Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 November	27 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Systems[edit]

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

Corporation but I'm not seeing any notability; fusion systems turns up a lot of GNews hits but none seem to be related to this company at all, adding Japan/Tokyo (their HQ) doesn't help. There was some text about a previous iteration of the company which claimed notability, but they were bought out well over a decade ago and history for that company should go with the purchaser. Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is difficult to do good WP:BEFORE because of the generic name, not finding necessary info to uphold WP:CORP. - Brianhe (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails notability tests; existence of a prior firm with the same name and one or two employees in common still doesn't pass muster, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't verify notability from the links provided or from Google. There are at least five other companies named Fusion Systems, some of which are more notable than this one, but none have a Wikipedia article. John Nagle (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brianhe, and, well, all of the above. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 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 00:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Paloma[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sources include interviews, PR-driven industry profiles, directory listings and award nomination materials, resulting in a WP:PSEUDO biography covering trivia such as:

She got into the business because she needed money and also to get back at an ex-boyfriend. She had her breasts augmented in May 2005.^[1]

References

^ AIFD

See WP:WHYN. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO either as the two awards listed are both scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing for the applicable notability and, with this said, the awards are entirely trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Even if you count Adult Video News as a reliable source, coverage still fails GNG without additional sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the accurate analyses above. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:04, 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 00:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Reynosa[edit]

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

Non-notable local author known for minor works and non-notable painting related events. Has a self-published book that lacks WP:N. References are minor in nature or are for published articles. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds totally run of the mill as a Huffington Post blogger. Not really well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, with my WorldCat searches finding nothing better at all and the article, regardless of its size, is still trivial. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Barthas[edit]

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

Only could meet notability because his diaries were later published, but looking at WP:AUTHOR, it doesn't appear that his book meets notability guidelines; a translation was published by Yale University Press, but doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines (there are book reviews as would be expected, and some chatter from bloggers and such about the book.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage in this book from the Cambridge University Press. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, is there more than the single page? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books doesn't show me anything beyond that page, which obviously isn't the end of the coverage of the subject, but there's enough there to show that there is significant coverage in that source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can look at the appendix and see that he was only mentioned on pages 93-94, and now that Google Books is letting me look at page 94, he appears to be mentioned in three paragraphs only. (He's also briefly mentioned on page 50.) He's also used primarily as a source judging from the context - he's not the subject of these paragraphs. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is basically ripped from the French Wiki, so I took the liberty of adding it's references and bibliography as well. I replaced the gif with the image from the French Wiki as well. Let me know if you need anything, and sorry for not communicating before acting. Psychotic Spartan 123 01:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the source that I identified above we now have another source written by Rémy Cazals, a historian, so notability is confirmed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the additional information provided, I hope Mr. Vernon would consider withdrawing the nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot imagine how Wikipedia would be improved by the deletion of this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that is relevant. We judge whether a topic gets an article by notability guidelines per WP:N. On the additional sources using Google Translate: editions la decouverte appears to be from the publisher and is a book description and so is not independent, crid1418 is mostly about the book, enenvor.fr is a pretty good piece on the author. I'm sorry, I know you may like the work of this author but we go by notability and WP:GNG/WP:BIO for significant coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Newyorkbrad said is always relevant to every action that is taken here. The whole point of anything we do is to improve Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His diary would be close to unique - not run of the mill stuff. WWI (the "great" war) was traumatizing for almost everyone involved, besides millions of people dying. The walking-wounded survivors ended up being struck by The October revolution and a Pinko scare here in the United States, the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1919, scarlet fever pandemics (before effective medicines, it often lasted a month or more), and battle fatigue. My own grandfather never spoke about it to his daughters, and only with the aid of Ancestry.com was I even able to get bits of his records. WWI was a total s#$@storm, and there is very little in way of primary, ordinary persons' stories available. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Nação[edit]

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

dp without useful blue links The Banner talk 21:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only mention we have in Wikipedia of any of these publications is in citations. It was a helpful gesture from the editor who created the page to translate it from the Portuguese Wikipedia, but WP:WTAF applies here. — Gorthian (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of redlinks is not particularly helpful to a reader. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:12, 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. SOFTDELETE due to limited discussion after two relists. Joyous! | Talk 00:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Welinski[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still in the development stage. Not enough coverage of him to pass msot interpretations of GNG and does not pass notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 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 02:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 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. (non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Kumar Ojha[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. I attempted to find additional sources and had trouble finding any that seemed reliable. I do not know how noteworthy being the MLA of the Rajmanhal constituency of Jharkhand is, but this page either needs major expansion with additional reliable sources. or needs to be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable politician. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't accept the WP:POLITICIAN guideline? That has been one of the few guidelines that has been accepted almost without question almost since Wikipedia started, so you really need to explain better why we should make an exception in this case. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as for MLA is satisfying WP:POLITICIAN, enough said. SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above: Not a reason for deletion for a person who passes GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Subject is the current Member of Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand, passes WP:POLITICIAN. Pratyush (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 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. Certainly NO CONSENSUS to delete the article. Strong suggestions to MERGE and REDIRECT to Verghese Kurien, where there is already mention of National Milk Day. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Milk Day (India)[edit]

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

Gnews turns up 6 hits; this isn't that notable a holiday. (EDIT: this is turning up more hits, now 8, apparently this is getting some coverage in India. There are potentially more but it's difficult sifting through all the articles on other National Milk Days (apparently there are several.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as somewhat locally known, nothing beyond for actual significance, let alone substance. SwisterTwister talk 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is a national day in a country with over a billion inhabitants "somewhat locally known"? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that day meet notability guidelines? Just because it's been declared, doesn't make it notable - see National Meatloaf Day for an example. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make that claim, but simply refuted the claim that this was "somewhat locally known". The second most populous country in the world, in which this has received coverage in the national press, is not local. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:PROMO to me. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a deletion discussion is to discuss actual notability of an article subject, not what an article "looks like". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and there is wide observation and press coverage available. Shyamsunder (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, although on a bit of a weaker level, per a review of available sources. See source examples below. Another option is to merge to List of food days § India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Times of India
The Times of India
The Economic Times
Yahoo! News
DD News

Redirect to Verghese Kurien whose birthday is observed as this day. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem like a good idea, as it seems that the main reason for the creation of this day was to honour Verghese Kurien. I note that this is not yet mentioned in his article, so merge would seem to be the better word for what needs to be done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Rush[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a television show produced by a cable public access channel, whose only wider distribution was on one small-market television station owned by the same cable company. And for sourcing, all we have here is one WP:BLOG entry and a post to the host's own self-published page on Facebook -- which means that the reliable source coverage that it takes to pass WP:NMEDIA has not been shown. Local programs like this can sometimes qualify for articles if they pass the RS/NMEDIA combo, but are not automatically entitled to articles just because they exist if they're this poorly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, no sign of notability, aside from the fact that one of the host's last name is "Forbes". Speedy deletion! Scorpion293 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Solomon[edit]

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

This subject clearly fails WP:GNG; none of the sources listed even mention him. KSFT ^C 17:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED for most of this, also standard WP:BIO. Google News turns up one hit that... may be him but is entirely irrelevant. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly an advertisement and nothing at all close for an actual article, it's quite simple. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Article started by subject. CBS527^Talk 21:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet another article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 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. Sandstein 11:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Bujan[edit]

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

This article has no sources, and it makes no claim of notability. It's borderline A7able, but there could be sources I couldn't find with the very little effort I put in. Without them, the subject clearly fails WP:GNG. KSFT ^C 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Corp and promo piece without independent RS citing for notability. Kierzek (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that this is A7able, as a great many Bordeaux wine chateaux are notable, but in this case the best I can find is a short paragraph by Oz Clarke. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this should have been a speedy delete. Just some guy promoting his wine company PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 10:14, 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 Speedy keep per criterion 1. I withdraw this nomination, as the article has been significantly improved in the last few days. (non-admin closure) KSFT ^C 20:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture in Alaska[edit]

