Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 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. This was a nomination from a sock account of banned User:Winterysteppe - one of the final edits before the SPI block. We have a deletion rationale that probably meets WP:SKCRIT, WP:REVERTBAN applies. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal DIY scene[edit]

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

hmmm. im at a loss at keeping this one. Pyrusca (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close nomination. No reason provided, not to mention there's clearly reliable sources cited in the article discussing the scene editorEهեইдအ😎 23:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: EditorE (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept then at least it should be renamed to a title including the word "music". As it is the title implies that it's about people in Montreal putting up shelves. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the categorization fwiw and I will link it from the Mile End article, too. That might get some more eyeballs on this nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious to me as I live in this neighbourhood but am too old and deaf to know what's going on. Or maybe sad. Anyhoo, this is a fascinating article to me. I have added a fourth category, Category:Music scenes that may be of some help. And does this have to be referred to as a DIY music scene and not indie music? Anyway, yes, I've more questions than answers, I'm sorry to say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For all the coverage of Montreal as a music scene a la Seattle we've never had an article on it. We don't even have a Music of Montreal article since it was moved back in 2009. Now, the article creator here is being very precise in that it is the more current "DIY" scene only -- so even major indie rock acts like Sam Roberts, The Stills and Wolf Parade etc. don't get a mention, while Arcade Fire, who still frequent Mile End, do. It seems like ever since the Seattle explosion there's been glowing articles like this, from the New York Times, on Montreal's vibrant music scene. The lack of any main article on this phenomenon is conspicuous by it's absence. The current article at Afd could perhaps be expanded to encompass more acts, styles, districts or decades perhaps but that's not a reason for deletion. Keep. (and as noted above, the current article title is a bit insular -- to many of us, DIY culture could also be about fixing stuff. So perhaps rename, along the lines of independent music scene of Montreal, or something?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and finally, as you can see I have also added it to {{Indie music scenes}}. That should get us additional eyeballs. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll agree that the article should be renamed, but I'd recommend renaming it specifcally to "Montreal DIY music scene" since DIY is the most common term used in sources to describe the scene. editorEهեইдအ😎 18:09, 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arakan (martial art)[edit]

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

Prod contested by article creator--reason for prod was "Non-notable martial art - basically a group advertisement." Sole provided reference was the web site for a training center. I found nothing better to show notability, and the author's reason for contesting the prod was "This page should not be deleted. It relates to a real martial arts system that is currently being taught in both Burma and Australia. The reason there are limited references and citations is because there is no known written history on the system.", which is practically an admission of non-notability. Previously speedied twice for copyvio. --Finngall ^talk 23:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for both "arakan" and "Rakhine Thaing" without finding any significant independent coverage of this martial art. I agree with Finngall that "there is no known written history on the system" will make it difficult to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above (am responsible for the original PROD).Peter Rehse (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons stated above. CBS527^Talk 21:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply all trivial and unconvincing, none of it amounts to actual substance, let alone a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was restored previous DAB page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usman[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability at all. Vanity page, fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WWE Elimination Chamber. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 23:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination Chamber (2017)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:CRYSTAL BALL and possible Wikipedia:VERIFIABILITY. This article describes a future event, but has no source for any of the claims made about it. The only reliable source I can find is this: [1], which only gives the year. The consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2017) and similar AFDs seems to be that we only have an article for an event when there is some substantive information about the event, such as information about one of the matches. In this case we don't even have the date and location. Silverfish (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Silverfish (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WWE Elimination Chamber. As with the similar AfDs for events that don't yet pass GNG, the little bit we do know belongs on the main article until we have enough to expand it into a separate one.LM2000 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:46, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Mathews[edit]

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

Mathews has never played in an actual NFL game. The coverage of him otherwise is just not enough to meet notability requirements. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG based on some of WikiOriginal's sources. I am not impressed by all of them, but at least the Kansas City Star, Salt Lake Tribune and Associated Press have run stories about him, which constitutes significant coverage from multiple sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:27, 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. Consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Boyd[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any lead roles in notable productions. Gospel isn't star billing. [9] Neither is The Odd Life of Timothy Green. Army Wives he has a recurring role but it isn't listed in the Wikipedia article cast which has a huge section for recurring roles. The Walking Dead is a minor role. Meet the Browns is a minor role. About the only thing mentioning him in a starring role is 4 Minutes which he produced but that doesn't even have an article here. Can someone show how he meets WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this time Boyd's roles to not add up to notability. They are either not significant or not in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like case of WP:TOSOON. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contest Deletion Boyd has over 50 projects listed on imdb (most of them major projects), notary with with other fan created wiki pages, and 4 Minutes which is currently on Amazon and available via DVD is listed in the article. From the list of WP:ENT he does qualify for a page. There are many of his costars that have pages with less notary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladynerd (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-created Wiki pages are not reliable sources. Neither is IMDb. I'm sure he's guest starred in a lot of prominent shows, but I don't see where he's starred in them, outside of his own 4 Minutes film. But for WP:ENT that's only ONE notable work, assuming 4 Minutes is notable, which is debatable at the moment because it doesn't even have its own article (unless it's merged with Boyd's). Which ones are his other notables? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: who raised the notability issue. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really want to vote weak keep. I see some news articles and information about his acting school and related events back to 2010, but I agree that it seems WP:TOSOON. I'm not finding quite enough at this time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleting softly and weakly. Consensus to delete, but no real enthusiasm. Joyous! | Talk 00:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K1 Speed[edit]

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

Article is literally a gigantic advertisement, no real claim of notability ViperSnake151 Talk 16:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article does read as an advertisement. Cleanup may be more appropriate. Article does appear to fail WP:GNG {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Promotional tone needs to be trimmed but seems to pass general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article written by SPA. Searching turns up only announcements of locations opening and closing. Couldn't find any other coverage. Fails WP:CORP. MB 02:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sichgart[edit]

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

I don't think that the articles sources are sufficient to establish notability, a brief search came up with zip. TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 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. This AFD was been withdrawn (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 05:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic opposition to Hillary Clinton in 2016[edit]

