enough to meet WP:ENT. Changing vote to keep. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have sufficient roles for WP:Ent.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:16, 29 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australasian Tunnelling Society[edit]

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

They're a real organization. There are a few reference in Gnews to them (both in passing.) A surprising number of regular Google hits. The article does read a bit like a PR piece, and the creator's username makes me wonder if there is a COI thus the tag. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may well be COI, but we routinely keep article for major professional organizations. Just leave the sourcing tag in place. I put a proper category on page, Nom or others can click if they want to look at the many similar pages we have.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I added a sentence and a solid source from a professional journal. This is an obvious, almost procedural keep. References (mostly stuff like studies, conferences it has sponsored) can be found in searches of scholarly & professional journals. It would be better to have someone actually come in and write a good article. Until that happens, however, I believe that we can keep this article as valid, if sadly brief. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the AfD as keep, please. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:24, 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 speedy deleted as WP:G11. Just Chilling (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alkor Bio[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:CORP for no independent sources can be found. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found two hits in Gnews, one in English (briefly mentioning the company, looked like a PRNewswire-style site and not reputable) and another in Russian. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely KEEP! Gnews is not legit lol the company has made history in microbiology! it covers decent part of market in developing countries since early 00'! Very few competitors can match their quality for such low prices they have. Come on! You want to delete profile of a company that produce effective low-priced kits for infections diagnostics? That is not even "a company" just a lab that develops tastings for harmful diseases and newborn kids diagnostics. It just supports the budget on low key sales. It takes time to put everything they do at the wiki page. It supposed to be a nice reflection of company's achievements and scientific discovers, not a "price-list" as somebody unreasonably thinks. Good luck to Alkor Bio and the future of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays! ~~Mr. Dmitrii~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.26.2 (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alkor Bio is great!^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.114.26.2 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Both IPs are the same, one is signed "Mr. Dmitrii" and the creator of the article is User:Dmitrii Onoshko. Also we use consensus, not voting. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:SPAM. Fails WP:CORP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In fact, why not even a WP:G11 speedy? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fo sure! Are you guys for real here!? That's not SPAM! That's not even a "corporation" tho! Russian famous lab that develops kits for diagnostics of infections, tumor markers and allergies! Deleting is unreasonable! There is not a single legitimate argument against keeping the page! However, Mr. Dmitrii, if they make it dissapear just create the Russian version first! Good luck brother! ~~Mr. Putin~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.152.134 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Не удаляйте! Достойная страница! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.73.49 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note All recent anonymous IPs geolocate to St. Petersburg, home of the company in question, and it's almost certain the same user or meatpuppets. Of course we don't use voting in AfDs anyway. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Shawn in Montreal about concerns of WP:SPAM and also not meeting WP:CORP but instead being mainly for purposes only of promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!. Agree with ~Mr. Putin~! Why discriminate one company!? There are 101 in the category! Check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/category:biotechnology_companies ! Most of them are for sure placed for only one purpose - advertisement! And nobody cares! Is it because they are not Russian!? Again, Alkor Bio shates its R&D results at least. For the sake of scientific and technical progress in the world! If done so, deleting the page would be unreasonable discrimination. Make it in Russian language brother, if it won't work! Good luck! ~~I am from Saint-Petersburg!~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.159.17 (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I have in fact tagged as such, G11, and let this be a note to the advertisers here; Wikipedia will not accept advertising as this is not the place for it and we certainly will not accept such similar attempts at Wikipedia, as it too will be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 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 Page speedy deleted via CSD G11 RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akilah institute for women[edit]

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

PageContested MariaAkilah (talk) 06:37, 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riviera Australia[edit]

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

Purely promotional page created by the company. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although there's a claim of significance, it's a clear thin one since it's only a field that will ultimately consist of PR, hence it's not convincing and it's not a cause for notability, since the sources here are clearly simply trivial and unconvincing, therefore deletion is quite necessary for such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant advert. LibStar (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a cookie cutter spam article. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 27 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liv3ly[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. No reliable sources are available, the fact that this has recieved certain awards is entirely trivial - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising and it's as simple as that, simply given the sheer fact everything here is only what they would advertise about themselves, and there's no notability, substance or genuine significance hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Duplicate article was created as LIV3LY. Pichpich (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 29 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Verma[edit]