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

This article has no sources, and it isn't clear that the subject is notable. It might be viable, if sources could be found, but the article would need to be rewritten anyway. As it is, it reads like a how-to guide. KSFT ^C 16:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly notable topic and is standard in every state (see Category:Agriculture in the United States by state. Even has its own category Category:Agriculture in Alaska. Article needs to be improved with references and history of agriculture, economic impact of agriculture and especially change the lede (article is not about gardening). —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not standard for every state; only a few other states have pages like this, and those that do have sourced articles with encyclopedic information about agriculture, not OR lists of gardening tips. Even if there were 49 other articles just like this one, other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep a bad article. KSFT ^C 14:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out the article content sucks and should not be about gardening. WP:DELETIONNOTCLEANUP. Yes, agriculture in the largest state in the United States is a notable topic, especially because of its unique weather and the government and scientific research that has gone into cultivating farms there for 150+ years. You need to follow WP:BEFORE and actually look for sources before you create an AfD. [1][2] —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no shortage of reliable sources available for this topic. Nom should be aware that the criterion for AfD concerns the topic as it is in the world, not the state of the article, however lamentable. but it's a cleanup job, not AfD's. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been noticeably improved since nominated for AfD. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has (thanks), but that's not the reason for keeping, it's that the topic is inherently notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, Passes WP:GNG I just felt that you needed a mention. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 15:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Premi O Premi[edit]

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

This unreferenced film was already deleted as per WP:Articles for deletion/Premi O Premi. It is still WP:TOOSOON and is still unreferenced. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found to pass WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
July isn't that long ago and given the unreferenced state of the article, I wonder if a speedy deletion wouldn't apply. I have placed a G4 tag on it, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 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 00:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of dogs who have run half-marathons[edit]

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

Listcruft. TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been provided. Andrew D. (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the gentleman who de-prodded this piece of nonsense, without giving any reason. Its listcruft. If you don't understand the term, it is possible to compile an infinite number of lists. Many of these, like this one, are eye-wateringly trivial.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; WP:LISTCRUFT, in particular #2 and #5; also see WP:SALAT Spiderone 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh no/per above. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason for deletion needs to be provided in this case -as per other delete supporters. Ajf773 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't even list people who've run half marathons. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was some evidence of notability of dogs (or animals in general) competing in half-marathons, this might be acceptable. But none of the entries on this list had more than routine coverage, and there is no coverage about the topic as a whole. With regards to Shawn in Montreal's coverage, we don't have a such a list because it would be far too long and unwieldy and because it's a relatively common occurrence. Dogs running half-marathons isn't, but I still couldn't find any indication that this topic is notable and receives more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. I could be convinced to keep if such evidence is provided, but I'm not seeing it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete absurd, not notable cross-section of dogs/distance running. Come on, stop wasting our time with this kind of bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dog's bollocks? Fnar, fnar. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afterburner (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor element in the Transformers universe. No evidence of any real-world notability. This article has been tagged as problematic (and, to be clear, it's problematic in the way that [almost?] every article about Transformers characters is problematic) since June 2011. Attempts to turn the article into a redirect have failed. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Yet another extremely crufty article about a minor, non-notable fictional character. Way too much plot summary, no real world information because it lacks real-world notability. The only sources are to the work of fiction itself, and various fan sites. There is nothing here that is worth merging anywhere. Redirection after the article is deleted is a possibility. Reyk _YO! 10:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Reyk. Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm seeing no consensus to delete this article. There are suggestions to redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), so the rest of the discussion would be better continued on the article's talk page. Joyous! | Talk 00:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egon Aghta[edit]

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

This historical figure does not seem to be notable as I could not find much WP:RS online. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to appropriate list of Knights Cross winners; unless someone can expand the article with detail. Kierzek (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Another NN German soldier. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipients of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves are generally considered to be notable, although recipients of the Knight's Cross alone are not. As effectively indicating two Knight's Crosses it would appear to pass WP:SOLDIER. Even if one does not accept (as I do not) that the Knight's Cross was prestigious enough to rate as a first-level decoration, it must surely rate as a second-level decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SOLDIER. Reference proves qualifying award. The nominator should have checked this out per WP:BEFORE. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A); insufficient sources for a stand-alone article: link; see WP:WHYN. WP:SOLDIER itself has been recently modified, and the awarding of the KC (even in multiple grades) is no longer a sufficient claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, however, still say "were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times". If two Navy Crosses are sufficient for notability then I really don't think we can legitimately argue that two Knight's Crosses are not. That would really be Americanocentric. We have generally decided that one Knight's Cross is not sufficient (something I have long argued), but two (which is essentially what the oak leaves indicate)? I think that would be pushing it. We would be going from one extreme (assuming all recipients of the KC are notable) to the other (assuming that almost none of them are). That does seem to be rather biasing WP:SOLDIER in favour of countries like the Commonwealth countries and the USA that have a clearly defined first-, second- and third-level decoration system, something which many other countries do not. Remember that Nazi Germany also had the Iron Cross 2nd and 1st Class below the Knight's Cross; it was not the lowest award by a long way, so it should certainly be regarded as second-level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not an SNG; it's subordinated to WP:GNG & requires sufficient reliable sources to be able to build an NPOV article. No such sources have been presented at this AfD yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: if there isn't enough information to write a full biography, a redirect to the list of recipients is probably the best solution, in my opinion. If further sources and information come to light, it would then be a relatively simple matter to remove the redirect and expand. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 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. SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation even after being relisted twice. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Eastwood Anaba[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BIO. The sources are not independent or are things like Goodreads and Soundcloud. From the claims it is possible there is some local coverage but I can not find a single independent reliable source. All BLPs require a reliable source but since there are claimed "sources" this can not be BLPPRODed. Jbh ^Talk 20:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 20:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom about the lack of adequate sourcing prior to the article being nominated. I reviewed the sources that have been added since, and they haven't gotten much better. Some are primary sources affiliated with the subject and some are blog/listicle-type articles that don't appear reliable. This one appears to be the only legit news source, and that isn't enough to verify and entire BLP. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 16:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andries Coetzee (linguist)[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria Domdeparis (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Tenured, but not a full professor; only earned a doctorate 12 years ago. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . GS h-index of 17 just passe WP:Prof#C1 in low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is there, but marginal. I'm more convinced by the society fellowship (#C3) and journal editorship (#C8). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 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 No Consensus to Delete. I cannot extract a consensus from the comments below. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of e-Collaboration[edit]