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

~~Some sort of weird WP:SYNTH. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now renamed as a list of something or other, I withdraw my objections. Still not convinced it's required, but suggest this AfD be closed as keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any useful material that could be merged to United_States_presidential_election,_2016, then redirected? Joyous! | Talk 20:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands now, this is not notable on its own. Instaurare (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can put it back in my userspace, because it is notable so should be somewhere, but seeing as some exit polls show she may have received about the same percent of Democrats as he did Republicans[10][11] it is notable. I also tried to make this not merely a list, but about the results and the states where it may have mattered. Plus I think the original deletion of the list itself was based on wrong politically based phrasing rather than Wikipedia rules. This topic was notable, moreso than people thought before the election sure, and is discussed in credible sources. Whether it's as notable as the Republican one is irrelevant, from my understanding though maybe this place has changed, to whether it merits an article. See USA Next (not as notable as AARP) or Gun Owners of America (not as notable as the NRA). Deleting the list was largely politically motivated. And even if it had some justification, because of lack of coverage at that time, it no longer is just as there's been plenty of article about Rust Belt Democrats voting for Trump or people voting for Stein. (I'll close by saying I did not vote for Trump and am no longer a registered Republican, in part, due to him.)--T. Anthony (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - not really much to this article and agree it seems like SYNTH. I suspect the only reason it was created was to balance out the Republicans against Trump in 2016 article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created it because cross-party voting was, by most exit polls, equal. The subject was verifiable and articles were written about it. So I figured it makes sense to have an article on cross-party voting among Democrats in 2016. I guess that is "balance" in a way, but not having something on this just started to look more imbalanced or biased considering what actually happened. (And just in case I'll say again I did not vote for Trump and I've never been a Democratic.) If I did it poorly I'm fine with fixing it.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well referenced and doesn't really look like WP:SYNTH, given the context it looks pretty notable, it's really more of a list than an article, I think it should be renamed to "List of Democrats who opposed Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016" to be consistent with Trump's article. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928^Talk 16:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is SYNTH. It used to be called List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 but was changed and now talks randomly about here and there where Clinton underperformed with voters, which is not really what the page was about and is not "Democratic opposition." —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to switch it back to a list that's fine by me. I thought that would cause re-creation issues. I figured something about how cross-voting effected different states would be more informational though. Maybe I could have done better.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Delete It is not synth (it would be synth only if there were no sources out there that talk about a Democratic opposition to Clinton) and is much better than having just a list article, since lists are always going to be very self selective, contain little actual content beyond links, and be dependent on links (i.e. Wikipedia articles) existing for its content. I can see scope for additional content, such as what was on the deleted Bernie or Bust ‎article. I'd support a similar renaming and content broadening for the List of Republicans who opposed Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to delete after the article title was changed, resulting in the breadth of the subject covered by the article being severely curtailed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's moved back to the original list form with the corresponding title to the Trump one. This has morphed into a separate topic and the synth comes from looking at areas where she performed poorer than expected with Democrats and calling that "opposition," which is not the correct usage, because you have to add in other factors like voter apathy, voter suppression, etc. Opposition would be actual Democratic leadership or groups actively opposing her candidacy, which certainly wasn't seen anywhere near the scale of that it was on Trump. If the list is short, it's OK. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the article to List of Democrats who opposed Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, I have changed my vote to delete. I do not think such self-selective lists are useful. If it returns to the old title, which allows the full scope of the article's subject to be explored, I will change back to keep. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 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. This does not prevent discussions about whether to create a separate article about Trump's economic policies. Sandstein 11:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trumponomics[edit]

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

I hope I'm doing this right (first time that I've called for an article deletion): The problems with this articles are: (i) It is basically a personal essay at this point; (ii) It is incredibly incomplete; (iii) Much of the limited content in the article that has been included to the article is misleading, inaccurate and poorly sourced (again, it reads like a personal essay); (iv) Trumponomics does not refer to a comprehensive or clear set of economic policies. It's just a portmanteau that journalists have used to speculate on Trump's economic positions; and (v) All of Trump's stated economic positions are already on his 'Political Positions' article [12], along with commentary from reliable sources and experts. If there needs to be a specific article 'Economic Policy of Donald Trump', it just should just duplicate the content that already exists on his 'Political Positions' article [13]. Over at the Political Positions article, there is in fact a discussion to split the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with [14] assuming they decide to split off the contents. Trumponomics gets 118K hits on Gnews with coverage that meets notability guidelines. There are issues with the contents of the article but that should be addressed through proper editing, the previous link certainly seems like it would make a good article as-is. (Alternatively if that section of the existing article is broken out into an article called Economic positions of Donald Trump then we should redirect from Trumponomics.) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I would recommend Merging with summarized parts of [15] as opposed to replacing (see below) --B.Andersohn (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trexit, created by a different editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "Trumponomics" certainly seems more noteworthy than "Trexit." Dustin (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, or redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump#Economic policy (or a future economic policy of Donald Trump, if consensus emerges for it). Neutrality^talk 22:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & edit/expand (e.g. using some summarized elements from Political positions of Donald Trump#Economic policy) as (1) ‘Trumponomics’ and ‘Economic Positions/Policies of Donald Trump’ are not one and the same (see EPs of Reagan vs Reaganomics, EPs of Bill Clinton vs Clintonomics etc.) = that kind of ‘portmanteau’ word is of course, by definition, more ideologically connotated (not ‘pure econ. policy’), (2) Snooganssnoogans is wrong: this is essentially about LEXICOLOGY not value judgement (‘Trump’s policies are vague and contradictory …etc.’ perhaps, but that’s not the issue), (3) the term wasn’t coined by ‘some Republican journalists’ (?? which in itself isn’t a fault) but by Prof. Jay Whitehead, a leading management and corporate governance theoretician, and (4) the term is real and very much in use cf. notability as measured by e.g. Gnews 50 to 1,000 times more than say Bushonomics or Trexit --B.Andersohn (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is term/article of course 'work in progress' as the new administration hasn't been fully formed => not like defining 'Reaganomics' in say 1983/84. A certain degree of "vagueness" is therefore perfectly normal here (I'm not saying it's "good" or that Trump is "right" etc.), but, as for WP standards, ‘Trumponomics’ clearly deserves an article of its own, distinct from ‘Donald Trump’s Economic Positions/Policies’. Now I agree the article needs to be developed a little (probably the reason why it looks "infrastructure-centric") => we should add (at least) one more distinct section = ‘Fiscal Policy & Taxation’ --B.Andersohn (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be recreated if needed later, but this term does not seem to meet WP:GNG aside from the NPOV issues. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We will surely see plenty of coverage of Trump's economic policies, once he has some. But there is not enough substance to support this neologism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W. Jeffrey Marsh[edit]

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

I have to admit I really didn't want to see this page deleted. However my searches did not show up anything. The sources here and employer pages and author bios from his publishers. I found a reference or two to his work in scholarly books, but only one footnote among hundreds, nothing to show he would meet Academic criteria 1, and nothing to suggest any other criteria. I did find this November 1999 Church News article [16] that mentions his work and participation in a symposium, but no reviews of his work on the level that would lead to his passing notability guidelines for a writer. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I concur, literally nothing here for both WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, achievements are entirely trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see what allegation even exist that he has that might make him notable. Writers are not automatically notable. He does not appear to ever have earned a doctorate degree. Also, the position of "bishop" in the LDS is run of the mill, equivalent to "pastor" in most mainline Protestant churches. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Marsh does have a Ph.D., the article states this. However that is not generally enough to add toward notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bigley[edit]

