Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 November	28 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted by Iridescent —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjim Ashraful Haque[edit]

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

Of the cited sources, the only non-trivial coverage is a primary source interview–Haque in Haque's words, devoid of any independent analysis. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including by Bengali script name, found only one other source deeper than a passing mention.[1] It is mainly about his company, but contains one sentence about him.

My initial thought was to merge to Ecstasy Limited, which could have a paragraph about its founders, but there isn't a sourced paragraph of encyclopedic content worth merging. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With sadness, because it's a cute show. :-( Joyous! | Talk 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Happy Family Show[edit]

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

I actually like the show for what it is and I'm not saying a show like this can't be notable, but I'm nominating this for deletion only due to the fact that as of now, it has a low amount of coverage. Los Angeles Times is a very independent source, but we need more than one independent source for the subject to be qualifiable for a Wikipedia article. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's surprising that something that has such a following has not gotten much verifiable recognition that qualifies for a wikipedia article under the significant coverage criteria. And yet that appears to be the case. The sole reference to the LA Times article is not about this show; rather, it receives tangential acknowledgement near the end. Given that so much of this entry's content is not referenced, it's probably original research, which alone merits deletion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually do still look forward to the day when this show becomes notable, though, but beggars can't be choosers I guess :/ editorEهեইдအ😎 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C&K Markets[edit]

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

Tagged as not-notable by Aboutmovies over 2 years ago, in 2014. One source says it went into and out of bankruptcy. Notable? Sagecandor (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no sign of notability. No reliable sources are listed in this article. SPEEDY DELETION PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion293 (talk • contribs)
Comment: The current article content is minimal but it is worth taking into account the changes on Talk:C&K Markets which were proposed by an editor with a declared COI, in particular its "Community & Awards" section. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches (Highbeam, Google) are not finding in-depth coverage concerning this company, merely routine announcements. As to the various award placements listed on the Talk page, these are predominantly local or table listings (e.g. #98 in the National Retail Federation 2013 list), which fall under WP:AUD. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or wider WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found their press release on their website, which was published on October 18, 2016. It states several store closures by year's end. In my opinion, it seems some store locations still exist, however it needs more coverage in reliable source for notability. Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:42, 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 00:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh s. p. srivastava[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography, by a user whose edits are almost exclusively about himself. Although strongly discouraged, autobiography is not forbidden; but apparent use of Wikipedia for self-promotion makes us look hard at the evidence for notability, and I do not see it here. The article is neatly laid out, but the achievements listed are: director of two commercials; assistant director on two TV shows; music assistant on two movies; "executive producer" on one movie. "Executive producer" sounds grand, but the IMDb listing shows two executive producers, listed below the actual producer. The references are directory entries, with no substantial coverage, and searches do not find any. This is far short of the the notability standard of WP:FILMMAKER. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any reliable source about this person. Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 03:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-I follow a simple quote by DGG (talk · contribs) in these cases--Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. I haven't found any sources either, and this is clearly a promotional effort. --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete this article has some valid link about his work. so kindly consider it before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofcoursecrazy (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete this article has some valid link about his work. so kindly consider it before deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshsrivastava.dir (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; in addition, the keep arguments by the two users above have nothing to do with any Wikipedia policy Spiderone 11:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Executive producer of an unreleased movie is getting too far. Since he made the article himself, and even voted keep in the AfD, I would suggest him to produce a movie, before creating wiki articles.PierceBrosnan007 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Mello[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I could not locate any reliable sources to support the claims made in the article, other than the one cited primary source: Music Media Solutions. To say the source provided is reliable is a stretch - Mello is listed as the VP and managing pattern of the company in the bio section. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, no sign of notability whatsoever. Speed deletion please! Scorpion293 (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. I don't see how this musician passes as notable. I did a quick Google search and only found information about a (different) person who allegedly committed fraud. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, while watching this for several days now, I will note that this is literally an advertisement finished with a company website as a source, hence entire advertising and the history also emphasizes it, case closed as advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 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. WP:SNOW close. A clear consensus for deletion is evident in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power_Seven_Conferences[edit]

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

Uncited/misinformation, rampant vandalism, edit warring because of a non neutral party editing the uncited misinformation Encmetalhead (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why CSD the article then put it up for AfD this makes no sense. --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the (seemingly bias) editor kept deleting the tag so I wanted to make sure this article was properly vetted for possible deletion. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the CSD. Misinformation, vandalism, and edit warring are not good reasons to AfD pages, otherwise there would be no pages at Wikipedia. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice how they are trying to blank this discussion and canvassing for votes/support. Both against the rules. Encmetalhead (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up at WP:AIN. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, none found via Google search. This term seems to be WP:OR. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but until then, the article should not be in WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term does exist. I have found it used in a number of different sources, but I am having trouble finding any in depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. The lack of RS citations in the article is also troubling and suggests a good deal of WP:OR. At the moment the article appears to fail WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide these citations if you are able. If not, the article is likely to be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an essay and does not support neologisms.--Rpclod (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that at some time today, among the dozens of edits that I was disinclined to wade through, the opening words of this article were changed from "Power Seven" to "Power Eight". Could someone familiar with this topic area explain, without any editorialising, what is going on here? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It stems from the catholic 7 seperating from the Big East and leaving behind the all sports schools. They were eventually given the Big East name and the all sports schools became the AAC. If you know about the old BE you know how intense the rivalries were. That has carried on in a sense as it's now BE vs AAC. So it's most likely a few BE fans trying to place their bias spin on the landscape and a few AAC fans trying to say "we see you and respect you, but should be included as well." In the end both schools and the A10 (whom I believe is an innocent bystander in this incident) are technically high majors. Now if there was an article that laid out what each tier is, what makes each tier that tier, and what conferences are in which tier and was properly sourced that may be a good article but then you may have a battle each time a fan of a school sees it and doesn't like where their conference is placed. Encmetalhead (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, but I was hoping for an explanation that could be understood by someone other than a diehard fan of American college basketball. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of popular couple hated each other. When popular couple broke up, friends split into two fractions and the fractions attacked one another. Encmetalhead (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article had citations to reliable sources, we would be able to learn what this is from those reliable sources. Please provide them if you are able. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:V and probably WP:GNG. This looks like a WP:OR essay and while I have found a few uses of the term, none come close to the kind of coverage needed to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, not in common use. Compare Power Five conferences for football, which is used regularly. There are a few scattered articles which do use "Power Seven" but they all post-date this article's creation which raises a potential WP:CIRCULAR issue. Mackensen (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that we can't even decide on the basis of reliable sources whether this is a "Power Seven" (as in the article title) a "Power Eight" (as in the article text) or a "Power Six" (as suggested on the talk page) means that we do not have the sources needed to write an article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the article content discusses "Power Eight", I have moved it to that title, which should not affect its deletion if that is the result of the AfD (simply delete and the redirect from "Power Seven"). I have no opinion regarding the nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. You have moved the article from one neologism to another. That is not helpful. From WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. "No prohibition" is your loophole; go ahead and jump through it, as usual. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when the "eight" was inserted as part of an edit war, with the editor introducing that change being blocked. I would be in favor of moving this article back to Seven until the AfD is complete, and if rename is the consensus (which seems unlikely) then we do it. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One neologism is as good as another (if indeed they are neologisms), and the results of this AfD will apply to the article under whatever name it is titled. In the meantime, it is confusing to the reader to have an article under title X while the article discusses Y. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I move it backed and changed the Eights to Sevens, don't move it again. Encmetalhead (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most probably won't, but not because of the ludicrous attempt of an editor with 971 edits over 9 years to pull rank. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism with no WP:RSs. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely does not satisfy WP:GNG even if some WP:RSs were to be found. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also this is getting into WP:SNOW territory, maybe it's time to close this one out. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:14, 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 to "KEEP," and nomination was withdrawn. Joyous! | Talk 00:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (band)[edit]

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

Can't find anything that qualifies this for WP:BAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really? A quick Google found all these: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BAND. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Harris (radio personality)[edit]

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

No indication of notability fails WP:BIO JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little to no evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE, and no good sourcing to support a WP:GNG claim; the two sources cited here both just namecheck his existence in the process of failing to be substantively about him. As always, every radio personality who exists is not automatically a valid article topic, if "he exists, and here's an article that happens to mention his name once to prove it" is the best you can actually do. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local radio personality, although I might be stretching the term to even call him that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as literally as trivial and unconvincing as it gets, especially the last paragraph which is so mindblowing as advertising, I had to question whether it was in fact part of the article. Simply advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 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 00:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibran Noorani[edit]

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

Only passing mentions, no significant coverage. Kleuske (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article has been created for informational purpose please contest this deletion and keep it on wikipedia its a real person and kind of famous in Indian Film industry

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshayzine13 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Akshayzine13 (talk Removing Deletion warning from the Gibran Noorani and Considering its Wikipedia's decision anything comes out please mention on my Akshayzine13 (talk talk page of [:Gibran Noorani]] talk page —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. No WP:GNG criteria met. Seems like potential self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the above assertion about the subject being "kind of famous", the tailored Wikiproject India search identifies no coverage about him. The sources in the article and available from a standard Google search are mainly the usual social media plus some listings as a dentist. No reliable 3rd party sources indicate notability whether by WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any reliable source about this person. Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 03:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not "a place for information". It is an American charity and an encyclopedia. It is not a free web host for aspiring wannabees. This guy is totally ordinary. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 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. I am only deleting the article originally listed in the AfD as there is consensus that it does not meet criteria for lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be a consensus that List of hotels in Lagos is a better-quality article, so for now, I'm leaving that one alone, with WP:NPASR in effect. Joyous! | Talk 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Port Harcourt[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability with barely any list entries having their own articles (whose notability is also questionable). WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR Ajf773 (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of hotels in Lagos seems to be an appropriate navigational list since it has multiple bluelinked hotels with their own articles that suggest individual notability. At most, these could be merged back into List of hotels in Nigeria, but not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am considering nominating that article for deletion as well, pending the outcome of these two articles AfD's. Ajf773 (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Ajf773: List of hotels in Lagos should be left out of this AFD discussion because all entries without articles have been removed from the list. It is now at par with other "hotels in city" related lists. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing notability for lists here. Explain to us how it passes WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LIST. Almost all of these would be red links. This is not a major tourist destination, nor would any business people stay in Port Harcourt, except for local interests or those in extraction industries. Just because Lagos is a major city for hotels does not infer that so is Port Harcourt. We are not a web host for the Nigerian hospitality industry. If necessary, redirect to Nigerian hotel advertising scam. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bearian: Your view of seeing this article as a scam is ridiculous. WP:GOODFAITH should apply here. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good faith applies if a good faith effort has been made. I don't see any effort to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I just see walls of text. I've travelled to 20 countries, and stayed in dozens of hotels and hostels around the world. I'm on record for editing hundreds of articles about subjects and places the global south; just see my user pages. I can't assume good faith when I see a list that is such a mess and is littered with red links, about a city that is justifiably notorious for its Nigerian prince scams and street crime. Please, give me three good reasons to change my mind. To clarify, for the record, I would keep the list of hotels in Lagos. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Charles (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to delete the Harcourt list, but Lagos? Sandstein 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of hotels in Port Harcourt per Bearian and Charlesdrakew.--Rpclod (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion regarding List of hotels in Lagos and agree that should be a separate AfD.--Rpclod (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Port Harcourt - per nom; the Lagos one probably needs to be done in a separate AfD to avoid confusion; they're two very different articles in terms of quality and notability claims Spiderone 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the confusion? Both articles are similar in nature and nominated for the exact same reasons.Ajf773 (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued as being navigational. I would personally say weak delete for Lagos as it's not inherently notable and I can't find any evidence of LISTN or GNG. It is, however, different to the Harcourt list because the Harcourt list only has one notable hotel whereas Lagos at least just lists notable hotels. Spiderone 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be done on two different templates as persons might want to vote keep for one and delete for the other Mahveotm (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Two templates are not required. These two were bundled into one AFD because they are both similar in purpose and nominated for the exact same reasons. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vote to keep the article about Lagos and delete or improve tremendously the article about Port Harcourt.Mahveotm (talk) 18:49, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Brown (scrutineer)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Mrluke485 with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). What can I say - two years has passed since the prod, the article still fails to indicate notability just like it did back then. And I still don't see any in-depth coverage, few passing mentions is all I am able to find, and that does not seem sufficient to warrant keeping this as an independent bio. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I removed the prod, because it was never explained why you wanted it deleted. This man was involved directly with the Eurovision Song Contest, the reference I provided was from a well insighted Eurovision book, surely that's enough evidence for this article to excist. I personally don't want most of these articles that play key involvements with the Eurovision Song Contest to go, it isn't fair. MrLuke485 (Talk), 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google results for this person are almost non existent, only relevant hits are this Wikipedia article and a couple of other sites that have basically copied this article, fails WP:GNG in my opinion Seasider91 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions in books and/or Eurovision links. Work at Eurovision is notable. The already existing source alone is establishing notaiblity. BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Work at Eurovision is notable. Seriously, this argument is getting old, and it is not supported by anyone except you and one or two Eurovision fans. How about you try to pass Wikipedia:Notability (Eurovision) by the community first, before repeating the same line time and again, given that there is certainly no consensus for it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why would a scrutineer be considered notable? One reference does not establish notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a question? Or a standpoint. Yes, one ref does establish notability if it is good, and it is. BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:Notability. Has not has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Subject is already mentioned in Eurovision Song Contest article. CBS527^Talk 21:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and I will note there's still simply been nothing for an independent notable article, hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sources seem to confirm that, yes, he did work on Eurovision. None of the sources I could find provide really in depth coverage required for WP:GNG. I don't have access to the source used in the article, but I find it doubtful that it would devote more than a page to the subject and that is not enough to provide depth of coverage. I am open to being proved wrong. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Ezeanubekwe[edit]