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

This is a journal published by IGI Global, a non-notable publisher - largely a vanity press - whose article was deleted. This article has no independent sources to establish notability. We have no policy on inclusion based on WP:ITSINDEXED, we require reliable independent secondary sources about the subject, and this has none. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the 2014 AfD for this journal: The journal is indexed in INSPEC (behind a paywall, I verified the journal was on the old 2012 list), PsychINFO [3] and SCOPUS (sourcerecord id 12000154321 in the April 2013 title list), all selective indexes. The journal thus satisfies notability criteria according to WP:NJournals criterion 1. While WP:NJournals is still technically an essay, in AfD discussions about journals, it has been treated as a de facto guideline for notability for at least the last 4 years I have been at WP. --Mark viking (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Selected for indexing in Scopus. --Randykitty (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject specific notability guideline might say that, but using that as an absolute criterion for inclusion would plainly violate WP:NOTDIR, so the test has to be: are there reliable independent sources about this journal? And the answer is: no. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There's a reliable independent source (the inclusion in Scopus) that confirms that this journal is among the top journals in its field (Scopus indexes about 20 thousand journals, whereas there are an estimated 100,000 or more that are currently published). --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Automated abstracting databases are not reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I guess you'll want to delete 95% of all our articles on academic journals... There's nothing automated about being selected for inclusion in the listed databases, which is the result of an in-depth evaluation by a committee of experts. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. Being selected for inclusion in the listed databases is a binary decision which is not 'in-depth coverage'. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:NJOURNALS: "If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources." IMHO, this journal is a reliable source (with its listing in journal indexes), so this applies here. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, here I disagree. It is notable because of its inclusion in Scopus, but I'd hesitate to use it as an RS, given the inclusion of its publisher on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers. Personally, I think that Scopus erred in including this journal, but it is not up to us WP editors to second-guess sources... --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I cannot see the publisher IGI Global listed in Beall's List under [4]. Could you point to where it is listed or is this a mistake? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my bad. It's a subscription publisher, which Beall does not include on his lists. Still, see this article. IGI Global clearly is a bottom feeder and I'd be very careful with any of its publications. In any case, WP:NOTINHERITED applies so whether or not the publisher is notable is irrelevant. And although your quote from NJournals (about creating a stub even if sources are absent) is correct, but I don't think many editors here will actually agree with that (I don't). --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes Wikipedia:NJOURNALS Criterion 1 with citation indexes. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a subject-specific notability guideline. As you know the publisher is not notable (you have tried to subvert the deletion of that article); ,the issue here is that while the notability guideline tells us what sort of journals are likely to have the sources we require per canonical policy (WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTDIR etc), there is no actual evidence that there are such sources for this subject. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously described the publisher IGI Global as a vanity press in discussions yet Wikipedia's definition is as follows: "A vanity press, vanity publisher, or subsidy publisher is a term describing a publishing house in which authors pay to have their books published." The publisher does not charge for publishing so is not a vanity press. So I believe (IMHO) you have mistakenly subverted the Wikipedia process on this publisher by spreading misinformation. That said, by this definition, open access publishing by publishers like Elsevier is "vanity publishing"! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the suggestion that this journal is published by a (largely) vanity press, as implied in the proposal above, should be discounted since this is an incorrect designation according to Wikpedia's own definition of a vanity press, IMHO. Indeed, I believe that the publisher IGI Global (founded in 1988 with 170+ journals to its name) was deleted due to misinformation on this aspect in the deletion discussion. See further information above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination) for the arguments that got the publisher's article deleted. The closing admin referred to 'disreputable practices'. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I cannot see the publisher IGI Global listed in Beall's List of predatory publishers under [5], as claimed above. This claim should be discounted if so. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails WP:N and an essay does not ovverride a policy. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a standard. If it is in Scopus, it meets the standard. Scopus despitre being more inlcusive than WOS, is till a sleectiveindex. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note — the editor-in-chief of the journal, Ned Kock, has his own Wikipedia page. While this is not an official Wikipedia criterion, a notable editor-in-chief of a journal is in practice a strong indicator that the journal itself is notable. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination), keeping the article solely on the basis of the journal being included in an index would result in the incorrect perception that this is a reputable scientific journal by a reputable publisher. Sandstein 17:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That sounds like an inverse argument of WP:INHERITED: the publisher is not notable, so the journals inherits this non-notability... --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — note that the summary of the discussion was "there is a very narrow consensus to delete". Arguably there was no consensus. In any case, the listing in multiple journal indexes, especially Scopus but also the more computing-specific ACM and DBLP (important and trusted in computer science), meets WP:NJOURNALS. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SCOPUS inclusion, etc. St Anselm (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clásico Ceibeño[edit]

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

See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable. This rivalry definitely exists [6] [7] but all I can seem to find are routine match reports such as those attached to this sentence. There is nothing available that could suggest a WP:GNG pass. At the moment, the article is nothing more than just an unsourced collection of match results; the references provided for this don't even work. Spiderone 12:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the first link in an archive, [8]. Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 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:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi School of Internet Marketing[edit]

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

This is a non notable training institute and not a "school" as such. I am unable to find enough sources for WP:ORGDEPTH or to show why this is significant. There is also no indication that it is accredited. From the looks of it, it is a simply private skills training institute, one among many similar institutes. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See this post at COIN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; training institutes are not inherently notable and do require a GNG pass Spiderone 13:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated, not shown to be notable and reads like a short promo press release. Kierzek (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and there's simply nothing for any actual schools notability, and that says enough alone, regardless of anything else. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not a single independent coverage of this entity. Anup [Talk] 01:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches are finding nothing to indicate that this training institute (one among many according to its own Socialbeat reference) is notable. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI issues, fails WP:GNG.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others; sleazy product of sockfarm (or indistinguishable from same). - Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 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. The single "keep" was added by a blocked sockpuppet. Joyous! | Talk 00:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hinssen[edit]

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

Article has no independent references. I have failed to find any (in English) on Google. Maproom (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent references found on Google search. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 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 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks well written with sources. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur this is only existing for showcasing a man's job history and company involvements, thus the comment of "there are sources here" is not the same thing if it only exists as PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:31, 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 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playlist: The Very Best of Mudvayne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Notability is not inherited from notable songs. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Album-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These "playlist" compilations never seen to get the third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG, and this is no exception. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:30, 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 speedy delete by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LEAF where you stand[edit]

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

No indication of WP:GNG. Mostly WP:PROMO. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zackmann08 | Please tell me now how I must write down the movement of the NGO TECHO, which results in South America more pronounced than TOMS shoes, according to Wikipedia policy. In South America may be we do not have as many houses and families with internet as the rest of the world, but this business model start changing our way of looking at thinks. I beg you give us a hand, take away all the stuff you think could be publicity to a brand. But remember LEAF may look like a brand but is only a path for TECHO NGO to make possible next winter over 30K children wont suffer or even die in Argentina. All the data is around the web, dont let my Inexperience in putting this together let you see beyond the tree. We are talking not of publicity, but lives, children, people. Not numbers. Help me to clean it up, making this article Wikipedia suitable.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Genera  notability guideline you said:     written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.^[1]

We stablished that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then we say Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic"

Are  we suggesting that TECHO NGO is-not a reliable sources? Because the project LEAF is the putting in practice of E.S. Parsons (Talcott Pasons should have the same problem?)  business model, a revolutionary  concept of social an environmental view of the market,  The complete Quality Cycle as shown on www.leaf.social A web page of philosophical theory, independent of the comercial website that helps TECHO www.shop.leaf.com

TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? I beg your pardon Im confused, May be because here in south America are working so hard for the needy and dont have so much time to spend trying to get some recognition from first world countries

No indication of WP:GNG.??? => If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again I beg your pardon, TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? t a reliable source? ^[2] 100% the NGO explaining the new market idea...

it came to my attention, shouldn't someone from latin america take a look at an article referring a latin america NGO? it seems a little bit annoying that a unite state citizen decided that TOMS business model should prevail in wikipedia and LEAF with th complete quality cycle shouldn't , with TECHO NGO standing for it. Does it have any relation with the new us administration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We require third-party reliable sources (such as a newspaper, magazine or television news feature). TECHO NGO issued a press release; this does not count toward notability on Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 - this article is shameless promotion written like an "about us" section of a website, and company fails GNG at this time. I searched for Spanish sources as well. I can find plenty of indications on buying the shoes online, but no news coverage to speak of that indicates it meets requirements. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
^ "LEAF PRESENTA SU NUEVA LÍNEA DE ZAPATILLAS Y REAFIRMA SU COMPROMISO CON TECHO". Retrieved 2016-08-17.