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

I browsed most of the "sources" are none of them should count towards notabiloty. They're either profiles made for a conference/website or brief quotes, with one exception (the Economic Times article, where the subject of this article still isn't the focus.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, per nomination. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about non-notable subject. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Promotional puffery - references are largely not independent - Arjayay (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Have updates the article and it's not a promotional activity , refernces are given as per their involvement in the area - smithtony (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as clear advertising and nothing else to call it, since even the sources themselves are simply published-republished advertising, that's enough for deletion especially given the repeated times now. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 23 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Kathmandu[edit]

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

Not a travel guide WP:NOTTRAVEL and list contains barely any notable hotels, Wikilinks (if any) direct to hotel chain articles. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slightly promotional language as well. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an example of WP:PROMO and WP:NOTTRAVEL Spiderone 13:11, 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. Sandstein 12:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arik Bjorn[edit]

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

Candidate for national office in the US. Nearly all news coverage is pretty standard political candidate coverage, and per WP:POLOUTCOMES a candidate who ran in a national election but was defeated does not get inherent notability. Wrote some books but doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. His other activities don't appear to qualify him for normal notability standards from WP:BIO. His plans for running for future office fall under WP:FUTURE - he can get an article if he becomes notable then. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I make the case that the previous Democratic Party nominee, Rob Miller, has a Wikipedia entry? And Arik Bjorn's candidacy had some notable history connected to it, including the fact that he is only the second candidate in history to be endorsed pre-primary by the SC Democratic Party. Also, he is a rare fusion candidate, and one of the most successful Green Party congressional candidates in history. Also, Mr. Bjorn has a very wide international reading audience: readership in over 185 countries. Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide to make a case for inclusion. Kb32 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's certainly possible that Miller might not actually be eligible for an article either, but Miller and Bjorn each have to be evaluated on the merits or demerits of their own articles, and not on "if one has an article then the other one automatically has to have one too". Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought to consider is that Wikipedia provides a Infobox category called "Congressional Candidate," which would seemingly presuppose that certain congressional candidates merit article inclusion. Again, Mr. Bjorn's congressional candidacy has very unique components associated with it--certainly no less of importance than Mr. Miller, a previous candidate to unseat Congressman Wilson. Kb32 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

Some responses. First, on Mr. Miller - that's not an argument for inclusion, see WP:OSE for an explanation (note that isn't policy, it's unofficial, but it's still a good read as to why that argument is a non-starter.) Second, he still needs notability - you can read WP:BIO but being the first X or most successful Y doesn't make you inherently notable; you can read Electoral fusion for much more notable candidates that ran under multiple parties, many successfully elected and thus meeting notability guidelines. He has to meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", and in this editor's opinion the coverage you cited is pretty standard fare on national-level candidates - it doesn't meet the significant bar. Last, WP:AUTHOR states the guidelines for being notable as an author; being read in a large number of countries is not a factor, especially in an era when my edits can be read by almost anyone. If he meets one of the other standards in WP:BIO, add it to the article and note it here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bjorn is also the recipient of the Innoventure Przirembel Prize, "which recognizes collaborations across diverse organizations and promotes best practices in open innovation building a greater sense of identity of the Southeastern United States as an innovation powerhouse in the world." One simply cannot state enough the import of the South Carolina SmartState Program in the success of the South Carolina economy, a program which Mr. Bjorn led for nearly a decade. The program was called "the best program of its kind in the U.S., and that which should be the envy of all other states" by a Washington Advisory Group panel that included the formed Director of Technology at Microsoft and the former President of The Ohio State University. Mr. Bjorn was also recognized by former Queensland Premier Dr. Peter Beattie at 2013 BIO in Washington DC for his outstanding work in helping to place South Carolina on the knowledge economy map. Mr. Bjorn has played significant roles in the political, economic development, literary and arts community in South Carolina for nearly a decade. (In addition to all the other things mentioned, he has had major roles in numerous major theatre productions and written extensively at the local level, in addition to his internationally-read pieces.) It is hard to imagine someone with more influence and impact across the broad spectrum of public life in Midlands South Carolina. Please do seriously consider this article for worthy inclusion on Wikipedia. (And if my earlier foibles at article entry have whatsoever negatively impacted the article's chances for inclusion, I truly apologize.) Kb32 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

Response I did a Google News search for Innoventure Przirembel Prize and found nothing, so I don't think winning a prize that's non-notable in and of itself would help his case. Being a member of a panel that included notable people also does not make him notable, please see WP:INVALIDBIO. Being active in local theater productions does not make him notable just because of that, see WP:CREATIVE. I mean no offense, but there are numerous people who have a laundry list of things they've done but that does not confer notability; we have guidelines which you are encouraged to read at WP:BIO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can one easily identify 10 non-presidential Green Party candidates who received more votes than Mr. Bjorn in an election? I would venture Mr. Bjorn is one of the most successful third party congressional candidates in modern U.S. history--is he not? Kb32 (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32[reply]