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

per wp:BIO and WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I happened to notice the PROD was removed today in lieu of adding a source, but he is in fact not notable as his works are simply trivial and unconvincing, searches found nothing but listings, simply nothing else beyond it. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:32, 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 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of FK Liepāja managers[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the list is an Unsourced content fork from FK Liepāja#Managers. (Transfermarkt is not a reliable source). PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list in the main club article is sufficient Spiderone 19:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary fork. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellise Gitas[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Appears to be unsigned and claims to fame are having some subscribers on Youtube and playing at a minor music festival, which we do not have an article on. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just a few mentions in music fanzines and the like. Valenciano (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional in purpose for an aspiring artist. Lacks significant coverage. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is too soon for this subject, but perhaps in the future this article will be recreated (hopefully with more thought put into it). There are some sources and interviews, but not enough independent coverage at the moment. Give it time, like I stated, and that may change to help write a proper page on her.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:49, 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 00:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herlambang Hashemi[edit]

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

Article was deleted at Articles for Deletion last year. However, current incarnation has existed for greater than six months and has been edited by multiple editors, so CSD G4 is not applicable. Subject just graduated from High School and entered college. No indication any of his filmography meets the notability requirements. Sources are either primary or unreliable and there does not appear to be sufficient secondary coverage of him. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing really has changed. He was cast in another film, but that has not been released yet and no added coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 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 00:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rini Chandra[edit]

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

Still as unconvincing before for both notability and acceptance given there's not only simply trivial and unconvincing works here, but the sources are explicit PR, which we know such publications are, as it is, always paid PR, but they actually made it easier for us by stating as such. A careful review would've noticed the "Page has been deleted" while accepting so this should not have been accepted whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't see if she has played any major role in any tv serial and can't find anything to support her musical career. The article was earlier created by a sock and this seems like an undisclosed paid editing. GSS (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NMUS. Anup [Talk] 00:30, 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Grant Morse[edit]

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

Political candidate who lost the past election, doesn't appear to have served in any other office that would meet WP:NPOL, Gnews turns up standard routine coverage of a candidate of a major party. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsuccessful political candidate. Meatsgains (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defeated candidates for US congress do not meet our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 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 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traveline Cymru[edit]

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

Nothing but WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM. Loaded with WP:EL. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a Gnews search shows that it's clearly a notable public body in Wales. Deletion would have to be on the basis of WP:TNT only, I'd say. Maybe someone who edits in Welsh subjects or public transit wants to rescue it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as not only is the history showing the sheer blatancy of persistent advertising, but it is in fact advertising overall, in both the information and sources, literally caring to specify its financials and costs, that's damning enough there. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or TNT if someone can find some notability. It just seems like a standard help line/website. This was the only thing I found really about the subject. [17] —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meta-travel-vanity-cruft masquerading about a website. We are not a free web host for advertising about a place where one of my grandparents was born. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trexit[edit]

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

Highly recentistic neologism; no in-depth, significant coverage of the term itself that supports a claim to notability. Prod declined by article creator. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumponomics, created by a different editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced article. I suspect we will see a lot of terms based on "Brexit" in coming years; we don't need an article for all of them. Instaurare (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even entirely clear what this neologism means from the references. The Fortune article implies it is a Trump presidency renegotiating trade deals; Arianna Huffington used it to refer to the possibility of the GOP removing Trump from the ticket (presumably during the convention, judging from the date of the article.) It's pretty meaningless when there isn't even a definition in the article itself. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:NEO wannabe for which sufficient sourcing does not yet exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete. Pinterest may be the strongest source on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luca A Longobardi[edit]

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

Smells like a promo article for the upcoming film mentioned. No proof of his book having been a "bestseller" anywhere i could find nothing in English despite having been a "best seller" in the UK and USA... Apart from having been mistakenly arrested by the police I can't see him meeting WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Clearly passed WP:GNG . elaborate news articles about the banker in the top news papers of Italy like La Stampa , Il Secolo XIX makes it pass GNG. Godisthebestone (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you provide for the claims of him being a bestselling author? otherwise being wrongfully arrested seems like a case of WP:1E --Domdeparis (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kindly go through the La Stampa article - > | La Stampa Article. Godisthebestone (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than the elaborate articles in La Stampa and Il Secolo XIX about the banker , there is a deep article in Italia Oggi , News 24 etc. This certainly proves the notability. Godisthebestone (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article claims that the book was a bestseller on Amazon...I checked and it is ranked N° 324,514...so not really sure if the article is proof of much to be honest...I googled Luca Lombardi and there were pages and pages about a composer and a photographer with the same name but nothing about this chap. I then added in the word Mafia and still nothing...he clearly fails the criterion WP:DEPTH IMHO --Domdeparis (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are not being honest here and you are going personal here and I just noted that you tagged one of my other page having greater notability too for deletion. Please study much about wiki notability and go for the tagging ? Wiki is based on News references and when a top news paper says his book is the best seller means it is . Amazon is the biggest online book store in the world and when La Stampa says his book is bestseller in Amazon it means for wiki it is the Bestseller on Amazon. Kindly go and see the wiki page of Bestseller. You can understand in deep. It also means bestseller in stores . So kindly don't go personal and don't tag my pages unnecessarily. I have nothing in personal with you.Godisthebestone (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing personal at all but when an editor behaves as in a way that suggests he may be a WP:COI editor it is normal to have a look and see if he has behaved in the same way on other pages, the 2 pages that you have created look remarkably like the work of a PR company but of course I am assuming good faith as per WP:AGF but the other page I tagged looks far from being in line with WP:GNG and as a new page patroler it's normal to tag a page that doesn't meet the criteria when you see one. Domdeparis (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One does not get notable by being in the same prison as notable people. Then ame-dropping shows the nature of the article to be promotional, so there's two reasons for deletion; either would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur WP:GNG is not applicable if WP:NOT can in fact be used, and it is, since none of it amounts to meaningful substance, not simply some information and links. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont understand why this article becomes promotional. The article states true facts about the person with significant news references. Eeither it be about his banking career , Either his book being a best seller , he marrying Miss Brazil , Arrest by interpol and release , new movie trailer winning best trailer award in film festival. There are these much facts that adds to his notability. All these facts have relevant news reference. So as DGG suggested its not about the arrest alone. So I endorse this article to be live Godisthebestone (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Godisthebestone: there is no proof that his book was a bestseller apart from the fact he wrote it on the cover...marrying someone who was considered a beautiful woman 20 years ago doesn't make you notable...being wrongfully arrested happens to lots of people...a movie trailer is just a movie a trailer and there is no mention of awards in the article. The press articles that you have provided links to are almost identical with almost no rewriting of the PR companies text at all. "Lastampa" dated 05 february 2016, "ilsecoloxix" dated 07 february 2016 and the poorly translated "news24hours" 07 may 2016 are identical in structure, this is pure and unadulterated Churnalism. Domdeparis (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to show this person passes WP:GNG. Domdeparis' assessment of the above points is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteClearly promotional article about pushy nobody. What the sneck is a hospitality entrepreneur???TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pubfront[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG criteria. Could find nothing on the web apart from job vacancies and 1 blog mention Domdeparis (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no claims as to notability even. I can't even find a Gnews hit. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:57, 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 00:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeinab Fayyad[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Most of what I have found is in reference to her and her father and hence WP:INHERIT John from Idegon (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of even a claim to notability in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be any indication why the subject is independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 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. no evidence for notability -- probably a G5, no better than the previous article. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The News Tribe[edit]