Zackmann08  Wikimandia

This page is not unambiguously promotional, the Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion applies if the article serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the same criteria said that the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Wikipedia recognize TECHO NGO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TECHO in their pages. Its known that there is information that takes more or less time to spread through the network. TECHO´s LEAF project is not less than TOMS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_Shoes "one for one" business model.On the contrary, it is vastly superior. Seeking not to build a company ( like TOMS) that perceives millionaires profits, on the contrary generate genuine funds for the NGO. A new market paradigm The complete quality cycle. We are Latin Americans. Our media is not as fast as those of first world countries. Little by little the cycle is going public. It is a theoretical concept. Raised in the university. It is not full digitized, but its real, its not a publicity, or promotion of a a brand. Let me ask you how can you be sure Fidel Castro is dead? Shouldnt we wait to see it before we allought this on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro ? All the sources are a replica of what de Cuban goberment said. and we believed it. why? The Complete Quality Cycle is a new paradigma from students of prestogious Universidad de Buenos Aires, it already got an internation award, TECHO took that model to try to change the life of 3 Millon people in Argentina next year. And may be ot will be tomorrows market arrangement. There is more variety of sources than the death of Castro. So it is arbitrary what article can be and what is not? TOMS speaks not only of its business model, but also of the brand that markets sneakers. We seemed logical to name LEAF, which is nothing other than the implementation of the theoretical concept "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE". Do you want to let TOM talk about the brand, and force us to remove LEAF? ok, we are social, we want to stand up and show whats happening with "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE" . How in south america we are changing tomorrows market. It doesnt seems fair. We have the 1/9 of the access to the network that the industrialized countries, It would seem obvious that we would have fewer sources than TOMS. At the end of the day, unlike TOMS, this is a college development. A contribution to humanity. Handled its implementation by an NGO. Not a business. I regret that so many people in industrialized countries lend themselves to indecent mistreatment like this one. Or direct as the mocking from the guy who was in communication with me.

Last but no least, remember Albert Einstein quote "Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid" May be in south america we are like fish, and we do not have the instant access to create several sources of what we already have in papers. "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE" You are making a Wikipedia only for those who have the money to acces the internet. Cheers! .--Trinidad Marie (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC) comment added by Trinidad Marie (talk[reply]

Wikipedia is FULL of articles about non-profits and non-corporate entities, charities, etc. Thousands and thousands. The requirement is that the article must be thoroughly discussed in reliable, third-party sources. You don't have any newspapers, magazines or TV news discussing LEAF. TECHO has this coverage. Sorry. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSE has never been and will never be a valid argument. All you are doing is distracting from the issue at hand. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:32, 1 December 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luiyi Black Side[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSBIO notability cirteria Domdeparis (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As search results indcate no notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:29, 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 00:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsway Personnel Limited[edit]

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

Article is being disputed as a spam article (see history). I translated it from Chinese to English. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Article is unsourced, and I can't find any independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 12:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be non-notable and also spam. Citobun (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ...but could definitely use improving. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pain and pleasure[edit]

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

Although it cites plenty of WP:RS, this article is a rambling essay which is composed almost entirely of synthesis and original research, and which would need a complete rewrite to be kept. An acceptable article would be based solely on sources that discuss the pleasure-pain relationship, not based on ones that just describe individual parts of the puzzle and then assembling them via WP:SYN. The Anome (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that the article's a mess is not in dispute. I'll try not to cite policies about AfD not being for cleanup, etc etc, but you'll take the point. The article does in fact cite sources that directly discuss the pleasure-pain relationship or putative continuum, such as refs [7] and [8]. The latter, "A common neurobiology for pain and pleasure" is a paper in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, certainly a reliable source, and focused exactly on the topic of this article. The article also mentions thinkers including Bentham, Spinoza, and Descartes, for all of whom there are plenty of reliable sources which discuss the pleasure-pain continuum. I offer no opinion on whether they were right, or even on whether the sources say these thinkers actually thought those things: simply that the topic certainly exists and is reliably documented. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a good start, and not so bad it has to be wrecked. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 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 speedy keep. Meets generally accepted consensus of WP:FOOTYN, nominator has withdrawn nomination. Fenix down (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wichita Jets[edit]

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

Fails WP:N#American football/Canadian football. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - team existed and competed at a sufficiently high level to merit an article, see [9] and amongst others. @Iazyges: - you have referred to the wrong sport and notability guideline. Did you even search to see if the topic was notable? Please WP:BEFORE in future. Giant Snowman 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly satisfies WP:NFOOTYCLUB. It's clear WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I misread the sports notability, and Was reading the notability for players, not teams, will withdraw. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:59, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the family of Jesus to Nazareth[edit]

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

Redundant Wikipedia:Content forking. This material can be adequately covered in the childhood section of the article on Jesus and in the article on Luke 2. The family do not return to Nazareth according to Matthew's narrative. BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage in thousands of secondary sources throughout history, artwork, etc. The Jesus article is not meant to have this level of detail, of course. The title could be changed to cover the account in both gospels, but I don't think it's a big problem. St Anselm (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no substantive detail which would be appropriate in Jesus and/or Luke 2, and there is one image but otherwise the artwork on the topic is not referred to in the article. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not a reason for deletion - that's a reason to improve the article. St Anselm (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jesus#Early life, family, and profession without prejudice towards recreation with appropriate sourcing. As of now, only a content fork. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have started a rewrite and expansion of the article; it now covers the move to Nazareth in both gospels. St Anselm (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. Like many (not all) events in scripture - from the Vedas to the Quran - this topic that has been discussed for centuries and can be sourced. (Not to mention notable artistic representations.) I accept StAnselm's promise to source, because he is an experienced and dedicated editor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provides the sequence - following the Flight into Egypt B20097 (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic. While some editors might think it needs to be part of another article, it is a notable topic on its own (thousands of books and paintings have been written about it), and therefore should not be deleted. Content fork issues should be resolved by editors working with several articles to try to achieve a consistent quality, rather than by deleting one of the articles. Bradv 14:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - this has been the subject of art, culture, and religious discussions for 1700 years. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the majority view appears to be to keep. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:15, 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. While there is a consensus to delete, the concern voiced at the end that the discussion may have been influenced by editors' personal associations with the topic must be taken into account. It is also unusual to see a competent AfD nomination by an account with four edits to its credit. This means that the deletion is somewhat provisional, and if the article is userfied, improved and resubmitted, a new AfD should be considered as a chance to give the issue a second look. Sandstein 09:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia for Georgians[edit]

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

The article is a fine example of WP:CHERRYPICKING and propaganda. It becomes apparent after checking sources that most of the cited sources are authored by pro-Russian people, such as Sergey Markedonov and Anna Matveeva. It's now widely accepted that the pro-Kremlin propagandists have no compunction against faking facts to demonize post-Soviet states, especially those not aligned with Russia.

The very first source states that the report of the use of the slogan as state policy by Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first president of Georgia in 1991-1992, was not a solid fact, but accusation. After further research, it was discovered that this cited source [10] states on page 101 that the slogan actually belonged to Gia Chanturia, who opposed Gamsakhurdia. While the slogan certainly existed, the article so grossly misrepresents it as a name for state policy of Georgia aimed at extermination of Georgia's ethnic minorities that it borders on hoax.

Some statements are not actually supported by the cited sources. Page 72 of this source [11] is cited in the article, but it only mentions Kenya instead of Georgia. Konstantine Gamsakhurdia is mentioned in the article, but the cited source [12] doesn't even mention him. The article says that "Mixed marriages would be discouraged" by this supposed policy and cites 4 sources, but the sources don't mention anything about prohibition of mixed marriages. Igor Giorgadze is also cited in the article, but his cited work [13] doesn't even mention "Georgia for Georgians."

Another fine example of falsification of sources: "This policy resulted in the decision of the South Ossetian parliament in 1989 to declare its intent to unite with North Ossetia as part of the Russian Federation." Gamsakhurdia, the alleged author of the policy according to this very article, did not hold any office in 1989. Then this text follows: "resulting in the revocation of South Ossetia's autonomy and the merger of the region by the Georgian authorities to Shida Kartli (literally "Interior Georgia")." The latter sentence is supposedly backed up by Ossetian propaganda source [14], which does not even actually mention any such slogan. The entire paragraph is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH.

Furthermore, the article claims that many Azeris "were forced to move from the land on which they had lived for centuries", however, the cited book itself cites another source published in 1984. I highly doubt that anyone had heard about Georgian politician Gamsakhurdia in 1984. Furthermore, the same cited book makes claims demonizing Georgia on the same page and cites dubious Russian sources.