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

Non-notable sound engineer. Refs from LinkedIn and Facebook, but nothing that meets the notability criteria. Yintan 19:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MMall124 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you choose to delete the article, please nominate file:Maurice kings.jpg in Commons for deletion and give there link to this AfD request. Taivorist (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is not yet notable. I believe he fails WP:ANYBIO. He has been nominated for several times to receive significant regional awards, but it is probably not enough yet for him to be considered notable. We do not know how close he came to win any of those awards. Furthermore, WP:BASIC is not being met. The photo at the Commons should be nominated for deletion too, if this article gets deleted. Ceosad (talk) 18:01, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Fresh Onyenma[edit]

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

Non-notable studio assistant and script editor. Doesn't meet notability criteria. Yintan 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, plus all self sources, no third party coverage or notice. JamesG5 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you choose to delete the article, please nominate file:Kingsley Onyenma.jpg in Commons for deletion and link this AfD request. Taivorist (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely to meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage. Fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. The file at the Commons should be nominated for deletion if this article gets deleted. Ceosad (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, there's no actual substance for notability here and that's exactly why it was PRODed to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 08:04, 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. Sandstein 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daisey Bailey[edit]

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage, primarily a handful of similar obituaries and the odd local mention of her extreme age, but nothing to establish notability. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP , Daisy Bailey was an important Supercentenarian and one of the oldest people ever born in 1896, having her article is warranted. /Chimney148 — Chimney148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Is she was one of the oldest people ever born in 1896? In fact, Daisey Bailey was only 9th (or 10th) oldest known person ever who was born in 1896, behind Besse Cooper, Chiyono Hasegawa, Maria Gomes Valentim, Venere Pizzinato, Walter Breuning, Eugenie Blanchard, Eunice Sanborn, Florrie Baldwin. (and unverified case, Ida Stewart.)Inception2010 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Routine coverage. Three dead links to obituaries that look like they only repeat the basics (born, lived, had kids, died) doesn't make someone notable. Redirect to relevant list is fine also. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WEAK delete. I don't know that she have enough notable for created the page. There is also a method of marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People. (Just as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris.) Inception2010 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not established by old age nor how long a thing has existed.--Rpclod (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify what you mean, Rpclod? If I look at coverage regarding our current world's oldest person, I notice that in the last couple of months she was featured in many newspaper articles on a regular basis, and in more countries than just her native one. Moreover, reasons to feature her were myriad - just to mention a few: May^[1], June^[2], July^[3], and October^[4]. On top of that, googling her 117th birthday provides me with birthday articles from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Ireland, Germany, Norway, France, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Sweden... and that is just the first two pages of search results^[5]! In other words, how does "old age alone" NOT establish notability when in some cases - note the word 'some' - it clearly does? Surely, there must be some sort of undefined appeal in our world's oldest people that attracts interest from the general public and the media, be it our world's oldest secrets to a long life, or our own sheer disbelief at their age. Notice how Guinness, for instance, does consider the world's oldest person to be a recordholder (^[6] and ^[7]), thus showing there must be something notable about age. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize the references you list discuss someone other than the subject of this particular article?--Rpclod (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but your comment is a general comment ("notability is not established by old age") and thus does not restrict itself / refer solely to Mrs Bailey. Therefore, I still wonder if you could elaborate on your comment. Thank you. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing suggests that WP:ANYBIO criteria are met and hence no notability exists.--Rpclod (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you are now talking about Mrs Bailey? Fiskje88 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. Although Mrs Bailey's media coverage was mainly restricted to when she was alive and she has therefore seemingly disappeared from our collective memory (for some reason, recentism seems popular on Wikipedia), I do feel that she deserves a special mention in the list of American supercentenarians, seeing that she is still well within the top 100 oldest people of that country. Fiskje88 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Classic WP:NOPAGE -- the usual "She credited her longevity to always praying, loving, forgiving, and eating vegetables". E Eng 04:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.blitzquotidiano.it/blitztv/emma-morano-116-anni-ci-si-arriva-single-e-con-uova-crude-2461083/
^ http://nepszava.hu/cikk/1098330-a-titok-a-ket-nyers-tojas
^ http://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/44814/
^ https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/33044154/emma-morano-worlds-oldest-person-and-egg-fanatic/
^ https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASUC_enNL572NL572&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=emma+morano&tbm=nws
^ http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-person
^ http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2016/5/guinness-world-records-announces-emma-martina-luigia-morano-as-worlds-oldest-liv-428983

What is the purpose of this list if the references relate to someone other than the subject of the AfD?--Rpclod (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Evolved[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no substantial hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Put another way, there isn't enough reliable, secondary source content to write a detailed and verifiable article on the topic. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 17:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References are two non-authoritative lists and several dead links.--Rpclod (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable gaming news site. Unless more secondary sources are added, there's no reason to believe that this subject is notable. Omega625 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear to be notable enough for its own article as I couldn't find any articles about the site. However, I did find some sites referencing it like [10] [11] [12] [13] So the content on the site is/was probably reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:03, 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 00:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Donkey Ollie episodes[edit]

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

Non-notable television program. Main article deleted over a year ago. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Donkey Ollie was indeed prodded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- episode lists are dubious at the best of times. Having one for a non-notable TV show whose main article was deleted is completely inappropriate. Reyk _YO! 09:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 season and no references.--Rpclod (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the main article wasn't worth keeping, the episode list certainly isn't. ~ Eidako (talk) 09:27, 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 withdrawn as per improvements made to the article. Bradv 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skipp Townsend[edit]

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

Biography of a living person, fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources given for verification. Apparently not eligible for BLPPROD as it has a link to his website. Bradv 19:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:V; an unreferenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notability appears to be there, although the page is obviously a PROMO by a purpose-created SPA. Here [14] is a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview from which some bio details can be sources (text plus video as sources). Ditto for this [15] Voice of America story (different story, different year). More detail from The Daily Beast [16] again, different context, different year. Several pages of similar popped up on a simple gNews search. continuing over several years, so, not W:P1E. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable per several established sources and GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- none of the sources presented have been added to the article, so I cannot vote "keep" just yet. WP:TNT still applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - because I always enjoy K.e.coffman's comments and have been more of a deletionist lately, I took the challenge and modified the article. Because I have now biased myself, I will defer from !voting. Regardless, I think this was a good nomination by Bradv and hope this moves the article in the right direction.--Rpclod (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements; an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catia Ojeda[edit]

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

After the PROD was removed, I checked the sources and none of them actually support it. Fails NACTOR and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON Supporting role in the Legends of the Hidden Temple TV movie, and a somewhat supporting cast role as the main character's mom for Just Add Magic which is minor notable. 101 Dalmatians is promising since it's a starring role as Pongo's wife. Still waiting for another lead role. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and AngusWOOF's comment above. A promising start and this could be appropriate in the future, but just not right now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swan 70[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches come up with nothing, there aren't any reliable sources covering this. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an infobox, corporate link, and purported reference in one book does not show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am concerned about the factual accuracy of this. I would say do a TNT delete here and let someone else who is interested start it again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. A valid rationale for deletion has not been advanced by the nominator. Topic notability is not based upon the presence of other Wikipedia articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Army installations in Italy[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG due to adequate List of United States military bases. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the adequacy of another article has to do with the question of whether this topic passes WP:GNG. There are loads of sources that cover these as a set, for example a 20-page chapter in ISBN 9780198291329, so that guideline is easily met. That still leaves the question of whether it is better to organise our content as one all-encompassing list or separate country lists, but that's nothing to do with the general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 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 no consensus. Merging all related articles into one can be explored further. Sandstein 08:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha P-115[edit]

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

Source searches are providing no significant coverage to qualify an article; does not meet WP:GNG. Sources used in the article are not reliable or independent per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defense against deletion

I don't know how to dispute this accurately, so I'll copy and paste the response on the talk page here. Might do some good.

There are similar articles for other specific Yamaha products, some exist without a single citation. Yes, some citations here are not independent, so I'll go ahead and change them. I'd prefer a friendly notification next time instead of an outright request for deletion. I made this page a day ago, please give me more than 24 hours to finish it up. If you still don't think it meets the standards of the dozens of other similar-length Yamaha product pages, some of which include not a single citation (independent or not) then go ahead and delete this one.

If this page should be deleted, I argue all Yamaha product pages in this same category should be requested for deletion. Yet they're not, so why is this one under scrutiny? Semmendinger (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a new article called "Yamaha P-Series" with the others: Yamaha P-85, Yamaha P-115, Yamaha P-120, Yamaha P-250. It's a reasonably long-running series of professional products which are independently reviewed, but on its own it's not notable. It doesn't have the history to merit individual articles. Compare to the Roland MC-series, for context. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an idea that would work. I do not know how to merge them specifically but would be willing to help in shaping the page. I agree that the other pages are perhaps not the most informative on their own. Semmendinger (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references not affiliated with Yamaha, hoping to bring less bias to the article. I've looked into the idea of a merge as well, and while their names share the symbol "P" not all "P-xxx" instruments Yamaha makes are of the Portable Piano line. Calling it P series might confuse it with other of their portable series' so I would think it's best to keep them separate. I'll continue to do my research about this article to get it removed from AfD. I find it interesting still that this article is nominated for deletion while the others are not. Semmendinger (talk) 03:42, 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 no consensus. I've decided to close this as no consensus because there have been two re-lists and it has been at AfD for well over a month now. There is no general consensus among the participants and therefore, I'm closing this because a third re-list would be unlikely to benefit the debate. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 12:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin & Alakadam[edit]

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

Per source searches, this new Indonesian soap opera does not meet WP:GNG at this time because it has received inadequate coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep national show, "Aladin & Alakadam" = 6110 Ghits, "Aladin dan Alakadam" = 19300 Ghits, many of them news articles, I'm seeing no reason to delete.