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

This so called news agency is not notable and reliable. no editorial board. no print edition. just another ordinary news website. it is user generated. the page was previous deleted Saqib (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly even speedily per CSD G4, but I didn't see the old version, so I didn't tag it. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 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 00:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rare Region 4 DVDs[edit]

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

List article that doesn't seem to have been thought through. What does 'rare' mean, and why are these DVDs particularly rare? Are there any sources to back this up or was it just made up by the creator? Why does it matter that they are Region 4 DVDs? How are we supposed to determine inclusion for this list. There doesn't seem to be a need for this article, and even if there was it would be so unwieldy as to be useless to everyone. Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Against policies on Original Research and Directory.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, an arbitrary selection of both titles and territories that violates a number of guidelines, I daresay, including WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate WP:OR. Note also the article creator uploaded copyrighted DVD covers to Commons under the false claim that the images were their own work and included them in a column of this list. I've removed these from the list as contrary to NFCC, and someone needs to nominate them for deletion on Commons as well. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those images have now been deleted. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Non encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:39, 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 Not a matter for AfD. Redirecting/merging can happen editorially. Sandstein 11:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balaklava submarine base[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Balaklava submarine base

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

Found a duplicate page translated from the Ukrainian article while this one is an incomplete translation of the Russian article Varxo (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made this page. If you're okay merging/redirecting this to Naval museum complex Balaklava, that can be done without an AfD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:40, 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 00:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim presidents of Indian National Congress[edit]

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

The topic of "Muslim President" of INC is not something that passes WP:GNG. The party terms itself as "secular". The article talks about presidents in general and then jumps to listing Muslim ones out of those without giving an rationale as to why their religious beliefs mattered. ~~List of Presidents of the Indian National Congress should be something that should be made.~~ President of the Indian National Congress already exists that enlists all "secularly". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. This is not a notable list. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN Spiderone 19:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not quite sure what encyclopedic purpose this list article is supposed to serve. It is not something heavily debated by historians as to who presided over INC and where did they come from or what religion did they profess. It simply fails WP:LISTN. The undue emphasis on secular bit was unwarranted in rationale (even if it was a sectarian group, it'd still be deleted for failing notability). That red link however can make a good redirect. Anup [Talk] 00:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis isn't undue actually as we do have Pseudo-secularism well documented. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Anup [Talk] 01:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Anup, I fail to see encyclopedic purpose of this article. Pratyush (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As is, this pushes pretty far into WP:SYNTH, unless there is independent sources that concern themselves directly with the religious affiliation of INC presidents. If so, an article similar to List of Presidents by religious affiliation, but for the INC might be more encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If somebody could demonstrate that religion was directly relevant to being a president of the Indian National Congress, then a religion column could be easily added to the existing list. But we definitely don't need a spinoff list to single out the Muslims as a separate topic in their own right. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Totally trivial list. Ajf773 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Totally trivial list.Where are independent sources that concern themselves directly with the religious affiliation of INC presidents? Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 12:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations in Turkmenistan[edit]

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

Isn't even a list of railway stations, it a list of towns and cities where they exist Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source.Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement appears to identify a content issue rather than an existence issue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not a great article by any means but I don't really see a reason to delete a list of railway stations for a country; if it were just a city or region then I'd be in support of deletion. Besides, the user above has added a reliable source to the article. Spiderone 13:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Railway stations usually serve cities and towns. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just in case my position wasn't clear from my edit above. Most railway stations everywhere in the world share their names with the places that they serve, so the fact that they do so in Turkmenistan is not a reason for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Southern brown bandicoot. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isoodon obesulus obesulus[edit]

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

Unsourced substub. The page repeats information already available in Southern brown bandicoot. Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, all you need to do is redirect it, no need for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 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. Sandstein 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States by name[edit]

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

Miscellaneous WP:TRIVIA largely unsourced for the the names are not significantly notable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Yes, trivial. But less trivial than lots of other articles and lists. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please do suggest some of these more trivial lists. Spiderone 20:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Often when a list is nominated for deletion its fans tell us how important the items listed are. Well, these are some of the most important people in modern history.Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations (5th nomination)Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote precisely because I am aware of "other stuff exists." I don't feel like nominating other trivial lists because they do no harm (except contribute to WP's silliness) and I don't want to hurt their fans' feelings. This is an entirely serious comment. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:PLOT and WP:GNG (although I do love etymology) Spiderone 20:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The base information is harmless at worst, and it was obviously developed by many interested editors. We can presume there is a market for this category of information. jengod (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that president of the United States is one of the most important political roles in the world does not mean we need to keep obsessive lists of every conceivable piece of WP:TRIVIA that could possibly be compiled about them, such as the etymologies of their names or which president happened to have the longest surname or how many presidents were "juniors". None of that has anything to do with what's important about the presidents, namely what they did in their political careers. And for added bonus, very little of this is actually reliably sourced at all. We're an encyclopedia, not a compendium of lists of everything it might be conceivably possible to create a list of — what's next, "List of favorite cheeses of presidents of the United States"? "List of presidents of the United States by number of toes", the moment somebody can find a source which says that one president had his big toe amputated due to an ingrown toenail? I'll grant that there's some potential interest in this kind of information — but there are plenty of free webhosts out there where somebody can create a webpage to list it if they care that much. It's not Wikipedia's role to be a compiler of trivia like this, however. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTTRIVIA Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is also: List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible actions: Delete that too or merge the two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or leave everything as it is, since WP has lots of stupid lists anyway. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for help Right now the list starts with our most recent president. I think it would make more sense to start with our first. I don't know how to edit it so this is changed. It uses some kind of sortable template which I don't understand.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. mere trivia. worse. unsourced trivia. worse. unsourced trivia that may not even be accurate: i.e. "George," as in Washington, "Possibly named after George Eskridge, a lawyer who took care of Washington's mother after she was orphaned" no source given. To the extent that we have sources for info like this, it surely belongs on the bio pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G5 - created by blocked user. —DoRD (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Maghrib[edit]

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

Non-notable film Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; note that the film name apparently translates to "Dusk in Jakarta" but that only turned up a link to the article where this translation is mentioned. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete cut and paste copy of Jakarta Twilight Meters (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: nominated for two Citra Awards (Indonesia's equivalent to the Oscars), and it received an Indonesian Movie Award for best screen couple. Also has a review at filmindonesia.or.id, an Indonesian film database which is editorially managed. The screenwriter discusses the film here. The film has been dissected in a journal article published by Airlangga University. It has also been the basis for an Indonesian undergraduate thesis as well, though that isn't an RS.