Response First, see WP:OSE. Second, the party isn't relevant towards notability; we don't list the top 10 non-presidential Reform/Libertarian/Conservative/etc. party candidates just because they made the top 10 for their particular party, that's not part of notability guidelines for politicians. Third, if you are going to mention successful third party congressional candidates in recent history, Bernie Sanders pretty much towers over all of them in his impact on the US political arena. See Third party officeholders in the United States to find that being an independent isn't all that big a deal. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the most successful third party congressional candidates" so long as you exclude the third-party candidates who have won seats and thereby held office, surely? Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he already qualified for an article under some other notability criterion independent of his candidacy (e.g. preexisting notability in another field of endeavour, already having held a different notable political office, etc.), then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get over WP:NPOL. Our role on Wikipedia, when it comes to politics, is to keep and maintain articles about holders of political office, not necessarily every candidate for it — some candidates in some circumstances can be notable for other reasons besides the candidacy itself, but the candidacy itself is not a valid reason for an encyclopedia article. And the number of votes a person did or didn't get in the process of not winning the seat makes no difference, either. But this makes no credible claim that he had any preexisting notability, and the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG anyway: it's far too dependent on primary sources and blogs, with not nearly enough evidence of reliable source coverage. As noted, Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) may not actually be eligible to keep that article either — but that will have to be determined by evaluating his article for whether he has a credible claim of notability or not, as neither article has any bearing on whether the other article is keepable or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for US congress are not notable for this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 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 merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut. Rather than fully merge the article, it has been redirected, a history merge is achievable, however, if warranted. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island)[edit]