5630 news sources: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Timmyshin (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:GOOGLEHITS do not confer with notability on Wikipedia. For example, I can type in "sdfgsd", which means nothing, and Google returns around 35,200 Google hits. Could you provide links to actual news articles or other coverage published by reliable sources about the topic? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Timmyshin (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The series seems to have enough coverage, as provided above. None of that is in English, but that is not required by WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see no references that meet WP:RS. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 23:19, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament[edit]

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

Finding zero coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:N at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Seriously? Conference basketball tournaments in Division I receive significant coverage and are broadcast in whole or in part on national TV. The winner gets a berth in the NCAA Tournament, which attracts enormous coverage throughout the country and world. Every men's Division I basketball conference tournament going back as long as I can remember has had an article, and deservedly so. Clearly notable. In the unlikely event consensus is that this for whatever reason isn't notable, it should be redirected to Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament rather than deleted, as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable in such a case. Smartyllama (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON – It is so ridiculous to repeatedly come across articles about events which haven't happened and are therefore completely lacking in substance. Indiscriminately slapping together content with happenstance sources is one thing. Pushing what's supposed to be an encyclopedia further in the direction of yet another current events site and/or news site is another. Acting as if there's no obligation to create articles about past events where notability and reliable sourcing is well established only makes things worse. What part of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" requires further debate? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- RadioKAOS - At the very least, the page should be redirected to Big Sky Conference Men's Basketball Tournament. First of all, that's what WP:NSEASONS says we should do when the individual seasons aren't notable, and second of all, this will clearly be notable eventually even if it isn't now, and preserving the edit history will be useful. Smartyllama (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are hundreds of articles of precedent for this. Also, it's already notable, but if it wasn't it would become notable in about two months. The inevitability of its notability is enough for me. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there are many other conference tournament articles already created, I don't see why this one should be deleted. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the 2016–17 college basketball season is well under way, conference tournaments for this season should already be notable. — Dale Arnett (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jrcla2 and other above keeps. 2604:2000:E016:A700:BCF9:21E6:5705:D71E (talk) 21:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guanábanas Collection[edit]

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

Following the deletion of Los Reyes de Pichaera at AfD, I am nominating the rest of this group's albums for deletion as well, as none of them appear to pass WP:NALBUM, and there is a total lack of sources online. I am considering nominating the article for the group itself as well. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as stated above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of media coverage. Albums have not charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage of any of the albums. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No significant coverage for any of these albums, and I'm not even sure if the band itself passes notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:53, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Userfication should be requested at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Toys (film)[edit]

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

Presently, this film may fail at WP:NFILM. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Considering WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON, this article should be deleted. Hitro talk 11:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. I can't really find much out there about this film aside from what's already in the article and what's in the article isn't enough to satisfy NFF at this point in time. I have no objection to a userfication, although I would prefer that if it was the original article creator, that they have someone to look over the article before it gets moved to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forestway Shopping Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. At one floor and 50 shops this is a small shopping centre with very routine coverage LibStar (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:GNG as per nomination and created by the same user who has created several other articles for similar NSW shopping centres (which have all been subjected to deletion). Ajf773 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The article was created at 8:30am and was nominated at 11am ... All on the same day!, Editors are expected to leave newly created articles for roughly a week before nominating - Nominating 3 hours after creation is just bad faith, Anywho like above this should be allowed to be improved and sourced accordingly. –Davey2010^Talk 17:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article creator has had over 7 days to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replies inregards to my speedy keep

You may want to read WP:Potential, not just current state - there is no timelimit for articles, I've asked the editor if they'd work on it. –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

certainly the best way you or others could show keep is a demonstration of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't stated a "keep" so your comment is a non sequitur. I dont' see any evidence of WP:BEFORE D1 in the nomination. Is there some reason that you haven't prepared the community for a deletion discussion? Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is there a reason you constantly like to demand others to do things your way in WP? LibStar (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating isn't demanding anything ... He's asking a perfectly reasonable question which so far you've answered inadequately. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in my nomination I said there is routine coverage, and your gnews and gbooks search confirms. my nomination stands. Unscintillating has had a habit of demanding in AfDs because he will do anything to get a keep rather than arguing on actually meeting WP:N. here's another example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturt Mall (3rd nomination). LibStar (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the sources - It's about you nominating an article within 3 hours of it being created but anyway there's atleast 10 that are usable on Google News and 9 on Google Books. –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call that 10 usable sources. the shopping centre being sold or bought or small one line mentions are rather routine. there's only at least 1 I see as usable. and I would say none of the gbooks hits counts as indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources so it's a case of make the best of what we have, I would suggest withdrawing and adding these sources to the article. –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you miss my point, these sources do not establish notability. and the lack of sources proves it. I'm not withdrawing my nomination. the demands continue...LibStar (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources . notable ones do. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010. Sorry but still not convinced that a Speedy Keep is valid for this AFD, given that it has been open for long enough without any effort to provide notability from neither the creator nor anybody else.Ajf773 (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided sources however not all may be brilliant - Notabilty is there an keeping the article would mean the creator can carry on sourcing and perhaps find stuff we cannot. –Davey2010^Talk 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC),[reply]

none of these facts establish notability The shopping centre was owned by Arndale Property and was part of the chain. It has over 50 stores and was sold to an American company Invesco. There is no significant indepth third party coverage of this centre. It therefore fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has not been touched since creation and that was eight days ago. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment read WP:SK , none of the speedy keep scenarios are applicable. Therefore speedy keep is invalid here. LibStar (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(very) weak keep without prejudice to renomination - Story in the local rag at least hints at GNG. Not quite enough on its own (needs multiple independent), but it at least verifies the basic facts and it strikes me as likely that there would be additional sources available. Tag for refimprove and wait - if not improved in (say) 1 month then by all means renominate. COMMENT - "Speedy keep" is, in this context, only intended for the most blatantly bad-faith, disruptive nominations - this is not an example. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

replies

Nominating within 3 hours is enough for a speedy keep and AFDs like this have been speedy kept before, –Davey2010^Talk 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if nominating within 3 hours constituted blatant bad faith (which it doesn't), the subsequent good-faith contributions to the AfD by other editors disallow a speedy-keep close.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yeti. Ironically the time spent by others arguing for a speedy keep (when it doesn't apply in any case) could be spent actually finding significant indepth coverage... makes you wonder if this coverage actually exists. Hence my nomination stands. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article within 3 hours is bad faith, Editors contributing to the article doesn't automatically make ones Keep void,

I've found sources which are more than sufficient for this shopping centre - As I said hopping centres don't get much coverage so I would suggest you close this, add the sources and stop wasting everyones time, Might I suggest infuture you nominate articles a week after creation not 3 hours ?, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is stopping you from improving the page yourself? I see this far too often on AFDs where users argue the case for keeping articles by finding any old fluff from a Google search and claiming it as passing notability - yet don't bother actually applying it to the article in question. To pass WP:GNG articles need evidence of it. As of the morning of Nov 29 (here in my part of the world), the only other edit - other than articles initial creation - is the AFD template. Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doing a cursory gnews and gbooks search and suddenly declaring it's notable and the time spent arguing speedy keep instead of performing a deeper search to establish a keep case says it all. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the sources do not establish notability. Routine coverage and in particular the gbooks are mostly 1 line mentions. Keep making demands... keep arguing speedy keep. Your words will not change this or future nomination. Keep making demands... LibStar (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there was even an attempt to lower the bar of notability just so this article can pass Shopping centres don't get much in terms of sources so it's a case of make the best of what we have. Classic. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (I've collapsed the above as it all became waay too much here) - Well whilst we were all arguing over my glorious Speedy Keep !vote .... the creator hasn't touched the damn article at all, Although I did state there's no timelimit it doesn't mean the creator gets to bugger off and leave it ..... The whole point of my !vote was so that the editor could hurry up and source it but instead they've done nothing, Unfortunately my crappy laptop cannot operate 2 tabs without everything crashing so unfortuntely I can't check the sources but anywy as per LibStar & Ajf773 we may aswell get rid, Ah well remind me never to try & save an article again!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've collapsed my weak keep !vote up there. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops my apologies, I've hopefully corrected it now. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ - I have found the source and will keep checking of more sources, it is notable as it is in the busy suburb of Frenchs Forest. --BugMenn (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not yet notable, like most small shopping centers. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ It is notable as it is in the busy suburb of Frenchs Forest and I have found the sources. --BugMenn (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote 3 times. The coverage is routine and being in a busy suburb is not a criterion. Whatever you define busy as. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur this is trivial and unconvincing with no substance, so WP:NOT clearly applies. SwisterTwister talk 15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shopping centers are not inherently notable and this one receives no coverage other that routine confirmations that it exists. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welkom (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The only real link on the page is the link to the city Welkom in South Africa. The claim that Welkom "refers most commonly to" the Flo Rida song is utter nonsense: 1) The song in question is titled "My house", while "Welcome to my house" is the first line of the lyrics. Certainly not written as "Welkom". 2) Neither "welkom" nor "welcome" is mentioned in the target article "My house (Flo Rida song)"; the same goes for the article page of the album "My house (EP)". 3) The phrase "Welkom to my house" has an amazing 21 hits in Google. T*U (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no ambiguity to disambiguate with this word. Welcome is already a disambiguation page on its own right. Not seeing a need for this page. Joyous! | Talk 15:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep HiT*U. I just wanted let you know that at least in my country of Canada and in the USA when you search Welkom on Google Canada/USA and Youtube Canada/USA/UK the first thing that comes up is the Flo Rida song. That is unlikely to change as the song is now 2 years old. I think before you nominate Welkom (disambiguation) for deletion and say that Welkom to my house is more notable than Welkom, South Africa, you should go on Google Canada, Google USA, YouTube Canada, YouTube USA, and YouTube UK and notice that the Flo Rida song is the dominant Welkom search. User:Red Icarus of Jakarta (User talk:Red Icarus of Jakarta) 28 November 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Icarus of Jakarta: YouTube can obviously not be used to define a WP:Primarytopic. Neither can a Google search alone, but it would be of interest to see how you manage to get the search result you claim. Could you please provide a link to the Google search result you describe? --T*U (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FloRida song is not primary topic - only released last year and will quickly drop down Google rankings (see WP:RECENT). We have to think long-term and in 50 years the city will still be there but the song will be long-forgotten - it's not a classic. The other issue is that Welkom to my house is a bad redirect - that isn't the title and isn't mentioned in article. Google.co.uk came up almost exclusively about the city, only mentions of FloRida song were on song lyrics pages which always have errors, and this was with Googling the full phrase 'Welkom to my house'. There were also more song lyric pages with 'Welcome' rather than 'Welkom'. It's not even a partial match, which we don't list on dabs anyway (see WP:PTM.) Dabfix suggested adding Welkom, Northern Cape so I have. Not convinced it will ever merit an article though and probably shouldn't be redlinked, just added per MOS:DABMENTION, unless farmstead in South Africa could mean village? Even so, I couldn't find good sources and it certainly wouldn't be as notable as the city. It seems to be a 'farmstead' of 381 people ([22] was the best source I could get). Anyway, that could be dealt with via a hatnote. The line about what it means in other languages should be deleted. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Leaving aside the link to the primary topic and the unsettled matter with the song, there are entries for the other settlement (a farmstead?), a relevant wiktionary link and a "see also" entry for the similarly spelt Welcome. Although these three links could fit in a hatnote at Welkom (and hence render the dab page redundant), they're all quite peripheral and unlikely to be anything but clutter for the vast majority of readers of that article, so I'd rather keep them out of there and in the separate dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The farmstead is not likely to ever have an article, the song lyric is misspelled, and the only other article titles with "Welkom" in them are a school and a stadium in the city. This page is not worth keeping. — Gorthian (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the PTM issue for the song and per WP:NOTDIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minto Recreation Complex[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a municipal recreation complex, with some advertorial overtones ("much to the residents delight") and referenced only to its location on Google Maps and a press release on the city's website. As always, every piece of municipal infrastructure that exists at all is not automatically a valid article topic -- it must be reliably sourceable as notable for some substantive reason before an article on here becomes appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom. This fails to meet WP:GNG in any way. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. google maps doesn't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom and others above. MB 18:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra de Helen[edit]

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

Delete. Although this is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, it still isn't referenced any better -- right across the board, the referencing here is entirely to primary sources and blog posts, still with no evidence whatsoever of the reliable source coverage that it takes to get over WP:AUTHOR. As always, a writer is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists, if you have to lean on invalid sourcing to support it -- she must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable American writer with sources not passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As mentioned below, a redirect would make sense if there was a title, not for "untitled" —SpacemanSpiff 11:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Pawan Kalyan-Trivikram Srinivas Film[edit]

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

Purely promotional. Makes no credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This 'November 5' dated source says, the production has begun. Whereas, this recent source says the regular shoot will begun later this month. And, this old source reports of shooting happening only in december. Hence, keeping in mind of WP:NFF, the page shall be redirected to Trivikram Srinivas, until further confirmation from multiple secondary sources. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 02:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Chetan aditya blanked the page and performed page move and renamed the page as Hello hi. I have restored the content but cannot perform the page-move to the original page-name. Can an admin look into this? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BU Rob13. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFF. I do not see point in making an untitled a redirect; only if it was a confirmed title, I could agree for that. Anup [Talk] 04:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 12:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ventom International Network[edit]

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for WP:COMPANY due to lack of coverage in reliable independent sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely trivial from a place where we've come to expect nothing but literally advertising, so that's not hopeful for anything here at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly WP:PROMO on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 6 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. MER-C 04:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Root info solutions[edit]