Agree that this particular title should redirect to Jakarta Twilight, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~I don't understand your comment about the article content.~~Sorry, I do see the point of Chris Woodrich's cmt now. I'm not proposing removing the article about this film (and the earlier editors appear not to have been aware of the original article). We know about the awards because the original article contains the information. This one is a cut and past copy which lost all of the edit history. That's a clear Speedy A10. And it's not the only cut and past copy of this article which has been created in the last few days. This just happens to be the only one which went to AFD rather than immediately being speedied. From what I can find the film was originally released as Jakarta Maghrib but is also known as Jakarta Twilight If that is the common English name then the original article is under the correct name and this copy should be deleted and then recreated as a redirect. If the film was never released under the name Jakarta Twilight then that is simply a translation of Jakarta Maghrib and the original article should be moved here. Meters (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jakarta Twilight, or perhaps better move that article to this title. —teb728 t c 11:43, 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 redirect to GFriend. Joyous! | Talk 22:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umji (singer)[edit]

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

this article is largely dependent on the music group the subject belongs to. A redirect is possible I think. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not individually notable 86.58.36.145 (talk) 10:37, 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 no consensus. Apparently the community has not come to a consensus. So that's the proper close. There is no point in discussinging these one at a time--we need a RfC. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Sweeney[edit]

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

Sweeney was Miss Nevada. This is not enough to justify notability. The coverage of her is all from Nevada and linked to the one event of getting the title. My google search showed this is a fairly common name, but turned up nothing clearly about her. There is a Western Nevada College pshycology faculty/staff listing that might be about her, but even if it was would only fact check her existence and not add to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Party of the Future[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 13:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is not much turning up in English it is true, other than entries on lists of political parties, but there is much more on news sites in Dutch: [18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. All of these are articles centred around Johan Vlemmix, but that is only an artefact of the search term I used, necessary because Donald Trump is currently overwhelming results for "Party of the Future" alone. I am pretty sure that other searches will turn up lots more. For instance, Eric Dikeb, a DJ with some local notability, has stood for the party [25]. If nothing else, this page could be absorbed or repurposed into an article on Johan Vlemmix who appears to have notability as an entrepeuner [26] and a local TV personality [27] as well as his political ambitions (remind you of someone?). I also found this book (in Dutch) which discusses the party, but I can't make head nor tail of what they are talking about, or even if it is the same party. SpinningSpark 15:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Karan Mehra[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORKs. The creator has created various such articles. Am clubbing them all here in one AfD. Clearly not here to help encyclopedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator that these are unnecessary content forking. Delete all these lists.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree with the nominator that the lists are unnecessary content forking. Whout warrants in the maximum probability a lone section, cannot be gifted an article.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after performing any necessary content merges. For all but two of the pages there is no compelling rationale for a fork or split. The Ye Hai Mohabbatein and Kumkum Bhagya pages are around 40kB each (not including the broken off lists of awards that now reside at List of accolades received by Ye Hai Mohabbatein and List of accolades received by Kumkum Bhagya), so someone could theoretically make a WP:SIZESPLIT argument for their respective accolades pages, but I think that argument would be tenuous. WP:SIZESPLIT says that at 40 kB and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues, and I don't see any pressing content issues here that would require splitting. So I think it's easiest to keep all the content together. /wiae /tlk 16:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Hero[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy deletion and it doesn't really fall under A7 criteria, as the article claims that they had a song on Billboard and one of their songs was used as a theme song for a notable wrestler.

That said, I can't really find any coverage for this band as a whole, nor am I able to find evidence of their single charting, nor exactly where it charted. Some of the singles charts can give notability enough to keep on that basis alone, where others can only give partial notability. Either way we need coverage to establish notability, which I just can't seem to find. It might be the name, which is fairly common, so I have no problem with this being kept if someone can find any coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 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 as been rewritten and sourced since nomination, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Biju[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inclines to promote the subject. Needs fundamental rewrite. Plus, A user called Drbijukumar has been frequently contributing to this, so COI, too. Discuss! Jean Stair (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform to create autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Autobio and Coi are not valid reasons for deletion. Promo is the one but that can fixed by editing the article. Here is what I did. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR (sources are cited in article and more can be found on a simple web search). Anup [Talk] 21:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Promotional content has been removed. Subject quite clearly WP:GNG and also meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:DIRECTOR as his works have won multiple National Film Awards and premiered at multiple international film festivals. Pratyush (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 22:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Shafi Muhammad Qureshi[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment He seems to be mentioned in the book Education in Sind: Past and Present, but hard to tell as I don't have access to it. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the title "Sir" at least implies that he was notable to some politician at some point, the article contains no evidence of such, there hasn't been any attempt since nomination to provide new sources, and none appear to be available in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to show he passes WP:GNG, and the article currently doesn't even assert a reason for notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing and quite honestly no actual significance making deletion sufficient by that alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 22:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Bioarray[edit]

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

No claims of notability. Domdeparis (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Stratech is reliable [28], formerly Consonus.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt it, it's a merchant website selling similar products and the company is probably a supplier even if at the moment there are no products on line. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nio evidence for notability in the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everything listed here confirms it only existed as a business listing and that's clearly not what Wikipedia is. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is simply an ad for the company's product line. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pachakale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. NOt notable enough to have an article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass Deletion policy/names and surnames. Have found nothing to support any contention that the name has significant history to it, other than genealogy and etymology; the two refs given link to map locations (and on a wiki at that) and not to anything about this name's use as a surname. Alternatively, an article beginning "So-&-so is a surname" could be a disambiguation or Set index page and be followed by a list of notable people bearing the surname. But in this case we have no article about anyone bearing the name: Noyster (talk), 11:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; Wiki-based websites are not reliable sources Spiderone 10:37, 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. Joyous! | Talk 22:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xi Computer[edit]

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

This is so honestly advertising-motivated, it's clear it was only started for exactly that, and I found this because a Draft of it was deleted today, and this article's own history shows only one account ever cared to heavily contribute to it, advertising-only contributions naturally; searches unsurprisingly found nothing, and there's clearly no compromises to made with such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Demonstration of notability completely absent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they are notable, someone will write an article that is more than a straight advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- investor prospectus / product brochure only. Belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either as a blatant advertisement, or on lack of notability. Take your pick. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayGroundOnline[edit]

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

Not only is this a blatantly and damningly advertising and there's the history changes to show for it, consisting of nothing but advertising-only accounts and IPs, it's clear to say only the company would advertise themselves so specifically and blatantly. Next, the sources are all then, not only blatantly published by PR webhosts, but they are all listing the same things (advertisements), showing the only likely author was the company itself of course. To also show the sheerness, searches then found nothing but this said published advertising.