It's very telling that the pro-Russian creator of the article was permanently banned for abusing Wikipedia. Without further ado, deletion of this inflammatory article per WP:TNT is the only logical thing to do. To conclude, the Georgian nationalism deserves better and neutrally-written article. Integrist (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entry was intended by its now community-banned editor (and his permanbanned ally) to illustrate the alleged exclusionist character of Georgian nationalism, but, as expected, the article and its talk page has long become a hotbed for anti-Georgian sentiments. Any attempts at compromise utterly failed because both of these editors were inherently biased and hyperaggresive. All major problems with this article are perfectly summarized by User:Integrist. Most reliable sources mentioning this slogan just say that the slogan was allegedly used by a politician or a group of politicians but none of them attempt to illustrate it as the basis of political ideology or state doctrine. I don't think that Wikipedia has room for allegedly used isolated slogans, the impact of which on Georgia's society and politics has never been established by any source used in the article. --Kober^Talk 07:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "alleged exclusionist character" or "alleged use", there are many sources (some of which I have cited in my keep opinion, that say that in Georgia there existed policies that were openly exclusionist in character and polices whose intended effect was exclusionist in character, that those polices were advanced by Gamsakhurdia, and that "Georgia for the Georgians" was the ideology (it was more than just a slogan) used as the rationale behind those policies - and most say that Gamsakhurdia actually used the slogan as well as promoting the policies. The article was created over 8 years ago and many editors have worked on it, so any alleged long ago issue regarding its creator can have nothing to do with this AfD. In addition, Russavia, as anyone who knows Wikipedia history knows, was banned as a result of secretly organized off-Wikipedia gaming via the Eastern European Mailing List. Russavia was unblocked after the resulting investigation [15]. However, his justified unwillingness to accept the whitewash of an investigation into the EEML became an annoyance to many highups in Wikipedia and eventually culminated in a community ban at the demand of Jimmy Wales (after Russavia mischievously commissioned an infamous Pricasso painting of Wales). Russavia's status has no relevance whatsoever to this AfD discussion, and his banning had nothing to do with this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TNT This article is in place of the article on "Georgian nationalism" as part of a series for every ethnic group (see infobox at bottom). Info about the slogan could be included in such an article, but the whole article shouldn't be about the slogan instead of a well-balanced article on Georgian nationalism. I say delete, and let someone recreate it as Georgian nationalism instead of just being about one phrase that may or may not have been attributed correctly. We already have the category (Category:Georgian nationalism) so we just need a good article to go with it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Nationalism does redirect to this article, but it is not necessarily a replacement for it. Looking at recent talk page discussions, there has been suggestions that the redirect be removed. I think that delinking would be correct, and might encourage the creation of the missing article. Georgian nationalism is a much broader subject and would covers a vastly longer time period. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested WP:TNT. Clearly, the article has problems with biased sources. Georgia for Georgians may not have been Gamsakhurdia's own slogan, but the slogan existed in some way (was it really actual policy?) and it appears clear it was embraced by Gamsakhurdia's supporters, and has been discussed frequently so has notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, even if part of a larger article. IMO it is much better to have an article dealing with Georgian nationalism as a whole, as this is the primary topic we are dealing with. If the article is so large that GfG should be split off into a separate article, then that can be discussed. We need to look at this neutrally and start over with the best possible sources. The current article and its history have been tarnished by Russavia; TNT is the best route. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, nothing you are saying are legitimate AfD delete arguments. You cannot argue to delete an article based on who created it 8 years ago. TNT apples to rewriting problematic existing articles from the ground up, not deleting one article that has legitimate notability with the hope that someone will create a different article full of content that would be off-topic for the deleted article but for which the deleted article's content might find a place. So you also cannot argue to delete based on that - nor can there be an argument to merge since there is nothing to merge it into. If you want to TNT this article, keeping its title, there has to be an article there to TNT - so you need to make your vote "keep". Problems with existing sources are not delete reasons - they are content issues. If there are problems with sources, why are there no recent talk about it? The article's last talk page post was back in December 2014. What has prompted this AfD, initiated by an editor who has edited nothing else? Is it because I cited the "Georgia for Georgians" policy in another AfD [16] for an article which audaciously tries to revise history and actually present Gamsakhurdia as a unifying figure for the whole Caucasus? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete this article and keep its title. I want it to be deleted and its topic (which I DO think is notable) be discussed in a more comprehensive article called Georgian nationalism, which currently only exists as a redirect to this article about the slogan; I find this very WP:UNDUE. This is what I've said. I have nothing to do with initiating this AfD, I have nothing to do with the Caucasian Federation AfD. I'm coming from a neutral place. And it is my opinion that notoriously corrupt permabanned editors are like a cancer on this encyclopedia. When you come across problematic articles they created and worked on, possibly under numerous socks, the articles should be TNTd. So with respects to you, please don't tell me I need to change my vote to keep. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to keep this article with this title then your TNT proposal cannot work within an AfD discussion. TNT requires the article to remain. The Georgian Nationalism redirect is currently being proposed for deletion, as suggested by earlier editors in the Georgia for Georgians talk page. I think "Georgia for Georgians" is too subject specific to cover a very broad topic like Georgian Nationalism that would cover a much wider time period and subject matter. This would leave the way open for an actual "Georgian Nationalism" article to be created. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article about a notable specific extreme political policy that was held and acted upon within Georgia. It was a policy which had very adverse effects on social cohesion within Georgia, and was one of the factors that prompted the various breakaway conflicts that blighted post-soviet Georgia. The idea expressed in the AfD rational that the policy did not exist, that it was a "hoax", that it was unconnected to Gamsakhurdia, is absurd. The casual dismissal of sources as "pro-Russian people", "pro-Kremlin propagandists", etc, has no validity - and anyway, problems with specific sources are content issues, not delete reasons. We do not delete articles just because they are detailing events that a particular country would rather be forgotten. The proposer has not cited a single legitimate delete reason in the AfD rationale, they are all alleged content issues (about an article that has had no content discussion for two years, suggesting a lack of legitimacy in those content issues). Google Scholar has 116 hits for "Georgia for the Georgians" [17], 111 for "Georgia for Georgians, [18] (there is some overlap in results), and 12900 web hits for "Georgia for the Georgians", 7150 for "Georgia for Georgians" - more than enough to prove notability. I have provided relevant quotes from some of the Google Scholar derived results below. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In The Geography of Ethnic Violence, by Monica Duffy Toft (obviously a pro-Russian person) published by Princeton University Press (obviously pro-Kremlin propagandists), 2010, in the chapter dealing with the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict, page 94: "In Tbilisi, the cause of a "Georgia for the Georgians" intensified, despite the fact that a good proportion of the inhabitants of Georgia were neither Georgian or Christian. Georgia's minorities felt threatened and mobilised in response"; also on page 94 the author quotes R.G Suny - "Tragically, Georgians made political choices that deepened social and ethnic divisions"; and on page 96 Toft writes: "Gamsakhurdia's political dominance unnerved the ethnic minorities. ... So his slogan 'Georgia for the Georgians' was interpreted as a battle cry for the suppression of minorities".

In Language hierarchies in Georgia by Driscolla, Berglund & Blauvelt, "Caucasus Survey", 2016 [19], on page 3 "Georgians overwhelmingly elected Zviad Gamsakhurdia as their first president, who infamously called for Georgian "ownership" of "their" republic, and is, fairly or unfairly, credited with fanning an environment of ethno-religious nationalism that threatened the interests of non-Georgian minorities".

In Georgia : The Ignored History by Robert English, The New York Review of Books – 6/10/2008 [20], "Trying to understand the Ossetian, Abkhazian, and other minorities' alienation from Georgia without reference to the extreme nationalism of Gamsakhurdia is like trying to explain Yugoslavia's collapse and Kosovo's secession from Serbia while ignoring the nationalist policies of Slobodan Milosevic". "Gamsakhurdia ...rode to power on a wave of chauvinist passions. Both were demagogues who manipulated justified popular grievances and crude popular prejudices to demonize "enemies"--a tactic that soon became a self-fulfilling prophecy". "Gamsakhurdia's "Georgia for the Georgians" would be established by curtailing the rights and autonomies enjoyed by Georgia's internal minorities, privileges he saw as divisive vestiges of the Soviet system. And as he acted on that program—rising between 1988 and 1991 from opposition leader to parliamentarian to president, Georgian relations with the republic's Abkhazian and Ossetian enclaves went from being strained to being violent". "...[minority] groups were scorned by Gamsakhurdia as 'ungrateful guests in the Georgian home'." "Gamsakhurdia ranted that subversive minorities should be chopped up, they should be burned out with a red-hot iron from the Georgian nation.... 'We will deal with all the traitors, hold all of them to proper account, and drive [out] all the evil enemies and non-Georgians'". "Gamsakhurdia's aggressive nationalism and strident denunciations of "devil Russia" and its "traitorous" allies within Georgia pushed moderate Abkhazians and Ossetians into support of outright secession".