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

Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In this case, it is missing reliable independent sources which talk about the company in detail. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Kleuske (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The main article text and references establish only that this is a registered company going about its business, with no claim of notability. Nor are my own searches finding anything to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. (The Root_info_solutions#Complaints section is sourced only to forum posting allegations. I have left it in place for the time being, though in my opinion it contributes nothing to establishing notability; if the article did survive this AfD, that section should be removed as unreliably-sourced.) AllyD (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGupta Dindayal (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC): It's neutral, non-promotional; reference sources are reliable independent, not based on any self published work. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_Automation also talks about Root info solutions. Gupta Dindayal (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection with User:Archana Gupta247? Marvellous Spider-Man 14:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepGupta Dindayal (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC): I don't know who wrote this article? But I think this article is about one month old, If I'm not wrong. At least 1000+ moderator on Wikipedia, nobody taken any action but suddenly why? I don't know.[reply]

I'm agree with !--(User talk:Gupta Dindayal) Template:Unsigned -->— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These two editors are showing WP:DUCK behaviour. Marvellous Spider-Man 03:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My sincere apologies User:Marvellous Spider-Man for anything that made you draw this conclusion; but let's stay up to the spirit of Wikipedia, doing what's desired.Gupta Dindayal (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion was regarding the article, not for or against any individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saroj Naagar (talk • contribs) 09:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine sources are insufficient. Nothing better found. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 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. Consensus moved toward "keep" upon drastic editing of the article. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star of the West (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary page. PatGallacher (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is unnecessary since we only have 2 pages and the Bahai magazine is now a hatnote on the page about the steamship, the primary meaning. I proposed this for speedy deletion under criterion G6, but the admin. disagreed. I suspect one of us may be misunderstanding G6, but I have taken it to AFD. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only other SotW item I could find was this milling company that has been around a long time but I don't believe has the notability to be its own article. [23] If someone disagrees, please chime in. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:2DABS. Proddable. Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PatGallacher, WP:G6 would have been applicable if the dab page contained only a single link to an article. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded it now. With such a title I imagine it's likely that more entries are added in the future. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know that. We can re-create this article should the need arise. PatGallacher (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Мандичка, Boleyn, do you think the newly expanded dab page can be kept? – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uanfala, yoy've done an amazing job, I'm embarrassed I didn't find some of those. Now has many valid entries; no longer any grounds for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uanfala's expansion! Thank you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:12, 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. Sandstein 20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akhdut[edit]

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

The article about this organization would appear to me to fail the tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article.
First of all, it does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. While there are mentions of this organization in reliable sources - The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz - they appear to be only reportage of Anarchist groups and movements in Israel, without any indication that that this particular organization was significant among them.
I also note that the organization's website is self-published via the WordPress blogging software. Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At present, Akhdut is the only anarchist organisation in Israel-palestain; that alone is sufficiant to grant it significance. Indeed, there are more anarchist groups and affenity groups in Israel, but not organisations. In Israel 2016, there was only one may day march, which was organised by Ahdut. Note that Akhdut's website moved to a new location. אילון אבנרי (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not enough, actually. WP:RS discussion of an organizaiton is required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Frankly uncertain~~ This is a new article on a fringe organization with a tiny amount of coverage in RS that appear to be driven by the group's novelty and association with violent protests. [24] Here the Jerusalem Post describes the organization as one of 3 Anarcho Communist organizations in Israel, with a total membership numbering somewhat more than the 300 estimated by other observers. If this is kept, I think the better solution would be to redirect and repurpose to something like Anarchist communism in Israel. Anarcho-Communists being, after all, known for the regular shifting of alliances and creation of new Anarcho-Communist splinter groups.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing iVote to delete as my renewed search has produces nothing more on this tiny, finge movement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable yet by itself with no significant coverage. I have no prejudice to create a redirect to Anarchism in Israel if someone wishes to enlarge that article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Being BOLD and closing as Speedy Keep - Consensus for schools is that one source has to be provided to confirm the school exists, Currently there is 3 all of which confirms the schools existence so to save a week of speedy keeps I'm closing a speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul Higher Secondary School, Indore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG — MBlaze Lightning ^T 12:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our usual practice is to keep articles on verifiable high/secondary schools. Is there any reason why this should be an exception? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Silence Show[edit]

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

This article appears to fail Notability WP:Albums. No published coverage other than download sites, no nominated awards nor ratings on music charts. Article has no references (tag added 2008). Album already mentioned in artist's article. CBS527^Talk 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fatty Koo[edit]

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

The group Fatty Koo was not deemed notable in an Afd for lack of coverage. Their album is also unnotable for the same reason. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should have been deleted when the band was deemed non-notable. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam Rankings[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet general notability requirement, no idea why this organisation's list is needed as an encyclopaedic article. No secondary sources. Seems largely to be a copy of the single primary source of the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not notable and failed to meet WP:GNG stipulations.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 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 01:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bisheaba[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable subject. Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as solely advertising and the 1 advertising account shown by the history confirms it. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable makeup artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable make up artist who does not pass any notability guidelines and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources either. Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:46, 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 speedily deleted as A9 (article about recording by redlinked artist with no indication of significance). Michig (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Cesspool of Culture[edit]

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

Non-notable album Jon Kolbert (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Akira Is Insatiable[edit]

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

A catalog-like entry on an unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Does not meet WP:NFILM, the awards listed (even if they were not PR driven) are not significant and well known. I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles follow the same format and have the same notability challenges:

Ass Worship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cheer Squad Sleepovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lesbian Seductions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For an AfD for articles of similar stature, please see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wet Asses

This was a group nomination; five pages were deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All four of these articles can't be bundled here because they weren't all created by the same creator; not to mention that they aren't even all from the same production company. But as for Cheer Squad Sleepovers and Lesbian Seductions...worst-case scenario, they could both be redirected to Girlfriends Films. Better yet, what's wrong with discussing the notability of pornographic films at WT:NFILM? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help comment Nominator asserts that all five of these articles have the "same notability challenges". Nominator has not prepared the discussion with the five WP:BEFORE D1 results, and four "Find sources" templates have not been provided. A quick count of references in the five articles indicates that those counts vary from 4 to 32. A review shows that the awards won by these five films varies. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested that the four extra articles added to this AfD be de-bundled. I have marked those four articles above with strikeout font. Please adjudicate the refusal of the nominator to de-bundle. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further admin help comment Although I stated in the above admin help that the four extra articles were marked with strikeout font, an editor just now removed those markings. However, this diff now provides the same information. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see a problem with bundling this AfD, as I've nominated film series from a variety of production companies, and they all have the same format (brief blurb + list of awards) and are equally notability challenged. All have been deleted, including a series from Girlfriends Films: Mother-Daughter Exchange Club AfD.

Re: WT:NFILM, any editor should feel free to start a discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there is little to no community support for the idea of a special porn film guideline, because NFILM was been working rather well -- in contrast to PORNBIO and its repeated attendant fiascos. The proponent has trotted the suggestion out repeatedly, and it has never garnered significant support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. None of these articles have any genuinely independent, substantive sourcing. And in no other field to we redirect non-notable works to their production companies/distributors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:59, 19 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]

Merge all relevant content as follows: Asa Akira Is Insatiable with Asa Akira, Ass Worship with Jules Jordan, Lesbian Seductions with Girlfriends Films, and Alexis Texas Is Buttwoman with Alexis Texas. Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevant content to merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is...there are brief descriptions of the films in question (including who directed them) & award/nomination sections...not to mention possibly some of the info that you intentionally, recently gutted from a couple of these articles before you brought them here to AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable franchise, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey and Wolowitz. Can't see any real notability here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the note that useful information has been removed from the articles prior to the nomination, here's the sample from Lesbian Seductions, Dec 2015 page version:

Lesbian Seductions 03

Released: June 30, 2005 (2005-06-30)^[1]
Running time: 163 minutes^[2]
Starring: Nina Hartley, Anna Mills, Porsche Lynn, Charlie Laine, Aspen Stevens, Nicole Moore

References

^ Lesbian Seductions: Older/Younger 3 (Video 2005) - IMDb. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
^ lesbian seductions 3 - porn movie - iafd.com - internet adult film database. Retrieved January 14, 2013.

That is why I stated that there was no usable information to merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clear here about what's really happened to some of the articles nominated at this AfD (in addition to many, many, many more articles that have been edited in recent weeks/months by the same editor that started this AfD), they recently gutted more than 85% of one of the articles, including removing info that was reliably-sourced (just like is highlighted above). Both IMDb & IAFD are reliable sources for release dates, running times, and/or cast lists for these kind of movies. Guy1890 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Reply to nonsense & "Reply to yet more baloney", pls see WP:NPA. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Information Management[edit]

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

A journal published by a vanity press whose article was deleted, with an impact factor of 0.303, and no reliable independent secondary sources. All sources listed are primary, and in any case directories. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In Scopus and has a JCR impact factor, so it meets notability via WP:NJOURNALS. --Mark viking (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Notability is not that bad, but I would suggest that should been merged and redirected to a specific article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Selected for inclusion in Scopus, Current Contents, and the Social Sciences Citation Index. Especially the latter is very selective. That the publisher is not notable doesn't mean that one of its journals cannot be notable (that would be kind of a reverse INHERITED, I guess). --Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so WP:ITSINDEXED is now policy, overriding WP:V, WP:RS and WP:GNG? This is a zero-impact journal and I cannot find a single source that actually talks about it. There is nothing apart from the fact of being indexed. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a single source that actually talks about it. Here's one for starters. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing - a book very much liek those published by IGI Global, of Hershey Pennsylvania, published by a company in Hershey, Pennsylvania. That is a very singular coincidence! And here's another: does the name Mehdi Khosrow-Pour sound familiar? this web page lists the editor of the journal which is the subject of this article. Small world, eh? Guy (Help!) 00:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently passes WP:GNG & WP:NJOURNALS Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Guy here . There's no indication in any secondary source that this journal is notable. agtx 16:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes Wikipedia:NJOURNALS Criterion 1 with citation indexes. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And of course you advocate keep, as the creator, and an editor with a strange desire to re-introduce the article on the vanity press that publishes this journal. But subject notability guidelines don't trup canonical policy. Where are the reliable independent sources about this subject? WP:NOTDIR regardless of how much people might want to use subject-specific guidelines as a box-ticking exercise in the absence of actual sources. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A vanity press, vanity publisher, or subsidy publisher is a term describing a publishing house in which authors pay to have their books published." (Wikipedia). The publisher does not charge for publishing so is not a vanity press. That said, by this definition, open access publishing by publishers like Elsevier is "vanity publishing"! —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the suggestion that this journal is published by a 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) 22:56, 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 01:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Vacchi[edit]

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

I've removed PROD, but opening a discussion. As a businessman he's not quite notable, but his Instagram blog has 6.6 million followers and as a blogger there are quite enough sources in press that may add support for notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete WP:SOAP probably applies. The page of Gianluca Vacchi on the italian Wikipedia ( https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianluca_Vacchi ) has been deleted, with consensus, at least 6 times. Currently it is protected to avoid useless re-creation and re-deletion. ALoopingIcon (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, in my opinion, the page should be kept, he is not relevant as businessman, of course, but he has become famous on social networks and is a sort popular culture icon (whatever the origin of his notability is). I think wiki would do a service informing his readers about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.204.32.169 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT per above. Totally run of the mill investor. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is an obvious self-aggrandisement of an individual with no substantive merit. With the possibility of purchasing social media followers and engagement readily available and in common abuse, the substantiation of Instagram followers or other platforms can hold no weight as a barometer of the individual's importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.84.40 (talk) 16:04, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Lund[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for movie producers. The sources in news search doesn't have article title mentioning him. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable movie/TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per notability guidelines and WP:BLP. The show he produces is relatively unknown and there is no substantial information about him as a person to reliably source the article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Wong (ice hockey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see that on recreation a user claims that he now meets WP:NHOCKEY, but I am unable to see how.18abruce (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of recreation his number of games in the ECHL met NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY has since changed to a more stringent requirement so would no longer meet it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thank you, didn't participate in these discussions until recently.18abruce (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet our notability requirements, the only sources are Worldcat and one book. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article effectively has one source. Seems to be a vehicle for expounding the views of Smelser and his colleague. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. and as discussed on the talk page. Kierzek (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article's creator: I'd note that the page was nominated for deletion a day after it was created. The nom apparently did not perform a WP:BEFORE to assess the subject's notability and look for additional sources, which I easily located and since added to the article: diff.