Once we start being lenient about accepting such blatant republished advertising, we start damaging ourselves because we're choosing to not even remove the simplest of advertisements. Especially also considering how long this advertisement has stayed, it only emphasizes the concerns and why we should remove such blatancy as fast as we can. Also note how this was unbelievably accepted instantly when it was submitted by the advertising-only account, but apparently no one cared to nominate until February 2014 in which the speedy was removed. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure advertisement. The awards are perhaps the most trivial ever asserted in a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or importance. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 22:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kearney[edit]

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

Kearney is a political cartoonist. I could not find any articles about him except annoucements from publications he would be drawing for about him doing so. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources for this BLP, and no indication of notability. Like nominator, my searches only turned up evidence of existence, not significant coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletemy searches fail to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find anything on the search engines to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing information and, worse, no actual sources. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Cox (Miss Kentucky)[edit]

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

Cox is only notable for being Miss Kentucky. There is nothing else about her even remotely worth noting. Winning Miss anystate is not enough on its own to make someone notable. The sources are heavily local, many just the college paper of her college. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Chickadee46 talk 00:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert, Did you just look at the article? If so, would be fair to say that even if everything you say is true, you don't know whether or not this topic is Wikipedia notable? Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did searches on google, but came up with nothing. The burden is on those who want to keep the article to find sources that indicate additional notability, there is no burden to assume such exists. I did do a search, but found nothing promising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:ATD is a policy, and since this topic is also covered at Ricky Lee Cox, WP:DEL8 is not a deletion argument. Relevant policy and guideline text is cited at WP:INSIGNIFICANCE. Further, the creator of the article, diff, has not been notified, which by itself would prevent a closing administrator from closing, although this last point could be easily remedied. Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{admin help}}. Pinging an administrator to adjudicate the speedy keep. Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator does not need to be told (it is nice to do) - The three steps at WP:AFDHOWTO does not say that you must tell the creator. Claiming WP:NPASR after only 2 days is a bit quick. Let it run it's course, it won't hurt. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been watching this AfD and, now that I'm here, I'll comment and say the concerns here are at there's simply nothing beyond the Miss America pageant, to suggest any actual convincing notability for her own article, there's nothing else to examine here since that's all there is, therefore delete. SwisterTwister talk 01:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason for defying our WP:Deletion policy? Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was originally closed as no consensus because there is a lack of Wikipedia consensus on the matter on December 6th, after I presented some issues to the closer, and another editor argued that these should be considered on a case by case basis, the administrator who closed gave permission to reopen this discussion. I primarily state this so the time frame when this discussion has actually been open can be clearly seen. It was closed from early December 6th (about 7 GMT) to about 14 GMT on December 9th.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I may not have been explicit enough in the nomination. This article has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet the general notability guidelines. That is reason #8 given for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL8 exists within the context of the remainder of WP:Deletion policy, which includes the WP:Alternatives to deletion. Ignoring the WP:ATD creates risk of harm to the encyclopedia, just as would be the case here. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable beauty pageant contestant; such pages are routinely deleted as BLPs that lack sufficient RS to meet GNG. This is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a notability guideline that does not mention BLP.
As for the premise that the article contains BLP violations, ones that would justify a WP:DEL9 deletion, do you have any examples of such problems in the article?
As for the assertion that such deletions are "routine", I have in the past searched for AfDs closed citing WP:DEL9, and they don't seem to exist. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about BLP violations. This article is a biography of a living person (hence, BLP). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ricky Lee Cox. No significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG. She's already mentioned in her father's article, which is about as much as is warranted at the moment. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 22:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Aardsma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deletion was discussed back in 2009. Looking over her past I do not see roles that are multiple and significant. She has had very minor roles, or appeared in marginally roles in minor films, nothing that adds up to multiple and significant. In the 2009 discussion someone asseted Miss Colorado Teen USA was a title that granted default notability. Discussions since then have made it clear that even if Miss Colorado USA might be close, Teen titles are no where near that threshold. What remains of coverage is tag along coverage related to her brother who is notable, and even that is not very much. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG. Perhaps her career will expand in a couple of years, but right now, I am not finding enough to establish notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not independently notable from the pageants themselves. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Platt[edit]

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

Subject is a CEO of a notable company. But does she warrant an article of her own? I don't think so. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing to suggest its CEO was in fact inherited notability thus there went the only close-chances claims of significance; this is then also an advertisement, hence delete altogether. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playgirlz (concert)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Just because a tour is by a notable music group does not mean the tour itself is notable. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right, but someone needs to comment on whether it fails or meets WP:NMUSIC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fully disagree. The concert itself is notable. Kindly elaborate the reason on this article since it failed to meets under WP:NMUSIC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roslee78 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the four years since this article was created, the tour has obviously come and gone, and so has the K-pop girl group involved. No surprise, given how quickly that genre churns through female artists. More importantly, the only sources given at the time were promotion of the tour and not in secondary sources as WP:NTOUR requests. A notable tour should have generated something in the four years since it happened, no? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find secondary sources as well. There will always be a few initial sources announcing the tour (due to PR by the agencies). But whether the tour is notable can be identified by continuing coverage about the tour. I don't see that here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 22:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry L. Houser[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable individual. He lacks any notability independent of his organisation. He lacks coverage outside of university and local sources. Much of the article is puffed up padding, crediting him for things done by others. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The University of Illinois Marching Illini is certainly notable enough for a page; the ''{{Infobox college marching band}}'' has a place for "Director". Maybe just a section on the Marching Illini is justified, if not a whole article? --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is now ample evidence that he has been well-covered in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources are you referring to? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now at least but reconsider later if needed, as I concur I questioned accepting this when it was at AfC, but I see no severely concerning matters here, but we can question it later if the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Keep? You have given no actual reason. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my search of Chicago Trib [29] demonstrates regional notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GHITS. Your search shows no such thing. What very few hits there is are all director of the marching Illini. Nothing independent of them. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the material from The Plain Dealer and the Chicago Tribune that I just added to the article. There's more out there. the article is oversourced and the tone is PROMO; but he's a notable band director.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Dealer. Very short mention about him pulling out of another job. Tribune. Article that was already used as a source, not about him, about the band, mentions him only in his role with the band, nothing independent of them. He's adequately covered in the bands article, no need for this extra promo piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The time I turned down a job offer my refusal was NOT covered in the news pages of a major regional daily. I feel pretty bad about that, In fact, I feel pretty small whenever I contemplate the fact that I've NEVER been offered a job conducting the band at a Big Ten University. I try not to allow life's little disappointments to blind me to The fact that this was covered is an indication that the job offered Houser was a major big deal, ergo, the man plays on a level of notable that qualifies him for a page here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is in-depth coverage like this [30] in the The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana). A band's success is always credited, in large part, to the director. He is obviously an outstanding band director. But the stories about the band's success in major dailies outside the region often do more than merely name check Houser, and when they are about this band's excellence, they cumulatively validate the notability of the director. Here are articles from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch [31] and a d=ifferent article form the Chicago Tribune [32] (I had not noticed that the one I added before was already in this overstuffed article) E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the one keep comment was based on a complete misunderstanding of policy. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Aaronson[edit]