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

After careful consideration, I believe this article is not necessary. This article is effectively a fork of the history sections of Interstate 84 in Connecticut and U.S. Route 6 in Rhode Island. Those two articles are incomplete currently and the information contained in this article would, with a little work, improve both the I-84 and US 6 articles. –Fredddie ™ 03:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut. Article is about a planned highway . VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, per WP:SKCRIT #1, this is a request for merger, not deletion. Deletion of the article would make the stated aims of the nomination (improvement of the I-84 and US 6 articles) very difficult, as the information to be merged would no longer be available to non-admins. Antepenultimate (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut or Interstate 384; speedy keep rationale WP:SKCRIT #1 doesn't apply as the nomination does "advance an argument for deletion or redirection" (emphasis added), and a merger is a form of redirection. Imzadi 1979 → 13:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Literally the next words of SKCRIT #1 apply directly to this nomination - the full quote, though it's of course too late to do much now: The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging (emphasis added). I still don't see the point of bringing this to AFD, no-one will vote delete because there is no deletion rationale provided (or intended), so now everyone gets to vote "merge" (or maybe, "don't merge") and wouldn't it have just been quicker to start a WP:MERGE discussion at the article? Ah well, no harm done, but I still feel this was absolutely eligible for speedy keep and putting it through AFD is a waste of time. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interstate 84 in Connecticut. The history of the former planned routing of I-84 from Hartford to Providence can easily be covered in the history section of this article. Dough4872 15:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as the creator of the article and most of the content, I just clarify if moved, it may end up scrapping the {{jctint}} table that will have to go most likely in the article to make any sense, but it would look heavily out of place.—JJBers|talk 17:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 06:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Nurse Nakamura[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may be hard to find articles on the net since she retired in 2000, but in 2015, Nikkan Gendai, one of the major evening newspapers, did a quite lengthy article on her career and current life: [9]. Looking at the table of contents of Shukan ProWres, the main prowrestling magazine in Japan, it also seems she was a regular feature of articles in the mid-90s, [10], [11], [12], etc., though I can't access them. It would seem she was notable in the professional wrestling world at the time. Michitaro (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is your command of the Japanese language, Meatsgains? ... even just the image search suggests the normal non-trivial (and incomprehensible-to-me) following one sees in professional wrestling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While an image search does not qualify one as being notable, looks like she is in fact covered in Japanese and English sources (as Michitaro pointed out). I do not speak Japanese FYI :) Meatsgains (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:02, 27 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles J. Sherr[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Only sources I could find was local coverage and a press release. Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the same person? There are 6 or 7 sources listed on the page. Additionally, he has won several notable awards. Natureium (talk) 03:17, 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) 06:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Tamosauskas[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of the creator of a web series, based entirely on primary sources and blogs with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. Even the few sources here that aren't complete non-starters -- Now, Playback and the CBC -- aren't coverage of her; both Now and the CBC mention the series while entirely failing to mention Tamosauskas at all, while Playback namechecks her existence a single time but still fails to be about her. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every content creator is entitled to an article just because she can be nominally verified as existing -- she must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable web series creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into a stub. Notable enough for at least a stub. Jurnee457 (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote from confirmed sock. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a measure of how sourceable an article is, not of what a person may happen to have done — there is no job that a person can hold that confers a notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to carry it. Even a president of the United States wouldn't get to have an article on here if he somehow managed to hold that role without garnering reliable source coverage for his holding of the role. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronandaussie. Socks don't get !votes here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:39, 27 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly McCormack[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an actress, writer and producer, which literally just states that she exists, the end, and then reference-bombs the fact of her existence with WP:BLOGS and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES but exactly zero evidence of reliable source coverage apart from a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article that isn't about her. As usual, an actress or a screenwriter is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; reliable source coverage supporting a credible notability claim per WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR, is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject may rate an article someday, but not yet.Rogermx (talk) 01:32, 23 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RogueKiller[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:CursonMF (creator, WP:SPA) with the following rationale "Secondary sources were added (others will follow). Removal of the Proposed deletion banner.". I don't find the added refs very convincing, the best they show (and I don't see anything better) are reviews from minor websites: Bleeping Computer is the only one of that bunch that has a Wikipedia article, and it may need to have its notability considered, too. And few reviews in minor sites of dubious reliability are not sufficient to make soft notable. So, bottom line, this software fails NSOFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Probably notable based on the staff-written description on Majorgeeks, 299 reviews and 950k downloads, but I'm not seeing any examples where they actually suggest using it! I'm going to delete the fluffy "reception" section as it has no place on a functional software article. Jergling (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Majorgeeks a reliable source? It doesn't seem notable, so a review in it does not hold that much water, I think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The references fail the criteria in WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - a few references about, but typically it appears in a list alongside other products. I don't think that there are enough references to show that it is genuinely notable. Shritwod (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page / WP:MANUAL on an unremarkable product. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial with nothing close to establishing both a convincing and improved article thus deleting solves it, and that's the clear solution here. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 25 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. Article in question has been made into a redirect, by Tokyogirl79. I can see no real reason as to relist again. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 16:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saptagiri express movie[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG. Sources. Anup [Talk] 03:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a bit out there for it and at the very least I do think that it could redirect to a subsection of Thirudan Police, as this is a remake of that film. I'm going to fix the title on this to go to the correct capitalization. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree for a merge/redirect but I'd want to know why it couldn't be a standalone piece. In addition to available sources, I believe it is reasonable to except some more sources after this film hits the theater. Doing a merge now, and in a month or so undoing that effort doesn't appeal to me. Anup [Talk] 13:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be a bit conservative sometimes with unreleased movies unless there's a large amount of sourcing. This could probably pass, which is why I haven't decided one way or another yet - it's on the borderline for me. I want to see how others weigh in first, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's kept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 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 01:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Meets WP:NFSOURCES. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the great work by Tokyogirl79 demonstrates, it does pass WP:NOTFILM. Nominating an article of an Indian film article an hour after creation is not helpful, a form of WP:BITE and a possible case of WP:BIAS. [13]--Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 27 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 University of Calabria. Don't usually close on one !vote however participation's extremely low and I don't believe relisting will achieve anything so am closing as Merge. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncial reparto corse[edit]

(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)

Non-notable university club. Nominated for speedy deletion, which was declined with the note that "it could be merged with the article about the university". However, the University of Calabria article is not presently sufficiently detailed in its description of the Engineering department to merge this content in as a subsection. Short of creating an entire section on the U.Cal. Engineering Department simply to house this content about a non-notable club, deletion of this article about a non-notable club seems to be the appropriate course of action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note page has been moved to Unical reparto corse since this nomination was made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Calabria. Google News provides some sources. Adam9007 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 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 01:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 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 Move and redirect as suggested. Sandstein 16:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria at the 2017 Mediterranean Games[edit]

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

empty article; no use until 2018 (the games have been moved to then) anyways. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move, then redirect for now - the article should be moved to Algeria at the 2018 Mediterranean Games to reflect the accurate year, then redirected to 2018 Mediterranean Games until such time as there is something useful to put here. The edit history will come in useful at that point and that's standard practice for the "X at Competition Y" articles until there's something useful for it. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 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 01:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Savitt[edit]