In a similar fashion, the nom questioned the notability of Ronald Smelser, one of the authors cited in the article & whose views are being "expounded" in it (please see Talk:Ronald Smelser#Query regarding notability). That was despite the subject being an academic with 30+ years of tenure at a major university & an author of multiple books, which have been published by university presses and widely cited & reviewed. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources used in the article indicate significant coverage. They appear to be passing mentions. My comment (not AfD) regarding Smelser is irrelevant, and I waited until another editor had also expressed concern about notability here before AfD'ing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How extensively is the company discussed in the book by Smelser/Davies? --Hegvald (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that coverage is fairly extensive for a niche publisher. For example, the authors treat Fedorowicz as the leading player in the specialty / militaria genre that publishes what they define as "guru" authors of the Eastern Front, such as Franz Kurowski, Richard Landwehr and others:

In some cases, as their [gurus'] appeal grows, they graduate up the scale of publishing importance from self-publishing to the myriad small presses, (...) such as Schiffer Publishing, Bibliophile Legion Books, Merriam Press; to the top, particularly to the Fedorowicz publishing house, which turns out scores of books dealing with the German army and related units during World War Two. To be published through Fedorowicz is to have arrived.

The authors also discuss Fedorowicz's role in bringing Kurowski to the North American market; their apparent agreement with the need to counter-balance the "defamation of the German soldier"; the licensing arrangement with Stackpole Books & how that expanded the reach of the authors that Fedorowicz had translated from German, etc. It'd say being covered in a work published by Cambridge University Press & held by 470 libraries is WP:SIGCOV for a publisher such as Fedorowicz. Hope this answers the question. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? You're saying that Smelser et al's work being held by 470 libraries is significant coverage of this publishing company? How exactly does that work? It is this company that needs "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, not Smelser et al's book. That would be the test for an article about that book, not this article. I think you're confused about what we're discussing here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that being covered in a book by two academics is significant coverage for the publisher in question. I.e. big fish (Fedorowicz) in a small pond (specialty / militaria publishing) as they are being profiled in a notable book (The Myth of the Eastern Front), vs having been profiled in a local edition of Winnipeg Free Press (See WP:AUD). Hope this helps clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "big fish small pond" characterisation is entirely unsupported with evidence. Your relationship to Smelser et al begs the question, given your promotion of them throughout WP, including through the creation of this article and the article on Smelser. The notability of the book (or Smelser) isn't relevant to whether this publishing company is notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently extensive coverage in a book by two professional historians and published by the Cambridge University Press. Coffman's reasoning looks convincing to me. --Hegvald (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has been described is hardly "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, and certainly not "extensive coverage". It is one source, for starters, and the coverage described is hardly significant. Are we to have an article on any publishing company that has ever been mentioned in a book? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffman claims that the coverage of this subject in Smelser's and Davies' book is extensive, not just a mention. If you are disputing this, please discuss their treatment of JJF based on the content of the book, not just by dismissing it. --Hegvald (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hegcald, you are missing the point that it is only one book and the opinion of two men as to the work of an entire company; that is not extensive independent coverage. Even with addition from others I am not convinced at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some discussions about the extensiveness of how this publisher is discussed in Smelsers book. I want to add that the book is on Google books (link), so everybody can form his own opinion on this issue. Dead Mary (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't even close: there is no coverage on Google News whatsoever, no non-affiliated hits in Gbooks. As for this talk of 'counter-balancing the defamation' of Nazi Germany's soldier's, fortunately, I don't even need to get into that. This flagrantly fails WP:ORG.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I would agree that this a non-notable special interest publisher. But it has a certain impact on the "popular culture of the Romancers", as documented by Smelser/Davies. The company provided translations of many revisionist and apologetic works, many written by German veterans, and made them easily available to an English speaking audience. Thus Fedorowicz inadvertently shaped the way German military history of WW II is presented in the English Wikipedia. In fact, some of the company's titles, like their "Panzer Ace"-series (3 vols.), were apparently instrumental in shaping popular culture, i.e. memory of WW II, so strongly, that a stand-alone articles like "Panzer ace" in popular culture is considered worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. That being said, the main argument for deletion is formalistic in nature. I doubt that WP:ORG is up to the peculiarities of the publishing market. Hard to tell, for example, if many of the smaller University Presses would be up to that challenge. So I did not find third-party source about the UP of Kentucky, which publishes many translations from German military historians. Anyway, there are now three further commendations by third party sources. Surely, the respective authors are like-minded and would not qualify as authorities of military historiography, but they support what are most likely unremarkable and uncontroversial claims, namely that J.J. Fedorowicz has a reputation and an impact in the field of militaria, which is exactly what Smelser/Davies claim. I am surprised, however, that this article was nominated for deletion so quickly, instead of asking for further sources or even adding content first.--Assayer (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assayer, your tagteam support of K.e.coffman is becoming highly predictable. I'm afraid that your argument just doesn't stack up against GNG, where is the requirement is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". This publishing house just doesn't have that. FWIW, this article came to my attention so quickly because K.e.coffman immediately started linking the article to the publisher fields in multiple articles on my watchlist. I mentioned my concerns about notability on the talk page (which K.e.coffman did not respond to), and my concerns were reflected by another editor, so I nominated it. Simple as that. That is how we test notability on WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was not how the article came to your attention, but that you nominated it for deletion within 25 hours. Simple as that. (But I'll keep in mind how notability is tested on WP.) I understand that in Wikipedia to speak of WP:TAGTEAM is considered to be uncivil. What you seem to suggest to me is, that I should not contribute in any discussions where K.e.coffmann is involved, unless I disagree and vice versa. Why won't you just explain, why you think that the cited commendations do not make up for the problem of "one source", since you strongly emphasized the plural? Are there still too few sources? Do you consider the coverage to be insignificant, and how, then, do you define "significant"? Do you think that these sources are not reliable? --Assayer (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether referring to editors as a tag team is uncivil or not depends on whether the claim can be substantiated or not. You regularly turn up on articles on my rather limited watchlist where K.e.coffmann is already involved (or vice versa), and I have yet to see a thread where you disagreed with him/her, often you appear to bolster each other's opinions. In my experience on en WP, it is rare that two editors' views so closely correspond, so it is hard to assume good faith in these circumstances. I've seen the same type of behaviour over the years on Yugoslavia-related topics, and I could easily provide a significant number of diffs of your editing and K.e.coffmann's to illustrate my concerns. To answer the substantive question, on face value, "significant coverage in multiple sources" means that more than one source has significant coverage. What may constitute significant coverage in Smelser et al's book is a matter of opinion, from what I can see of this clearly seminal text, I don't consider it is. The other sources have passing mentions at best. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems that you missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces, where I was certainly not in favor of Keep & Move and still think, that the whole concept of that article is misleading. It is true, that coffman's efforts encouraged me to contribute to a larger degree to the English Wikipedia, simply because beforehand I had, given the sheer number of sources of, imo, ridiculously low quality constantly being used, written off English Wikipedia on Nazi Germany military history as fancruft. If I can help to improve the situation by my knowledge of German language sources, I will be happy to do so, even if you don't like my opinions.--Assayer (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting 25 hours to nominate for deletion is in no way hasty, as these things go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above is considered a duplicate iVote. Suggest it be stricken. Pls see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice:

"If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed. Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD."

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as the editor who started the article I believe I do get to cast a vote (unlike the nom above :-) ). I've not found that the arguments advocating deletion have been sufficient at this AfD, for the following reasons:

Getting hits in gNews is a not requirements for WP:NCORP. In fact, the news hits are often a sign of a company doing self-promotion. The guidelines state:

WP:CORPDEPTH: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." -- we have at least one source that provides WP:SIGCOV. Other sources cited confirm that the subject is indeed notable in its space.
WP:AUD: "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" -- which we have here in an international source, a widely held book written by two professional historians. Smelser & Davies describe JJF as "the leading press" in its niche; this is sufficient claim to notability in my view.

The statement "no non-affiliated hits in Gbooks" appears to be incorrect as DeadMary has provided a link to the Myth of the Eastern Front from Google books; here it is again: link. Or is there another definition of what "non-affiliated" means?

The argument that "the requirement is 'significant coverage in multiple reliable sources'" seems to be a misstatement, as this is not the language that appears in WP:GNG. The pertinent language from GNG is:

"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."

There's no requirement there that multiple reliable sources provide significant coverage each. The guideline further states:

"We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view" and (from CORPDEPTH) "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability".

Multiple sources have indeed been provided and paint a "reasonably balanced" picture of the press: it receives praise from militaria authors, while two historians who studied the subject have provided a critical assessment. There's been no arguments advanced why these sources should not be considered reliable.

In sum, I don't believe that the delete votes have provided sufficient arguments at this AfD that are consistent with Wikipedia's policies and notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It will be unsurprising to most editors reading this that the creator of the article is against its deletion, just as the nominator is for deletion. I struggle to follow your argumentation. If multiple sources were not required, one would therefore be sufficient. It is accepted that one source is not a sufficient basis to establish the notability of a subject, therefore reliable sources are required. They need to cover the subject in a significant way. It doesn't say that if one source contains significant coverage, that's ok. Even if we accepted that Smelser and Davies' coverage of this publishing house is significant (which I don't), the other sources cannot in any way be considered to provide significant coverage. They are passing mentions at best. Therefore this article fails the GNG test as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It doesn't say that if one source contains significant coverage, that's ok" -- in fact, WP:GNG does:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM...."

Per CORPDEPTH, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." My contention is that the coverage in The Myth is not trivial nor incidental. The other sources present confirm that the subject is notable in its field and provide a different perspective. The coverage in toto needs to be significant, which I believe it is in this case. The OP appears to be misinterpreting the guideline in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate to see useful, referenced information discarded because it is not considered relevant. I don't like it when K.e.coffman does it and I'm not too keen on it here. Smelser and Davies seem to say that Fedorowicz is atop the heap in its niche, which is good, but the nature of their book means that much of it amounts to short case studies of rather niche-y things. According to the index, pages 206–18 cover the website Feldgrau.net (formerly German armed Forces in WWII). Likewise, Mark Yerger has similar coverage to Fedorowicz in Smelser and Davies. Do Feldgrau and Yerger deserve articles? (Maybe they do. I don't know.) I lean keep because I don't like to see valuable work digging up information go to waste, but I'm not sure this article currently demonstrates notability. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going by the reception section of this publisher has been discussed in multiple scholarly sources. It's a niche military history publisher, we shouldn't expect to see dozens and dozens of hits, but there's obviously enough depth of coverage for a decent article. Joe Roe (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check: it has only been mentioned in one scholarly source. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would <deleted> does not merit taking up valuable time and bandwidth for Wikipedia and its writers. As Peacemaker67 has mentioned above, I don't believe it meets notability standards Philby NZ (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this appears to be a pointy vote, given the editor's concerns & solicitation of opinions about my editing in the past, such as:

Copyright violations, describing my editing as "sabotage"
Misplaced editorial zeal: [K.e.coffman's editing] "has already p*ssed a couple of the researchers off enough into their leaving and I am getting to that level as well"
Contrary editors: "I just wish we can find a way to muzzle him and stop his arbitrary vandalism" Etc.

The related articles came to my attention both due to their use of unreliable sources, such as a fan site http://www.luftwaffe.cz/ (see Talk:Günther Seeger#Recent edit), and copyvio content (see Potential copyvio). The editor had been warned of copyright violations in the past so this must not have come as a surprise.

Most recently, the topic of web sources on Luftwaffe pilots was discussed at RSN (Luftwaffe pilots web resources), where the editor received the same response as they did from me (and another editor) almost two months ago (Luftwaffe pilots).