In Rose Colored Glasses? by Paul Manning, in Cultural Anthropology vol22, 2007 [21], page 176 "With the regime of Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1991–92), technocratic socialist elites were replaced by nationalist cultural ones. "...because of its rabid, almost mystical, ethnic nationalism, that there emerged a rather sharp polarization of the population into “Zviadists” and their opposition."

In The pawn of great powers: The East–West competition for Caucasia by R.G Suny, Journal of Eurasian Studies, vol. 1.1 2010[22], "Attempts by the Georgians under its first president Zviad Gamsakhurdia to end the autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and create a unitary “Georgia for the Georgians” led to ethnic and civil war, his own defeat and death, and the de facto separation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia."

In Abkhazia and Georgia: Time for a Reassessment by George Hewitt, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 15.2 2009 [23], page 187 "Georgians had already from late 1988 succumbed with relish to the destructive nationalist calls of such anti communist leaders as Merab Kostava, Zviad Gamsakhurdia and Gia Chanturia..." Such rallying cries as "Georgia for the Georgians" signaled the dangers minorities would face in an independent Georgia".

The above sources show that Kober's assertions that Georgia for the Georgians was an "allegedly used isolated slogan", that it was not "the basis of political ideology or state doctrine" in Georgia, and that "the impact of which on Georgia's society and politics has never been established by any source" are all incorrect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source, provided by the OP, proves that the real author of the slogan was Gia Chanturia, but you have an agenda to impute Zviad Gamsakhurdia.

Although your sources say that tensions arose between Georgians and the ethnic minorities during Georgia's transition to independence, they don't absolutely prove that Gamsakhurdia in his official capacity sanctioned a state policy named "Georgia for Georgians" with the aim of discriminating non-Georgians. Sources also say that the slogan did not actually intend to suppress ethnic minorities, but rather it was probably wrongly interpreted as such. Actual meanings and interpretations are two different things. Insistence on correctness of one given interpretation is not neutral. One should not forget that pro-Russian stance of Georgia's ethnic minorities radicalized Georgian independence leaders and ultimately led to tensions. The cause should not be mixed up with the effect.

The OP is right that seemingly-reliable Western publications sometimes use questionable Russian sources. You've used a work by Robert English [24] to prove that "Gamsakhurdia ranted that subversive minorities should be chopped up, they should be burned out with a red-hot iron from the Georgian nation.... 'We will deal with all the traitors, hold all of them to proper account, and drive [out] all the evil enemies and non-Georgians'". Robert English cites Stuart J. Kaufman, Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War (Cornell University Press, 2001), p. 110. Kaufman's book in turn cites a newspaper article by Valery Vyzhutovich, published in Russian newspaper Izvestia in 1990, for this controversial quote.

George Hewitt is a representative of the Abkhaz government [25], so his work can hardly be considered a reliable source on the conflict between his employer and Georgia.

You are free to cherrypick all of the possible sources that can be found, but they won't hide the severe issues in the article that may well be beyond repair. Best Regards.178.15.173.228 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "impute" Gamsakhurdia, every source I cited imputes him. There is no ambiguity in the sources: they say the slogan existed, that it represented a policy, Gamsakhurdia is thoroughly implicated in the use of the slogan and in the carrying out of the ideology the slogan represented, and the "Georgia for the Georgians" ideology was a central cause behind the secessionist wars that broke out post-Georgia's independence. Our anon does not seem to realize that on Wikipedia the status and credibility of information increases according to the number of RS sources that repeat it, see WP:USEBYOTHERS. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War, by Stuart J. Kaufman, 2001, p.127, "Emotive slogans played a critical role in making all of this happen... perhaps the most loaded and effective of all was "Georgia for the Georgians" which so neatly encapsulated for both sides the Georgians' chauvinistic national goals. It was mentioned more than any other slogan as the one that brought Georgians into the street - and even more, that prompted the backlash amongst Ossetians and Abkhaz that eventually led to war." "Without understanding the central role played by these emotive slogans and uncompromising goals, it is impossible to make sense of ethnic mobilization and ethnic war in Georgia."

Guidelines and Recommendations for EU Conflict Prevention and Management: The Case of the South Caucasus [26], page 13, describes Gamsakhurdia as an "ethnic entrepreneur" who came to power "under the pretext of democracy", and that a "dangerous explosion of nationalism from the Georgian side" was "reformatting the Georgia-Ossetian and Georgia-Abkzas dimensions into a Georgia-Russia conflict". On page 14 - "In this atmosphere of hate and instability, Zviad Gamsakhurdia's "Free Georgia Round Table" coalition, which brandished the slogan "Georgia for the Georgians" won in an overwhelming victory the elections for the Georgian Supreme Soviet in October 1990. There is no doubt that the party and Gamsakhurdia were democratically elected, but actions and hate speeches of these figures opened the stage for what should become a bloody protracted conflict in South Ossetia and Abkhazia"

Georgia: A Political History Since Independence, Stephen Jones, 2015 - p.232, "Gamsakhurdia split with the radical opposition in May 1990 in preparation for the October/November Supreme Soviet elections, and used the demographic threat from within to garner support. Driven by an ecstatic vision of Georgian unity and the threat of multiple enemies, his rhetoric helped shape a psychological state of siege amongst Georgians." p.223 "Gamsakhurdia threatened and belittled Georgia's national minorities. He encouraged the persecution of teachers, farmers, and academics in Gori, Bolnisi, and Tbilisi simply because of their ethnic origin.", Gamsakhurdia was "a political bully and incompetant tactician" but "capable of calculation". "His appeal was linked to the identification of internal and external enemies. ethnic or not, who could be blamed for the crisis". p.234 - "Illiberal populism is a better framework for analyzing the full spectrum of the Gamsakhurdia phenemenon". Under Shevardnadze (Gamsakhurdia's successor) "The rhetoric of militant nationalism was expunged from the official lexicon, replaced by concepts of citizenship, minority rights, and federalism". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the material provided above address what I wrote in my comment. The problem is not if such a wording like Georgia for the Georgians ever existed, but if there is anything peculiar with Georgia for the Georgians in comparison with any X for the Xians. I question the intentions and sincerity of the creator of this article, for having created an article which had no parents (like Georgian nationalism etc.). I do understand you can disagree with me, but I neither opposed nor supported the deletion. There must be better ways to address subjects than using sensationalistic titles (which opens the door for reactive behaviours). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk)