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

not enough reliable sources to establish notability per WP:JOURNALIST. Just mentions and written articles posted by the subject could be found online. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a horribly written article, at times not even showing basic understanding that mentions to the lives of real people should always be in the past tense unless you are saying something about them that applies when you are writing. However there are 2 reliable, 3rd party sources about him, the San Francisco Chronicle article about his leaving China and the National Geographic article on 10 books to travel the world with that includes a book by Savitt. This article needs lots of improvement in the way it is written. However Savitt does pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 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 01:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the article and removed some copyrighted text. --TheDomain (talk) 07:02, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra Parks[edit]

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

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:38, 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 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 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 keep. Meets WP:ACTOR per consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Bailey[edit]

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

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 20:25, 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 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about a keep as per WP:ACTOR. Has appeared in a number of movie and TV productions and it could be argued that the "Housewives of Atlanta" has a cult following. I've expanded the article and added more references. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She appeared in the 2016 movie "Sharknado: The 4th Awakens" Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:09, 28 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) 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Whitfield[edit]

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

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Mymis (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable, sources fail to establish notablity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 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 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeShawn Snow[edit]

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

The article is about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one show for ONE season. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the show. Mymis (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article crammed with primary and other non-reliable sources. Notability not established by brief, one-appearance career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 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 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 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 Keep as WP:IAR, considering not only has the author started mass-AfDs with vague explanations or none sufficiently compelling for clear deletion, this is in fact notable for WP:PROF, thus with the nominator questionability, it's enough to WP:IAR close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Pickett[edit]

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

A:7 Unremarkable Person(s) Or Band Evan Daniel Collett 02:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete. If she is a scholar, I don't see any published articles, so fails WP:PROF. As an author, is she is Susan Eileen Pickett, she has one book to her name ([14], [15]), and its self-published (Lulu Publishing Services), with no reviews I can find, so fails WP:AUTHOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she meets criterion five of WP:NPROF, as she holds a named chair. --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 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, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra Pandey[edit]

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

No crdible assertaion of importance, and very little if any notability. Listing for community input, and request a salt finding id deleted since this article keeps coming back. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: There are some buzz around this upcoming film which is produced and directed by him. But one film is not going to help him meet WP:DIRECTOR. I couldn't find anything for his career in journalism, so he fails there too. Falling back to GNG, there is nothing or very little about him in reliable sources (one can notice that lack of sources is attempted to balance by refbomb'ing film section of article. 12 refs for 5 sentences). A redirect can be an alternative only if it is not abused what seems unlikely to me, and therefore I'm going for delete. Anup [Talk] 15:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NDIRECTOR. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:18, 25 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of FHM Philippines[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. - Mr X 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - extremely poorly sourced about people, and quite arbitrary. Sagecandor (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we'd consider this list separate from many others that we find at Category:Lists of people by magazine appearance, which includes other such Lists of people on Fooian cover? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruff. Unless FHM is the most widely read publication in the Philippines, it fails notability. FHM does not have the same notability as Time, Vogue, or Harper's Bazaar. I would delete List of people on the cover of FHM (India) too. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:30, 28 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Griffith (businessman)[edit]

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

Most of the refs are not reliable sources or do not contain significant coverage of this individual. He's worked at some notable places, but notability is not inherited. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources here don't hold up--the only valid one, to my eyes, is TechCrunch and it doesn't even mention him. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly an overgenerous article caring to specify anything a business job listing would say, and the history itself cares to emphasize this, thus WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (policies) clearly support deletion. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally NN. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 29 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.

^ http://www.tecan.com/hubfs/Tecan_Journal/201401/12_13_Faster_and_more_reliable_screening_for_cystic_fibrosis_mutations_012014.pdf

[1] 21 New York Criminal Reports. Reports of Cases Decided in All the Courts of the State of New York. Together with Leading Cases from Other Jurisdictions Involving Questions of Law and Practice. With Notes and References 579, 630 (1884-1925) (discussion of the case's holding and significance).

[2] 11 Bench & B. o.s. 62, 70 (1907) (same).

[3] 104 The New York Supplement 1153, 1228 (1888-1922) (same).

[4] ttp://www.tecan.com/hubfs/Tecan_Journal/201401/12_13_Faster_and_more_reliable_screening_for_cystic_fibrosis_mutations_012014.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]