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

Aaronson is a semi-professional player. THese are rarely notable, and we would need more than links to the team he plays for to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not pass the criteria laid out in WP:RLN for Rugby league players. His club, albeit a traditional one, does currently not play in a top league sufficient enough for the notability criteria. They are only semi-professional and so is Aaronson. He also does not pass WP:GNG. There are a few mentions of him in some match reports and lists, but all of that is trivial and routine coverage. There is no in-depth coverage of his person anywhere. He also just recently joined this club after playing in youth leagues, so the lack of coverage is not very surprising. The article should therefore be deleted as the subject does not pass WP:RLN specifically and WP:GNG generally. Dead Mary (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to delete this, given the athletes by in large usually get an article on WP. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:RLN. St Anselm (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EuphonEast[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Subject appears in no online program listings that I can find and there seems to be no real discussion of the subject by reliable sources as required by WP:GNG AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no apparent evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I hope this can be closed with a consensus now, since the show itself is simply trivial and unconvincing and what's available about it emphasizes it thus no notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well, there are three sources added under the 'External links' section which are quite reliable, [33], [34], [35]. Perhaps, the editor is not aware of adding citations. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't seem to be a television serial, but a series of youtube videos (See this for example). There doesn't seem to be significant coverage about the series itself - one of the references is actually about the artist and mentions the video in passing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the three sources Kmzayeem pointed out, Jagonews24 is a copy of Priyo, so there are only two intellectually independent sources. Searches of the usual types and of regional media sites, including by the name of the show in Bengali script, ইউফোনইস্ট, found no additional independent, reliable coverage. Although two sources are "multiple sources", they don't convincingly meet the notability criteria for programming. There's some coverage in reliable sources such as The Daily Star of the director Arafat Mohsin and Studio 58, but neither has a Wikipedia article, so there is no obvious merge target. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is about evenly split on whether this meets WP:GNG. It's difficult to know where the dividing line is between, Rail cruft and being very inclusive on railroads, and the participants in this discussion did not come to any agreement on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devon and Cornwall Railways[edit]

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

Rail cruft - no secondary sources, other than a report from BBC News. Non-notable. Nordic Nightfury 11:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added to Iowa and USA delsort categories due to its parentage. Nordic Nightfury 11:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is an actual mainline rail operator. Besides the BBC News article that the nom already mentioned, it was easy to find more coverage on its operations and administration from The Herald (Plymouth) and Rail Magazine. [36][37]--Oakshade (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ive cleaned this up a little bit, some bits were about railways in devon and cornwall generally and not about the company of whom is the subject of this article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to parent company where it is currently mentioned as literally none of this suggests any actual substance or significance than it simply bring a locally company, hence with expectations of local news stories and columns. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is not "local" news coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - It appears User:SwisterTwister is stalking and hounding me by showing up at AfDs I'm participating in just to ivote against me. I'll be happy to provide the evidence on another page upon request.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor freight transporter, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 08:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be sufficient "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as required by WP:N. The Plymouth Herald article mentioned by Oakshade doesn't even mention the company as far as I can see. Maybe a mention in Dartmoor Railway might be appropriate. —SMALL JIM 15:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in the BBC article (published in 2010) and Rail Magazine (published in 2013). The BBC article discusses the plan of Devon and Cornwall Railways (DCR) to reopen the Okehampton to Exeter Railway Line. The Rail Magazine provides significant coverage about DCR's history and projects. The two articles were published three years apart, demonstrating that DCR has received sustained attention. There is enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a sub-sub-sidiary and a minor one at that. I don't see sufficient coverage about the company itself to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. This BBC source is a tangential mention in the content of a railway line. And that too is a quote by a company employee (which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND). This Plymouth Herald source is a passing mention in a quote. None of this is significant coverage and certainly not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always been very inclusive on railroads, and I think we should be consistent. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, When you refer to "railroad", do you mean the rail company or the "rail route" itself? My impression was that routes (for example Dartmoor Railway) are notable and we have kept many of them. On the other hand, individual train operating companies are not notable on their own. In this case, Devon and Cornwall Railways is a train operating company and is actually a minor subsidiary of British American Railway Services. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The media coverage is there, if a bit light. But media coverage is not the only arbiter of notability. We need to remember why notability guidelines exist. There's a case to be made that a mainline UK operator is inherently notable (there aren't that many of them). Mcewan (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company is actually a minor subsidiary of British American Railway Services. I doubt that would make it inherently notable enough for a separate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. And I would perhaps be persuaded if the parent's article were more than a stub. Being a subsidiary does not inherently preclude notability. And from a quick look BARS has no more visibility than DCR. Perhaps neither of them are notable. They certainly are not in the narrow web-beauty-contest into which these discussions tend to degenerate. Mcewan (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LIONE[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fail WP:MUSICBIO - TheMagnificentist (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't discern one WP:RS in the list of references given. As a DJ with only two remix tracks mentioned, he doesn't meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beroe Inc.[edit]

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

The article makes no claims of notability Domdeparis (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most or all news coverage appears to source back to official press releases. Of current sources, one is behind a paywall, and two are trivial mention. TimothyJosephWood 20:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 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. Sandstein 15:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scifan.com[edit]

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

nn. Tagged for notability since 2012. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Partly someone using Wikipedia to talk about a trademark they own; partly a website sourced only to an Amazon forum, with no sources since 2004. Despite heading for deletion, I removed the first part as problematic per wp:justterrible. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerary[edit]

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

Topic fails to meet the general notability guideline as well as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Topic is a word (adjective), rather than a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. Article is essentially a dictionary definition followed by a collection of poorly-sourced/unsourced trivia about other subjects. No significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources found. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ~~See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernumerary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)~~ —updated 00:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete The word basically means "member of permanent staff". We don't have articles neither permananent staff nor staff (organization) because the term is extremely generic. The disambig pare must sit in this place. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current content and move Numerary (disambiguation) to its place. This is a dictionary definition followed by an immense trivial example farm, poorly sourced and giving way too much emphasis to minor matters. A full paragraph plus bullet list for a graphoanalyst society? Really? Reyk _YO! 08:45, 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.