I believe that this vote should be further discounted by the closer, as the poster has not demonstrated sufficient understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in related matters. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philby NZ: Please consider striking the first part of your comment. AfD discussions should be about the article, not the person who created them. Joe Roe (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, FWIW. Tho I stand by my view that the editing history alludes to article-bias Philby NZ (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that K.e.coffman has already started deleting cites as "unreliable" due to the publisher, I'd say your original comment would fall under WP:SPADE. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Nug. To create an article on a small publisher of niche militaria based mainly on a source critical of just such niche militaria while simultaneously removing citations of works from this very publisher as "unreliable" is what seems pointy to me. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being suggested that Like a Cliff in the Ocean by Karl Ullrich is a reliable source? I'd also add that my edit summary was not about the publisher but about "Unreliably cited intricate detail". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information to a point that it needs to cite that regiments were redesignated several times to a source such as Ulrich. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a Wehrmacht regiment's structure and name? Yes, for that I think Ullrich is acceptable. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has received reasonably detailed coverage in a scholarly book, and some coverage in other sources so notability is established (especially if the lax standards which apply for the notability of the books its published are factored in per WP:BK). It's a reasonably prolific press, so there's likely to be more sourcing than is currently used through elements of book reviews and the like (that said, searches in Google News and JSTOR didn't return any useful results). The article strikes me as reasonably well balanced in its current state, and while it can certainly be improved it doesn't qualify for WP:TNT. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same book? Apart from the fact that J J Fedorowicz publishes books written by German veterans, what additional coverage does this scholarly book provide that couldn't be summarised in one single sentence? "Reasonably detailed coverage" would have to be at least chapter if we are to rely on a single source. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of this publisher in a single book, by Smelser et al, "Myth of the Eastern Front", is shallow and incidental, a handful of mentions of J J Fedorowicz as the publisher of this or that book written by some German veteran, and half a page about how Otto Carius thanks J J Fedorowicz for publishing his book in the foreword of Tigers in the Mud. Okay, I get it, J J Fedorowicz publishes books written by German veterans. That's about sum total of the "coverage" of this company. The company website reveals it is a tiny three man operation, being mindful of WP:NOTADVERTISING, do they really deserve a Wikipedia article? Doesn't objectively meet the notability criteria per WP:COMPANY. --Nug (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editor Nug and I interacted before, most recently at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism. Specific to the topic at hand (Fedorowicz and its war-romancing authors), we interacted at RSN when discussing the use of Franz Kurowski, one of Fedorowicz's authors, in an article on Otto Kittel, a WWII German pilot.

In the March 2016 RSN discussion, the editor advocated retention of Kurowski, asking "Is it really that difficult to identify and exclude Kurowski's "romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism" while keeping those details of the Wehrmacht that have been acknowledged to be accurate?" and that "to reject Kurowski completely as unreliable on the basis of [the Smelser] source is a little bit extreme". The nom agreed with Nug's overall assessment and, on a continuation thread at MilHist, described the article on Kurowski that I initiated as an "attack page". (This was the response). The participants are welcome to look at the Franz Kurowski article and decide whether it's an attack piece or an NPOV representation of the available sources.

Specific to the vote above, it does not offer sufficient argument for deletion, IMO. Company size is not included in WP:NCOMPANY; in fact, many companies with hundreds of employees are not notable for lack of RS coverage. This company (due to its role in the space of specialty military literature: "scores of books"; "one of the leading romancers' presses"; "to be published through Fedorowics is to have arrived"; etc) is indeed significant and notable, as evidenced by being covered by a notable, international source, plus additional sources.

This AfD is beginning to look to be more about Ronald Smelser and / or K.e.coffman than the article in question. Several of the arguments appear to be pointy, and should be discounted as not offering valid deletion rationales. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

??? I've only interacted with K.e.coffman in a handful of articles out of the hundreds that he has edited. The company size comment was in relation to WP:NOTADVERTISING. With regard to notability the bottom line is the coverage of Fedorowicz in this one scholarly source is extremely shallow and insufficient to achieve notability per WP:COMPANY. --Nug (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, the article is most clearly not an advertisement. I have no affiliation with JJF either. So I don't see how deletion on the WP:PROMO grounds would apply here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Nug has pointed out, the creation of this article based mainly on Smelser and Davies could be construed as pointy. Does Feldgrau.net deserve an article? Because it gets more coverage in Smelser and Davies than Fedorowicz does. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feldgrau.com could be notable. It is described in World War II on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites as "the most comprehensive online resource on the history of the German military between 1919 and 1945". Combined with the extensive coverage in Smelser & Davies, I'd say it would be sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that imply that coffman considers feldgrau.com a reliable source, or merely a notable one? It would be good to see an updated edition of that interesting book (thanks for including the link) since there has been a lot of addition (and dare I say improvement) of information on the internet in the 13 years since it was published. Not that its of consequence, myself just being an ignorant newbie writer Philby NZ (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and notable are two different things. It is interesting, though, that K.e.coffman thinks mention World War II on the Web plus several pages in Smelser and Davies is enough for a website to garner notability. I think far too much weight is being placed on a single work (Smelser and Davies). It's a reliable source, sure, and from the looks of it very good, though I haven't read more than a few passages on GoogleBooks. But it has a narrow, specific purpose (like most academic books). Without reading the whole book and with no other sources to help back them up, it is difficult to know if Smelser and Davies' assessment ("one of the leading romancers' presses" and "to be published through Fedorowicz is to have arrived") is relevant to our notability criteria. Srnec (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fedorowicz is well known within its niche, and in the scholarly community that studies the Waffen-SS, and especially its post-war image as propagated by HIAG and others. The search for -- Waffen-SS Fedorowicz revisionism -- returns some interesting results:

German Counterinsurgency in the Balkans: The Prinz Eugen Division by Melson, Charles D ...www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518040701703195?src=recsys "... despite claims of apologists or revisionists. ..... (Winnipeg: J.J. Fedorowicz, 1995)" -- can't see more, but the 1995 title being referred to is most likely Otto Kumm's 1995 Prinz Eugen: The History of the 7. SS-Mountain Division from Fedorowicz
The South African Military History Society article: "Veterans' attempts to de-stigmatise the reputation of the armed SS are dealt with by Hausser, Steiner, Meyer, Weidinger, and Grupp & Oehmsen", with the last three being Fedorowicz pubs.
The 1994 article from Historical Methods magazine "Visiual Historical Methods", p. 170, discussing the attempts by the Waffen-SS veterans to rehabilitate its image. "Since 1950s, they have attempted to reestablish the Waffen-SS mythos (...). This work takes the form of unit histories, memoirs and combat reminiscences, all arguing that the organisation ... held duties that were purely military—above all, fighting the Russian threat." The book references are two Fedorowicz titles, Strassner on the SS Division Wiking & Lehmann on the SS Division Leibstandarte, plus Paul Hausser, which is available in German only.

What appears clear from the above is that, while JJF licensed its "lighter" fare, i.e. Kurowski, to Stackpole and others, the Waffen-SS divisional histories remain a Fedorowicz exclusive. For example, Strassner is only available through Fedorowicz or Munin-Verlag in Germany, according to Worldcat. So the company will continue to be cited in scholarly works that discuss or use these publications. Being the sole English-language source of these works adds to Fedorowicz' notability as a publisher, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is relevant to the AfD. It is tangential at the very best reading of it (someone mentioned a book that was published by this company). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Appearance in GBooks is liable to depend on copyright issues. I note that a number of their authors have WP articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITORG: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". --Nug (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite -- a publisher exercises editorial control on what they choose to publish; so authors are important here. The authors also contribute to publisher's reputation: university presses (i.e. University Press of Kentucky) publish scholarly, peer reviewed works; reference publishers (i.e. ABC-CLIO) produce encyclopedias; certain militaria publishers issue revisionist and apologist books (as is the case with Fedorowicz), picture albums for modeling enthusiasts and other specialty publications; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? So Fedorowicz only selects those German veterans that want to write revisionist and apologist books, and if a veteran's draft isn't revisionist and apologist enough they will not publish it? I don't think so. Fedorowicz likely found a profitable North American niche market in translating and publishing the memoirs of German veterans, providing an unabridged perspective of their role in WW2. I seriously doubt the degree of revisionism exhibited by particular authors was a consideration of the publisher. Don't confuse the world view of some veterans with the world view of the publisher, equally the notability of the publisher does not derive from the notability of some veterans. --Nug (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What makes a publisher notable is producing multiple notable books--for what else could they possibly be notable? NOT INHERITED means just the opposite of what is asserted above--it means that because aa publisher is notable, this does not imply that every book they publish is notable also. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mis-interpreting WP:INHERITORG which explicitly states: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it". In any case, none of Fedorowicz's books are sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia articles. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Labor law. Some content could be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace violation[edit]

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

Prodded several months ago. Prod removed with explanation left on talk page. However, the explanation doesn't really explain why this is notable in its own right. Currently doesn't have any reliable sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a legal term of art to encompass several issues, as listed in the article. Your results may vary, but it seems to have at least a few reliable sources. This concept is likely to prove useful in the next four years, as employment law evolves. I found several more sources at Google books and Google scholar. This stub needs work, not deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this is a defined legal term. The phrase is used fairly frequently, but in a haphazard and ill-defined manner. It is perhaps used most commonly to refer to OSHA workplace safety issues and to wage-and-salary issues. However, it is unclear whether it relates to violation of statutes, regulations, ordinances, company policies or norms of social behavior. Also, it is unclear whether it relates to safety, pay, drug use, etc. Note that the references refer to "workplace" and "violat*" used somewhere in the article, but not necessarily the phrase itself and that should be notable and well-defined in its own right. I think this fails the prohibitions against neologism and WP being used as a dictionary.--Rpclod (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to v:Wikiversity as part of the school of business or business law. Michael Ten (talk) 05:09, 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 07:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rpclod - fails notability as a topic of its own at this time. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to labor law I'm not convinced that this is quite the term of art that Bearian suggests. In addition to what RPclod points out, a search of allstate/allfed on Westlaw turns up only about 230 mentions of the phrase for all time. The term does not appear in Black's Law Dictionary either. I don't see a distinction between the topics that are or could be covered in this article and the ones that are covered in labor law. agtx 21:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would go along with a smerge. I'd like to keep the sources. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gar Oo Noon Ko[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, unsourced and likely WP:AUTOBIO article. Phyo WP (message) 15:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 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 07:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTOBIO isn't forbidden, but when your autobiography doesn't even make you seem any notable, chances are you aren't notable. Timmyshin (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a good faith creation by someone who probably doesn't know too much about Wikipedia. That said, the subject doesn't seem to be satisfy GNG or WP:AUTHOR, so I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing with the clear signs of no existing substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sources exist in another language, does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Sahand[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find more than one source required for passing WP:MUSICBIO. Marvellous Spider-Man 07:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are some passing mentions of him so maybe it is a start to one day be notable. However, agree with nom, there is nothing in-depth to pass him now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:33, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn - This ended up getting waaaay too confusing so am closing however I'll leave it in articlespace where hopefully it'll be improved (or i'll do it at somepoint). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 14:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Hickson[edit]

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

This was moved to Draft in April where it ended up abandoned, I nominated it at MFD and was told to basically move it back and AFD it, Anyway non notable actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. The subject comes close to meeting Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers dot point 1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", possibly does but the 2016 productions may be too recent. Information available to date appears better suited to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6883785/). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information available to date appears better suited to IMDB - meaning the information from current sources doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG, all of the information is appropriate for IMDB. New sources may make the subject notable, and on recreation, the current information here being deleted can be found in the IMDB refrences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say that being one of the main actors (leading characters) in a mainstream TV series (Aftermath (2016 TV series)) makes them close to passing the above criteria, but the problem is the multiple requirement. The two other main roles she had are in movies that have not been deemed notable yet, at least in so far as nobody bothered to create Wikipedia articles on them. If someone thinks one of those two movies is notable, she would probably classify, and I'd change my vote to weak keep (ping me if you make an argument for movie notability and I'll reconsider my vote). PS. If the creator bothers to participate in the discussion (sadly, unlikely as this seems like write-and-run case), we could also consider usefying it, given that it is a likely case of WP:TOOSOON; she'll probably be notable in a year or two when she gets another important role. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was unilaterally userfied from the mainspace, or else I'd take a position like I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Cutforth (3rd nomination). I'm not sure it is acceptable to move a page to the mainspace and directly proceed to nominate it for deletion even given the circumstances.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well with the greatest of respect once someone at MFD puts keep that's it - It's kept! regardless of what the nominator has to say so to save me and SJ arguing with each other over it and essentially having my time wasted I listened to him and sent it here, I wasn't putting up a fight when admins at MFD don't give a crap about the deletion rationale anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 14:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 April 2016, it should not have been unilaterally draftified, it should have been nominated at AfD. Davey has appropriately corrected the situation.