Comment Exclusionism is the norm rather than exception during any process of nationstate building. It's a behaviour of a higher state entity, the same way as an individual will be possessing some innate characteristics (or behaviours). If this wasn't the case, nations wouldn't exist. The level of homogeneity required to sustain and maintain a national revolution requires some form of othering those who are perceived as alien elements. Editors should be careful not to impute general social behaviours to a group in particular. X for the Xians is an archetype which doesn't have an author. Often, the problem with this kind of article, is that it isolate arbitrarily one example and it's title will prevent anyone to adequately address the contexts and bigger picture. The opposition doesn't seem to be the information itself, but how and where this information must be presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Georgia is on the borderline of Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Despite uncertainty, I added "{{ds/talk notice}}" in the talk page. I'll notify those about discretionary sanctions on pages related to Eastern Europe soon.
~~As long as the title remains "Georgia for Georgians", I would say keep. Entirely notable on its right. Editorial conflicts are insufficient reasons to delete this article.~~ --George Ho (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --g. balaxaZe★ 08:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Russian propaganda machine certainly had an incentive to exaggerate the meaning of some random rallying cry for demonizing anti-Soviet figureheads such as Gamsakhurdia. Then the Western media and scholars probably blindly accepted the Russian narrative or inaccurate reporting as a fact. As the origins and the meaning of the slogan are unclear, it is misleading to portray it as Gamsakhurdia's invention purportedly materialized into law and politics.178.15.173.228 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Mikheil ^Talk 18:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue is not notability of the slogan, but unencyclopedic and POV nature of the article. The only purpose of the article is to cultivate anti-Georgian sentiments among those, who are not well-versed in modern history. The refusal of certain editors to accept the explanations of serious flaws of the article is disruptive.--Georgiano (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace - I am convinced by "delete" arguments that the page might not be appropriate for Mainspace. However, the arguments concerns me. The article may be anti-Georgian; so are the sources. However, the article is too large and valuable to be deleted. If moved to draftspace, users may still have time to balance the article and then not do this all over again. Also, most of those voting "delete" are ethnic Georgians (by looking at user pages) and felt insulted by the article. As said before, I added "ds/talk notice" just in case. Before I say "keep" again or "delete", I'm going to read "Wikipedia is not censored" rule, "WP:Propaganda" essay, and Wikipedia:Offensive material. --George Ho (talk) 07:27, 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. The assertion that the articles fail WP:BASIC was not rebutted during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iurie Emilian[edit]

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

It's not quite clear what these guys' claim to notability is supposed to be. They're both mid-level officials in a private organization, and have received essentially zero independent coverage. These people aren't exempt from WP:GNG, which they fail; thus, the articles should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-it's not just some "private organization", Scouting is the world's largest youth movement with some 30+ million members, and Emilian is the Director for the region encompassing Russia and the former Soviet states. That's pretty big.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - agree with Kintetsubuffalo --Egel _Reaction? 11:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not a single third-party reference about this guy that I can find, much less one that discusses him in-depth. There is one mention of a Iurie Emilian in a book from 2010 but it has nothing to do with Scouting and it's not even verified it's the same guy. Being executive director of a regional board of an international organization does not meet WP:GNG on its own. Without the third-party coverage, the only way he would meet GNG is if he had received some kind of prestigious award, for example, Order of the Republic (Moldova) (which again probably would have been mentioned in a news article.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kintetsubuffalo --evrik ^(talk) 15:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - The World Organization of the Scout Movement is not just any private organization, and they aren't just mid-level officials. The president of a national Scouting organization is notable (which position Sergiu Chirică held), as is director or chair of one of the six regions of the World Scout Bureau. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to a provision in WP:BIO which states this, or are you implying that WP:GNG/WP:BASIC are irrelevant in this case? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "implying" nonsense, reading things into others' statements that are not there, is your red herring I spoke about, a cute little ploy often used in these AfDs where the nom feels he must answer every single "keep" vote. Seen your type a lot around here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let me rephrase, and this applies equally to your similar comment below. Per WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Can you demonstrate that the subjects meet the universal standard for notability as applied to biographies? (That standard, I will remind you, makes no exemption for mid-ranked bureaucrats in a private organization that happens to interest you.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in their own right and doesn't "inherit" notability from being a member of the Scouts administration. It may be that the article on the scouts might mention this person but that that does not mean that this person merits their own article. Fails WP:BIO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu Chirică[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Strong Keep for the same reasons, and these really should be made separate nominations, not bundled together.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - agree with Kintetsubuffalo --Egel _Reaction? 11:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, whatever the dimensions of their organization happen to be — and they're not quite at the top — WP:GNG/WP:BASIC still apply, and there's no indication they meet those criteria. Are you suggesting they don't have to? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice red herring.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being a "red herring", this is a question that lies at the crux of the debate. Are you able to demonstrate that these individuals "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? If yes, please do so, and I will gladly withdraw the nomination. If not, we cannot presume notability and should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This whole "suggesting" nonsense, reading things into others' statements that are not there, is your red herring I spoke about, a cute little ploy often used in these AfDs where the nom feels he must answer every single "keep" vote. Seen your type a lot around here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sergiu Chirică for same reason. There's an economist with this name who has been quoted on financial matters but even if it's the same guy, it again fails GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Kintetsubuffalo --evrik ^(talk) 15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Notability must be established by WP:RS that are independent of the subject. I can find none.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. No indication of notability in their own right and doesn't "inherit" notability from being a member of the Scouts administration. It may be that the article on the scouts might mention this person but that that does not mean that this person merits their own article. Fails WP:BIO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Crawley[edit]

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

Not my natural field of articles but I happen to notice he's not satisfying anything listed at the rugby union notability and the WikiProject's own list, therefore there's nothing suggesting actual notability, especially by noticing the easiest part: The leagues of his teams are not the major leagues. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rugby league, not rugby union, player. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RLN and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per J Mo, doesn't appear to satisfy any notability requirements. Mattlore (talk) 23:27, 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 00:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Square[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines. This article is a recreation of a page previously redirected per an earlier AfD and deleted per an RfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's not similar enough for a G4 speedy, but there's still no evidence of notability any better than the last go-round. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Caplan[edit]

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

Not seeing enough to verify notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nearest we have to a claim of notability is that the subject has written one paper published in a publication describing itself as "an informal letter magazine" which has , according to Google Scholar, received no citations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Townsend Letter for more information about the status of this magazine. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability and the article seems to be quackery. MartinezMD (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just being a businessman does not make one notable, and that all that is even asserted. Almost could be deleted for no coherent claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 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 00:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by number of hotel rooms[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and trivial content. Doesn't appear to meet the criteria for lists notability. Ajf773 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on a spot check of the articles listed here (and why these cities are singled out is anybody's guess), this information is too trivial to include within city articles, I can't fathom why we need a list built around this particular statistic. The lack of consistent definitions (from the article: By "city" this may or may not mean metro area, depending on the source. Additionally, the definition of a "hotel" may vary, some sources only include corporate-owned hotels, however the information is consistent within at least one source) makes it impossible to view these as comparable values, even if it was decided that this metric is important enough to build an article around. Antepenultimate (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are thousands of cities in the world so where is the cut off point? This list has several inconsistencies within itself and is totally unverifiable. Surely different sources will give different figures as it is essentially just an estimated figure anyway? This fails WP:LISTCRUFT on points #1, #4, #6, #8, #11 among others. Also see WP:SALAT. If that's not enough to delete this then I also think that maintenance will be an issue; with new hotels being built everyday, the figures would need to be maintained regularly to account for this. Spiderone 23:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list mixing apples and oranges (hotels + short-term flats + hostels, or not) in city limits or the whole island - If Bali gets whole island treatment, I would venture to guess that Britain or Honshu (and perhaps Taiwan or Oahu or Long Island) has more hotel rooms - and why wouldn't we divide NYC into its various islands, and well...not comparative nor useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Delete per WP:NOTSTATS as well as WP:NOTESAL, too, I daresay. There are a number of accepted parameters by which to group and rank cities but # of hotel rooms is not a notable metric. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Horner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Closed the first time as merge, then simultaneously discussed at Deletion Review and spun back out to a stand-alone article. Bringing back to AfD for a clean decision on whether to keep it or not. This is purely an administrative action, I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gah. i was the one who re-created this article. I was unaware of the DRV that was opened a week ago, over a deletion discussion that happened 2 years ago. FFS. The DRV was inappropriate for being stale and should have been closed on that basis. I find this "admistrative AFD" kind of bizarre as the DRV and the recreation were completely unconnected.