Jack Donovan[edit]

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norman J. Hunt[edit]

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

The one source here is not enough to pass GNG. That requires multiple sources. Actually from what I can tell it is an article about a lot of different composers, and I have no clue how much it actually says about Hunt. That he existed I could determine from my google search. However I do not see anything leading me to think he was a notable musician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might the citation to the Music Educators Journal article be referring to an advertisement for one of Hunt's books on page 122? Regardless, the citation says nothing of Hunt's significance in the world of music. In my opinion, writing books about music is not enough; were it enough, just about every academic on the planet would have a Wikipedia page. Syek88 (talk) 19:49, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webster Kehr[edit]

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

Kehr is a fringe theorist who is entirely self published. The article relies too heavily on his self published claims to describe his background. The article relies mainly on blog posts and other non-reliable sources and fails to show any reliable source indepth coverage of Kehr to pass general notability guidelines, and nothing even remotely approaching meeting academic notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much nothing of any significance showing up at any of the resources at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Sagecandor (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with Nom and Shawn in Montrael, I can't find RS either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not find enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing and nothing at WorldCat. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1017 vs. The World[edit]

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

A tape that was released one day ago is WP:TOOSOON. Google search shows that the tape exists, which is not notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many sites have been covering this release, including Complex, HotNewHipHop, DatPiff, and others. This is very much notable JayPe (talk) 3:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Sites have already begun covering this project in much bigger ways, the fact that some editors can't even wait a few days (let alone a few hours) before trying to delete content they're unfamiliar with is pretty ridiculous. It's gotten absolutely out of control, we add projects BEFORE they're even out constantly every single day, but too argue it's TOO SOON to add an album that was released a few days ago and has been trending worldwide is illogical and honestly quite laughable. I feel like I need to point out that music critics, and review aggregators cannot cover EVERY SINGLE ALBUM THATS RELEASED THE MOMENT IT COMES OUT. This would result in them posting hundreds of reviews per second, inhumane. The fanbase for this content alone is more than enough to qualify notability, not enough for you? Chill out and for once have some damn patience. Cheetoburrito (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ermine (Private) Limited[edit]

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

Notability of this is being contested. It was created and deleted twice so I'm opening this discussion to confirm whether this this be deleted. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, I can't find anything to indicate that this meets WP:ORG. Every reference in the article is self-published, and a news search failed to find a single hit.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 00:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt given this was literally deleted for blatant advertising last month and this is it once again, yet again with the words "They aim" and "They endeavor", none of that is suitable except for their own website; next, this is not an actual school as it is. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 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 no consensus. There has been no discussion leading to a consensus to delete the article. Strong suggestions to redirect to the article for the parent company. Joyous! | Talk 20:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abof[edit]

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

Sheer advertising by company advertisers and it's not enough that they literally added nothing but PR and republished PR consisting of only what the company advertises about itself, simply take how the worst blatancy of these literally list what the companies thinks about itself, its plans and thoughts for its local activities, none of that is independent or news in fact, and we shouldn't mistake it as anything else. I myself had tagged this earlier but, given how the blatancy of advertising has only worsened, the clear solution for improving this is to delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I smell a few buzzwords. Delete. Pyrusca (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 05:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)]

Delete : No coverage by reliable sources. No indication of notability. Coderzombie (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a quick WP:BEFORE turns up substantial coverage in reliable sources such as Bloomberg, Economic Times, and Forbes. Promotional tone can be addressed via standard copy-editing; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First, we've established that Indian news publications are notoriously "pay-for only" and these people will quite frequently confess to it or the articles themselves will state it, therefore they cannot be confidently taken as actual substance. Next, the IndiaTimes is clear PR, as if it wasn't obvious, since it literally states company plans, "What the company's activities are and how it's currently going". When we apply policy WP:NOT, it damns anything of WP:BASIC, WP:CORP or WP:GNG, because those mean nothing compared to policy, something we use every day including at AfD.

The Forbes India is a clear PR, and if our own American is using clear PR, the India certainly would since it's known for it as it is, and these contents confirm it once again, since they all consistently keep the same form and materials of PR and only PR. When we start compromising with such blatancy and knowingly damage this encyclopedia, we cannot imagine the seriousness of what advertising would use out of it. There's no benefits of improving a blatant advertisement since it would only make it worse, and thus WP:NOT policy explicitly allows such removal of blatant advertising and when Wikipedia is clearly being mistaken as a sales catalogue, something other "general guidelines" cannot compare to.

If it wasn't blatant enough, the Bloomberg (which is obviously a PR side of it) goes to actually state "What Abof hopes to achieve, its current actions and thoughts about it, from the company itself". WP:BEFORE cannot apply obviously in this case, as any other Indian company AfD will show we simply ca never and perhaps never will (if they continue publishing such paid advertising) confide in them, because they are simply so advertising-founded (hence not substantial, significant, independent or usable). SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above delete arguments carry no weight, even before considering WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice to merge to the parent company. Sources in the article and reported here show WP:GNG, but the company has only been around since 2015. For WP:SUSTAINED notability, the company needs to show more than the initial news bubble. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect obvious solution in this case. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kraftly[edit]

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

This is such a blatant advertisement, the history clearly shows one avid and passionate user only focusing with what the company itself would advertise therefore it's quite imaginable it's either a company employee or a paid spokesman for it, and the sources themselves are clear advertising and that's not surprising since we've established we cannot confide in these websites since they are simply so blatant at republishing company advertising. Searches unsurprisingly found this so we must seriously consider WP:SPAM and WP:NOT and acknowledge that any acceptance of this is only continually damaging ourselves as a No-Advertising encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional article based on PR coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 23:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as massively promotional. If this had been tagged for G11 deletion, I would not have hesitated. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatantly promotional and advertorial. I dare say the main editor of the article mistook Wikipedia to be the company site!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Mathrubootham[edit]

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

This article is entirely based on Freshdesk, the company, rather than the subject. And the sources are most all churnalism rather than something substantive. Kbabej (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising as was the company article itself since not only are we aware that such publications will only consist of the republished advertising hence not independent or convincing at all, the history emphasizes this thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your heads up on this article. I would like to know which sources do you think are ok, in general, any user who is willing to contribute in wiki will depend upon the news sources considering that news sources will be reliable. I believe news published in the reliable news websites will be of proper one and generally people believe those sources are from the reputed news sources. Whenever i write any article, i always consider other wiki pages for references. Do you think are the sources mentioned in this wiki pages are reliable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Khuner in this wiki article, i see the sources are from only google. Also the same over here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_and_Jordan_Kandell this article uses imdb as the sources and news websites too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slim_Brundage here too it has only google links as sources. What would i generally suggest is, rather deleting the articles, it would be better if we fine tune and make it as the best one. This will also boost the wiki users to write more articles in a proper way and also we can have some good articles on wiki. I expect your opinion on this User:Barath Rajendran (talk) 12:33, 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.