For reference, User:Oshwah's 07:37, 22 April 2016‎ move summary was:

"Article is imcomplete, and I have notability concerns (see talk page). Moving to draft space will be less WP:BITEy compared to tagging."

and his Talk:Taylor Hickson post was:

" This person doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I'm iffy about WP:ACTOR, since she did act in some major films (although I'm not sure if she played "major roles" as WP:ACTOR requires). The only two sources I've located are this and this. Article is obviously created by an editor with COI issues as well. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)"

The BITE concerns are best addressed by talking to the author on their talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But weak keep. The first and second references in the article provide secondary source material directly discussing the subject. These references seem reputable reliable and independent, though I am not familiar with them. This might be well revisited in a couple of years, per Piotr. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JJC[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced BLP with significant unsourced controversy section that contains accusations that are defamatory. Mduvekot (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed the unsourced controversy section per WP:BLP. Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Completely unsourced and non-notable individual. Tiller54 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically no independent coverage, all the coverage seems to be related to his marriage to Funke Akindele. I would suggest redirecting to that article. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aditya Puri[edit]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG: three sources are affiliated (HDFC bank), only independent source is about the bank itself and not him. Notability is not inherited, whether it's from a bank or a daughter.~~ Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. HDFC Bank’s Aditya Puri only Indian on Fortune’s top bizmen list

http://m.hindustantimes.com/business-news/hdfc-bank-s-aditya-puri-only-indian-on-fortune-s-top-bizmen-list/story-V8pzePys9JpQP290rK4IZP.html --Anamdas (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. MMall124 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

updated Awards section. Please review.--Anamdas (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm wondering if the nominator searched for sources outside of the article at all, as one is supposed to do before nominating. This article from Forbes Asia would probably be enough to show notability per WP:GNG, there is also, for example, this and this, also articles on his salary, his bank, 5000 hits on Google News and 370 hits on Google Books, some of which seem to have non-trivial coverage. That's not even going into sources in Hindi, which I can not assess, but I am absolutely sure are numerous. Hell, the Indian banking regulator seems to have changed their rules on mandatory retirement age just so that this guy could keep working. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, withdrawn. Sources need to be added, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requisition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Though it uses many words (mostly unnecessary words in my opinion), the article is nothing more than a dictionary entry and should be deleted per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A Wiktionary entry exists here, and I think that all the verbose explanations contribute little to the the understanding of the term. In the last nomination (more than 8 years ago) a consensus wasn't reached, hopefully this time the result will be different. WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article as it stands only deals with business requisitions - this should be expanded to discuss the legal usage, which is much more notable.[25] —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Your comment pretty much contributes nothing to the discussion. No one is arguing whether the page is notable, the page simply has no standing, it is a simple dictionary entry. WannaBeEditor (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how AfD works. We are here to determine whether or not the TOPIC is notable; the present state of the page is totally irrelevant. Please take time to review the WP:Deletion Policy and criteria for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, though it might better be renamed to Purchase requisition which currently redirects to the article. Legal requisition is a different thing altogether, and should have a separate article, as should Military requisition: all three topics are notable with many reliable sources available. I have added 3 sources to the article: as Wikimandia says, notability does not depend on what is currently in an article, but on what is reliably stated about the topic in the world outside. The concept and practice of requisition is extremely well established in business, and documented in plentiful (not to say boring) detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that "purchase requisition" as it stands is very similar to purchase order. I don't mind three articles as long as the sources are there on unique notability. If so, this will need some adjusting in Wikidata as the articles on requisition in other languages mainly refer to the legal term or a combination of legal/military. Thanks for adding sources Chiswick. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. However, the PR and the PO are very different. Somebody in, say, the carpentry department issues a PR for more nails. The purchase department approves the PR and issues a PO to the hardware supplier. The carpentry dept is not able to issue a PO, and the purchase dept is not allowed to issue a PO until it receives a valid PR. We could handle both with an article Purchase process but that would be a different kind of article. It would cover the supplier's invoice, delivery, and payment also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it seems you understand that part better than me. If you want to divide into separate articles and can find the sources, that would be super helpful. Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly unsourced dicdef. If notable, individual article about specific types of requisition can be started. Sandstein 14:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article, even as improved, and even the topic itself seems to live somewhere between WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Either way, while it may certainly belong somewhere, it doesn't belong here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- Well, I guess you guys are right (is one allowed to admit such a thing at AfD?). I am sure there is a notable topic here for Purchase process, which includes animals like purchase requisition from the carpentry department and purchase order from central purchasing. I don't think that military requisition is part of the same article, the only common ground being dicdef, indeed. Purging all that and changing the article's name constitutes writing a new article, which I might do if I was extremely bored one afternoon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 01:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Leary (actor)[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 21:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing a role for more than 20 years on the longest-running drama on television in American history is a strong claim of notability. The article needs expansion, not deletion, and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources available to be added to this article to support the strong claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage exists in mainstream publications to attest notability,[26], [27], [28] in addition to all the Soap Opera Digest-type coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Static Television[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable TV program tagged since July 2008. The single keep vote in the first AfD leads to it being closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 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 merge to 2005 in sports. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2005 in sports[edit]

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

Delete. There are many more of these monthly statistical sporting summaries but I'm putting this one forward as a "test case", so to speak. This concept, never mind this article, is surely a massive breach of WP:IINFO, especially of WP:NOTSTATS. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are other articles in the series, such as September 2005 in sports, where the same rationale would apply. They could be moved to Portal pages such as Portal:Sports/September 2005, similar to Portal talk:Thailand/November 2005#Requested move and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Using archives of Portal:Current events for month articles, but I am not sure whether such moves would actually occur. The phrase "never mind" in the second sentence means the same thing as "much less" or "let alone". GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2005 in sports. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2005 in sports. It's more useful to have the list sorted by sport than by month. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:15, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USA Freedom Kids[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Only assertion of notability is performing at a Trump rally in January 2016. No repeat performances, no additional coverage. Oh, they sued Trump's campaign for allegedly not getting paid, yawn… Maybe give them a linge in Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:1E? — JFG ^talk 15:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC) — JFG ^talk 15:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. You can yawn all you want, but a search for "USA Freedom Kids" at Google yields more than 45,000 results, and sources are not all about the July rally performance. I actually think this could be a nice little Good article if we decide to expand the article instead of delete.

Sources:

I think there is plenty of coverage and vote to keep the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is sure plenty of coverage, but it's all linked to the campaign. Still WP:1EVENT in my book, may deserve a line or two in the campaign article or in Legal affairs of Donald Trump if the lawsuit gets some followup. (With all due respect to the girls, I actually saw them perform in one of those rally videos at the time, their notability comes only from this.) — JFG ^talk 21:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But not all coverage is about their rally performance. They've released an album and singles, been profiled and parodied, sued Trump, etc. They were also named one of 45 Americans Who Defined the Election. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Can you please bring examples of major media coverage beyond that campaign event. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding refs to the article off ad on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep this group did go viral during the campaign; it was a moment. I had forgotten them completely, maybe I never even noticed this at the time, but, clearly, they has a moment. plus the lawsuit (full disclosure: I actually know someone who runs a business Trump stiffed).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per American Believer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is not quite right, but I am American so I'll play along... :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Bodimeade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress, Can't find anything source-wise (I've even looked on Wiltshire News where 4 news articles come up and 2/3 of which confirm she was in Summerhill), Apart from that there's nothing at all on her, Personally I believe the article should be redirected to Summerhill as that was her most notable role to date however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with the last AfD in which this topic was unanimously kept, she does pass WP:ENT, particularly with the significant coverage and her starring role in the series Paradise Café. The difference now is she's since been nominated for a Maverick Movie Award, thus further establishing notability.[29]--Oakshade (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of respect and I really do mean this in a nice way ... but AFD back then was piss poor to say the least, It wasn't as strict as it is today but I'm by no means dismissing the AFD, Anyway that aside there is no significant coverage - IMDB cannot be used as a source (sure it confirms things but we still cannot use it), As I said I've found a handful that confirms her role in Summerhill but nothing on any other of the tv programmes/films. –Davey2010^Talk 02:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have been doing this stuff since 2006 and AfD was pretty tough in 2009. Anyway, not sure what you're talking when you say the Wiltshire News only confirms she was in Summerhill, or there's "nothing at all on her" when one of their articles goes into detail about her and her starring role in Paradise Café which would make redirecting to Summerhill nonsensical. [30] It appears there are now dead links to further articles about her, but that doesn't mean the coverage magically never existed and GNG makes it clear that non-online sources are acceptable. --Oakshade (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to respectfully disagree on that but moving on, I had come across that on my searches so not sure why I never said but anyway the article cannot rely on that one source (technically it can but it'll only be sent back here anyway), I never expect all sources to be online however simply saying they're offline is just a wild guess - There may be absolutely nothing offline all for we know. –Davey2010^Talk 13:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of sufficient coverage in reliable sources, only an article or two in small local newspapers, which can be considered to be routine coverage. That means it relies on meeting WP:ENT, specifically a prominent role in two notable series. Summerhill seems to be notable, but I am not convinced by Paradise Café. Our Wikipedia article seems to be by far the most that anyone online has written about that show. There is no evidence at all that the show is notable (has received more than routine coverage) and the article should be nominated for its own AfD. By extension, the actor is not notable, probably a simple case of WP:TOOSOON. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Regular Show episodes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai and the Rigbys[edit]

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

Much like "The Unicorns Have Got to Go", the subject's significance is not indicated, and from an online search, the subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. –Matthew - (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Regular Show episodes. Nothing independently notable here. Deli nk (talk) 18:13, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manta (web site)[edit]

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

Article about a business directory web site, sourced only to press releases, and I can't find any secondary coverage, only more PRs and some mentions in blogs and review sites. It has been tagged for sources since 2012. It was written pretty much like an advertisement as well, but I have removed some of the more promotional text so that is not a concern, but the notability issues remain and can't be fixed by simply rewriting the article. bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Tiwari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject did not do even one film as a lead actor. Done a supporting in just one film. The article is not neutral. Not much sources in the news as well. The article may be recreated if the subject gain popularity in the future. Failure WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk

mail) 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk

mail) 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has appeared in lead in more than one film (Tamil film - Aavi Kumar, Telugu film - Boy Meets Girl). Has acted into multiple films, [31]. I don't see any tone issue that cannot be fixed by a simple edit. There are sufficient sources - (see WP:INDAFD, in particular 'Find resource' section). Available sources suggest that she is already popular. @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Is there anything left unanswered? If not, withdraw nomination and WP:CLOSEAFD. Thank you. Anup [Talk] 12:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more lead role in Kannada film - Rangan Style. I also re-wrote the article. Anup [Talk] 13:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anup. Jay (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anup. Already starred in major films and there's even English language coverage from the likes of News18 India and Times of India about an actress known in the Tamil-speaking world. The WP:TOOSOON train has already left the station. --Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which is sufficient to establish notability as per GNG. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject passes WP:NACTOR as she has acted as lead in multiple films. Pratyush (talk) 18:11, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Full Participation[edit]

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

Appears to be a defunct group of disability rights groups? Website has gone dead. Gets passing mention in a few Google search results, but certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP (no secondary source coverage. no independent source coverage). Ajpolino (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 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 redirect to Ralph Bates. Per Deb (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Bates (actress)[edit]