~~In any case, snow-close this as there is no actual question of notability raised in the nomination.~~ Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to National Report for now. If more comes out about him then article can be recreated. Fails GNG at this time. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were already enough independent refs to meet GNG when you !voted; I just added more. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paul Horner was just on Vice News, I say keep the page. There's so many links for this guy, just do a Google search of his name. http://www.hbo.com/vice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.159.207 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New article, new interview, new profile -- with Rolling Stone, titled: "How a Fake Newsman Accidentally Helped Trump Win the White House - Paul Horner thought he was trolling Trump supporters – but after the election, the joke was on him". Sagecandor (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just found this recent article, new interview with Paul Horner, new profile -- with Buzzfeed ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.66.181 (talk) 21:35, 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. SOFTDELETE because of lack of participation. I had closed earlier as NO CONSENSUS for the same reasoning, but re-closed after User:Davey2010 pointed me to this discussion, which fits the situation here. Joyous! | Talk 01:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Kids (Asia)[edit]

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

Non notable channel, Google brings up nothing at all, The article could probably be merged or redirected to Discovery_Communications#Discovery_Networks_International however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 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 00:47, 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 01:27, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Chandio[edit]

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

promo The Banner talk 18:10, 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 02:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. All of the references cited in the article (except one that of wordpress) are reliable sources and I have checked them, Chandio easily passes WP:GNG. Since the nominator's concern is 'promo', the appropriate action would be to remove material that promotes the subject in any manner. sami ^talk 22:13, 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 00:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not meet the criteria for CREATIVE. No works in permanent collections of major museums. No substantial criticism of his work. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noticing this is close to closing, I'll comment and I'll note the Keep vote of WP:GNG is not as convincing as actual policy, and with that, we can remove it especially since there are in fact no museum collections, and that itself establishes significance hence notability; it's not the case here , since there's also no equivalent of major art reviews, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 19:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The subject may not be passing on WP:CREATIVE. But somehow he is passing on WP:GNG. References are from Dawn (newspaper) and The Express Tribune, I guess they are reputable news agencies in Pakistan. samee has valid points. Hitro talk 20:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not the same thing as applicable notability in WP:CREATIVE, exactly how WP:GNG is not applicable if WP:NOT is of essential use, therefore because he's not notable as an artist, there's no substance in the career he's best known for, or in this case, not notable for. SwisterTwister talk 21:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister Is he failing on WP:GNG. Are those references not reliable or substantial? Please do not manipulate the guidelines. Lets go through basics. Hitro talk 21:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- @The Banner I don't know why no body has pointed out yet but it's the silliest rationale for deletion I have ever came across. "Promo"... "Promo" is G11...If it's not G11 then place advert tag... why are we discussing deletion??? ...... Don't you think you should give some proper rationale while nominating... I don't think people who take part in deletion discussions have to create reasons for deletion as they are doing here Hitro talk 20:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a nice guy. Unfortunately, your rant makes your own arguments silly. No personal attacks please. The Banner talk 20:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are a nice guy and I mean it but how did I attack you personally? I am talking about your rationale that you placed while nominating. You nominated this, so going against your nomination is a "personal attack"? Hitro talk 21:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your keep vote is indeed no personal attack. It is your rant that is a personal attack. Like {...) but it's the silliest rationale for deletion I have ever came across.. That is not a content-related argument whatsoever, just attacking the nominator. The Banner talk 21:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually I pinged nominator that is you... so I was pointing towards you, i was commenting, not ranting. But I was not attacking, I just didn't like the way the article was nominated for deletion... I always try to support discussions about non-English speaking world as per WP:WORLDVIEW, most of the times articles are deleted even though they have non-english reliable references but nobody pointed them out.. Hitro talk 21:33, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hilton hotels in London[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Many entries are unlinked. List pertains to be more of a promotional tool for Hilton Hotels. Ajf773 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; I agree that the list is essentially promotional Spiderone 18:00, 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 00:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Promotional. MB 04:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of business sites such as this is much better handled by the company on their website. Blythwood (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With only one re-creation in its history, I'm disinclined to Salt the title. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pole Position Raceway[edit]

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

Not notable. Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. There are thousands of small businesses like this. WP is not a business directory. MB 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt given this was still deleted in 2010 for advertising before it was started, hence if this had been deleted sooner, chances are it would've been restarted and we would be at AfD again, hence the serious solution here is salting it and only ever allowing Drafting to AfC so it can be thoroughly examined before acceptance. That's especially since this company is so trivial as it's only a minor chain of local amusement parks, there's nothing close to genuine notability here.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 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. Certainly no consensus to delete this article. There is ongoing debate about whether the topic is best handled as a standalone article at the current title, or redirected to Snow White and The Madness of Truth. I direct interested editors to the discussion page of the article. Joyous! | Talk 01:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunilla Sköld-Feiler[edit]

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

Not notable fails WP:ARTIST Shrike (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep American Google News search indicates WP:GNG criteria met. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Sources are ok. Expansion needed but that is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 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 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snow White and The Madness of Truth per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOPAGE. The subject seems to be notable only in association with the controversial artwork. The nature of coverage is all about the artwork and hardly gives significant focus on the subject. There is nothing else to show that the subject is independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snow White and The Madness of Truth. I didn't find any information about here, which is not connected to that artwork. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search would help you. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see me expressing IDONTLIKEIT? And I am capable of simple google search. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snow White and The Madness of Truth My searches did turn up a few hits on her name, but all of them that I clicked on were about the 2004 Snow White project; even the few more recent articles. For the mostpart, I merely scanned the headlines that came up in a search, and they were about scanned the list of headlines were about Snow White. If she is notable for anything else, or if there are major media profiles of her ouvre on beyond Snow White, flag me and I'll reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 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 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kwang Lee[edit]

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

Still no clear evidence of notability, after being tagged for 16 months. References include non-independent sources, such as publicity for a gallery showing her work, and sources barely mentioning her. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:14, 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 00:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find reliable third party citations about the subject or about their works. It is also not clear how they would pass WP:ARTIST here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and I concur there's nothing for actual substance for notability, and is in fact subject to deletion by policy alone. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 22:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milano Pride[edit]

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

Other than having no sources, this article seems like an attempt to advocate the organization per WP:NOTADVOCATE JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- there seems to be plenty of Italian-language sources online that could sources this article. Just hit the "news" links above. I can't read Italian very well, and have never been to Milan, so I wouldn't be of much help. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 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 00:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It hard to believe that event like pride parade in one of the biggest cities in Italy is not notable. The article definitely needs expansion, but if you search google for it, you find tons of references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 1068[edit]

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

Not really notable at all, fails WP:GNG WP:NASTRO/WP:NASTCRIT. Davidbuddy9Talk 20:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 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 00:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, no context provided to help determine whether or not the star is noteworthy enough for a page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found it listed in a table of Red Dwarfs with the following: Although their physical characteristics are no longer considered to be unusual among nearby stars, preliminary distance estimates for the following celestial objects indicate that they also may be located between 20 to 32.6 light-years (ly), of Sol." That doesn't sound to me like it is yet notable. MB 04:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did find a 2005 parallax measurement[27] and it is a nearby star with a high proper motion motion. However, based on a check for scholarly ghits, it does not currently appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content. As far as I can tell it has never been subject to substantial study, just inclusion in large statistical samples. Fails NASTRO and the GNG. Modest Genius ^talk 18:37, 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. consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong JingYu[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NBADMINTON criteria Domdeparis (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, created article talkpage with women's sport project so that project participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - changed the title of the article to reflect her American name "Jing Yu Hong". Wouldn't WP:NBADMINTON #5 criteria apply here 1 ? Hmlarson (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article meet WP:NBADMINTON 3, 4 & 5 Stvbastian (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBADMINTON #3. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NBADMINTON. St Anselm (talk) 04:18, 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 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Forum (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable former program; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Prod contested in 2009, not gained significant coverage since then. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two season, totaling 7 episodes. No claim of significance other than simply being on the air. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N fails easily for a show that didn't get far beyond the dregs of Chicago public access and has a common format. Nate • (chatter) 01:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 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.

^ https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/paul-horner-amish-trump-vote-hoax

[1] AIFD

[2] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[3] "LEAF PRESENTA SU NUEVA LÍNEA DE ZAPATILLAS Y REAFIRMA SU COMPROMISO CON TECHO". Retrieved 2016-08-17.

[4] ttps://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/paul-horner-amish-trump-vote-hoax

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]