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

Non notable actress, All sources point to Daisy Bates (civil rights activist) however searching "Daisy Bates actress" brings up one mention, There's 2 sources in the article - One is IMDB and one is some CV, no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - she was certainly quite well known at one time as a child actress, when her father was alive, but I haven't heard anything about her in recent years. Deb (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But then wouldn't that be a WP:NOTINHERITED issue ?, If you take away her dad would she be remembered or even known ?, Anywho having relooked at the article I guess it could be redirected to Kavanagh QC as that's her most notable role, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in saying that she would never have been well-known if her father had not been a well-known TV actor. The places where she was mentioned would mostly have been places like TV magazines and other ephemera. I suppose it's comparable with someone like Brooklyn Beckham. So probably the best thing would be to redirect to Ralph Bates. Deb (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if substantial stuff pops up then the redirect can always be reverted :), I have no objections to that target either :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a career made up of one-pisode television apparances and bit parts in movies is just not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Her career apparently peaked before the internet became popular, but there are many sites that host digital archives, such as Google and Highbeam Research. There doesn't seem to be anything there except coverage of the more famous civil rights activist. If someone can locate offline coverage, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't delete articles because they fail WP:GNG, and while the difference between WP:GNG and WP:Deletion policy can in some cases be implied; not only is this not one of those cases, consensus exists that non-notability is not a deletion argument here. Unscintillating (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The evidence available at this AfD, which matches my own searches, is that the topic is not Wikipedia notable. Further, the evidence available is that WP:Deletion policy is not applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 13:58, 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 02:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Steglitz shooting[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a fairly standard murder-suicide, with no evidence whatsoever of sustained notability. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not an exhaustive directory of every criminal incident that ever happened at all — for something like this to warrant a Wikipedia article, there would have to be some evidence that it passes the ten-year test for significance. I'll grant that this was probably a good faith creation at the time, as it occurred just four days after the more clearly notable 2016 Munich shooting — but the article has been edited just once since the initial flurry of edits in the first few hours after the incident hit the paper, and even that edit was just a simple category change. Every criminal incident that happens at all is not automatically a valid article topic just because of the inevitable first burst of breaking news coverage itself — for a criminal incident to warrant an article, there has to be some evidence of sustained notability for more than just the fact that it happened. But with just a single statement that it occurred and just a single piece of breaking news coverage to support it, there's simply nothing like that here. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 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 04:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very brief article about a garden variety murder-suicide of no encyclopedic value, although tragic for the families of the victims. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a random killing, elderly patient bizarrely killing his doctor and then himself. No follow-up trial, major investigation or ties to terrorism. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aomusic[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden created by a pair of single purposes accounts. Non notable band. Only claims to satisfying WP:BAND seems to be charting (but they are on bad charts) and by having three blue linked members but for two their notability is dependent of the bands they are part of, including this one. So the are not "independently notable musicians". With few exceptions the bombardment of sources is PR, listings and Zone Music Reporter. Their charts are not good charts and they don't provide any coverage about this band. The Soundonsound piece [32] does not mention aomusic and is a Wikipedia:Fictitious references. They have a short allmusic bio ans one of their albums has a short review. Not enough. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Sam Walton (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 24 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 04:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gannaway[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden created by a pair of single purposes accounts. Non notable musician. His notability is entirely dependent of being a member of two blue linked bands but they are both at afd. With few exceptions the bombardment of sources is PR, listings, about others and Zone Music Reporter. Their charts are not good charts and they don't provide any coverage about this individual. The Soundonsound piece [33] does not mention him or aomusic and is a Wikipedia:Fictitious references. michaeldiamondmusic.com is a wordpress blog, not an independent reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 24 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 04:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 02:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of corporations in the United States[edit]

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

Category:Companies_of_the_United_States is absolutely enormous with many layers of nested subcategories, so this article will never be near complete and has no selection criteria that would make it useful. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beyond useless. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as dupe —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:48, 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.

Great Fatherland Party[edit]

The result was Withdrawn by nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Russian political party. Nearly all ghits are about the chairman of the party who makes the news occasionally, but of course WP:NOTINHERITED. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has sufficient coverage about the actual party.[34], [35], [36] They don't have any seats in the Duma but they have won several at the municipal level ie mayors. The reason why there are so many hits on the co-chairman Nikolai Starikov is that he famous and controversial. The Russian version was nominated for deletion in August but appears to be politically motivated - every response on the discussion page is in favor of keeping it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I cannot read Russian but I trust your judgment. Withdraw. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:58, 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.

List of vice heads of state of Bulgaria by longevity[edit]

The result was Withdrawn by nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if List of Vice Presidents of the United States by age is not WP:LISTCRUFT then neither is the Bulgarian equivalent. There are even U.S. versions for governors and TWO for senators (all time AND current!). The articles in the English Wikipedia on Bulgarian politics are extremely lacking and I don't see any compelling reason to delete this one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Please withdraw the AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:59, 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 procedural close. MfD nomination is linked. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dominic Covey[edit]

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

Abandoned draft. Article was already successfully AfD'd. If subject is truly notable, then someone can recreate a draft or main space article if/when appropriate. Let's not save this draft forever. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please close this discussion. Comments should be made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dominic Covey instead. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baan Sinlapin[edit]

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

This building fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable tourist attraction. See Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Paul_012 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 200-year-old buildings are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read most of the references given and I believe there is enough coverage in RS for WP:GNG. I also did some minor improvements. Much more work is needed, but I feel the topic is notable. MB 03:11, 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of excommunicable offences in the Catholic Church[edit]

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

This article is solely a dumping-ground for the full (translated) text of canons of Ecumenical Councils. No analysis or summary is being attempted. Nor is it wikified. It is unusable as a Wikipedia article. Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability or attempt at contributing notability, just a seemingly indiscriminate list of offenses. Parsley Man (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how this could not be considered 'notable' given the obvious historic importance to these decrees in governing the Catholic church for millennia. In terms of wikifying the article or re-writing the canons to make them more readable- that is a problem that can be solved without deletion. It can also be broken into separate articles to make it more readable. I don't think it is necessary to add analysis, because it is supposed to be a list, and the articles already present on the topic of excommunication in Wikipedia already have analysis on the topic. Wikipedia has plenty of examples of articles that are lists only with little analysis, for example: List of amendments to the United States Constitution. This could not be put in wikisource, because it is only selected parts of the original sources and wikisource is meant for the full text of original sources. Reesorville (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is far too much detail to be useful to our readers, and appears to be a synthesis of sources. I'd be in favor of keeping a list if present-day, current offenses of these types. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The details could be edited down, the text simplified or rewritten, the article broken up in several pieces... there's many things that can be done. Those issues more properly belong on the article's talk page. But as far as deletion as concerned, these things don't qualify as reasons for it, I feel. To delete the article would mean that an article on this topic should not exist on wikipedia now or ever. The importance of these canons for church legal history, even the ones that are no longer applicable, is not small. Wikipedia has an article that lists the various laws passed by the Scottish parliament in the 17th century, which admittedly is of interest to very few people, but the article still properly belongs here because the topic is notable in legal history. Reesorville (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRANSWIKI Transwiki to Wikiversity and categorize it as Theology. Cheers! Michael Ten (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can reconstruct the article into an educational source and put in on Wikiversity - the question though remains, why it is that wikipedia could not have this article also? - The issues being presented here about the article's quality are not related to deletion. Reesorville (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how does this meet WP:LISTN? or WP:GNG?, where are the independent WP:RS that discusses this subject as a whole? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ps. article creator cites a couple of other lists, so why can't this be here but isn't that WP:OTHERSTUFF? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN (notability) and WP:GNG - the Roman Catholic church has nominally 1 billion members in the world today. It has had a massive influence on the history of both the west and the world in general. The rules regarding excommunications historically formed the core of its internal ecclesiastical discipline and law. How is it not notable to list the actual offences that were historically used to place people under excommunication? No one is here offering any credible argument as to why this wouldn't be counted as notable. Reesorville (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." - https://www.amazon.com/Excommunication-Catholic-Church-Edward-Peters/dp/1932645454/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044165&sr=8-1&keywords=excommunication+in+the+catholic+church , https://www.amazon.com/Excommunication-Historical-Development-Effects-Studies/dp/0813222389/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044165&sr=8-7&keywords=excommunication+in+the+catholic+church, https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Canon-Law-Rev-Trudel/dp/1492935557/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044424&sr=8-20&keywords=excommunication+catholic+church, https://www.amazon.com/History-Courts-Procedure-Medieval-Canon/dp/0813229049/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044603&sr=8-3&keywords=history+of+church+law, https://www.amazon.com/History-Medieval-Classical-Period-1140-1234/dp/0813214912/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044636&sr=8-11&keywords=history+of+church+law Reesorville (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - per Reesorville - I don't see how you would not feel this could be notable, considering its huge historic significance and the power the Catholic church had/has over the lives of billions of people for millennia, and you look at this category which is nowhere near complete I'm sure. It needs improvement but I do not agree it is an "indiscriminate list of offenses." Disclosure: I'm not even Catholic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Also, seriously? "where are the independent WP:RS that discusses this subject as a whole"? "Excommunication in the Catholic Church" even has its own category on WorldCat - there are books dating to 1520 on the subject! [37] —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination just seems to be complaining about the state of the material but AFD is not cleanup. The topic is notable -- see Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development and Effects, for example -- and so our editing policy applies, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat reluctantly. Possibly Draftify, but I don't think we're quite in WP:TNT territory. It's undoubtedly a notable topic, but the manner of presentation/content is indeed a mess. Still, doesn't look like deletion is quite necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN, thanks to Reesorville for listing some publications that discuss this subject as a whole, and Wikimandia for their ps comment, btw, i added my "comment" to this as it appeared, superficially, to be drifting into WP:ITSOBVIOUS territory. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs work to explain the context behind the rules, but that can be solved by normal editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but could certainly use cleanup and analysis from more secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom's concerns with the article are mostly valid, but these can be fixed by cleaning up the article rather than deleting it. Bradv 14:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abba, Imo[edit]

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

Unable to verify the page's content and the vilallage lacks any kind of notablility Meatsgains (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There is also a complete absence of references. This article has been up for nearly ten years but shows no signs of improvement to its name. Parsley Man (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a several sources online in which people describe themselves as being from Abba. There is also a widely replicated story about a king dying two days before inauguration in one of the communities of Abba. I added two references, one that defines the term, and a Nigerian government reference that shows the term being used officially. Anything else is an editing problem. Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I tried and failed to find an official government source a while ago, but found enough to indicate that the place existed and was likely officially recognized, and so was hesitant to vote delete. Thanks to Unscintillating's referencing, the subject now passes WP:GEOLAND standards. Cleanup needed but that's not the purpose of AFD. Antepenultimate (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added the coordinates from Google Maps where it's clearly marked - see screenshot http://imgur.com/a/cYz4o. It's clearly a place with plenty of references of people being from there. It may be a small town but it still qualifies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that notability per WP:GNG is not established, independent of the subject's wishes. Sandstein 14:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Workman[edit]

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

Editing has been added which Angela Workman does not want on the page Beauty111 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am Angela Workman and I want this page removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You created the page; see WP:G7. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 does not apply here because the article has been substantially edited by others. Also, that the subject of an article objects to its content is decidedly not a satisfactory ground for deletion. Whether she is notable may be a different story. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been castigated by your editors for creating my own page, which I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to do, and now punished for wanting it removed. Can't win.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In marginal cases there is a policy WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which takes into account the wishes of the article's subject. I believe that the subject needs to raise a ticket by contacting info-en-q -at- wikimedia.org via email in order to prove their identity. Shritwod (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion Workman doesn't meet the notability criteria for writers (yet). Yintan 08:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient output and notability at this time [38]. Has additional films in the works [39], so may be sufficiently notable when The Zookeeper's Wife comes out in the spring of 2017, but perhaps not now. Could perhaps Userfy or Draftify until then. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a protocol sometimes used in WP:BLPPROD where the opinion of biography subjects is taken into account when proposing the deletion of a marginally notable subject, I believe it does require a verification of identity though. The subject in this case doesn't quite seem notable yet, but that may well change in the not-so-distant-future. Shritwod (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the subject wishes it (or WP:USERFY) but it is sad that this situation has arisen. I can't see that removing the article will do significant harm to WP. Because sometimes we cannot trust what people say about themselves (or even know with certainty who any editor really is) we have an invariable policy of reporting what has been published in "reliable sources" in preference to what the subject says is in fact the case. In some situations that leads to misunderstandings and unsatisfactory articles. Regarding balance, unfavourable opinions may sometimes be removed if they are unwarranted or they may be balanced with positive comment. See WP:UNDUE. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat:I added a positive review source to balance the negative one. The film got a mixed reception, so that should balance things out nicely. Yintan 13:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was the editor responsible for accepting this article and I thought there were enough sources to pass WP:GNG I could be wrong. The article's subject has removed the negative review which was her reason for requesting deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: No, she hasn't. The citation is still there. Yintan 13:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yintan: The citation is still there but the content was removed by this edit [40] . Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as dependent on a forthcoming film (crystal ball). If and when such film becomes notable, then the screenwriter may also be. Until then, I would suggest that the notability is thin, and we can err on the side of deletion in this case. Collect (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments, thank you. I feel now that the article may remain, now that the offending passage is not quoted. For the record: there were many more credits here, with respectable references, which were edited out. What is one person's 'notable' is another person's 'obscure,' I guess, if you're unfamiliar with the film industry. Being hired to write films, by the likes of directors Roland Emmerich and David Fincher, producer Harvey Weinstein, studios like DreamWorks, Warner Bros, Focus, is extremely notable in my business, even if the films aren't yet made. We rise to the top of the heap against all the odds (especially women writers -- only 11% of working screenwriters are women, it's a very hard climb). We measure success by how often we're hired and the people who hire us -- as writers, we have no control over whether a film is made by a studio. That's not our measure. (AW)

Sadly though I seem to be the only editor who considers you anywhere near notable enough for an article, so it is certain to be deleted. as per your original request. Theroadislong (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making your support contingent on the current content of the article is problematic, because there is nothing to prevent material that you do not personally like from being restored, or other material that you might not like from being added. If the article survives your current deletion attempt, it will be harder for you to have it deleted in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I never meant to get into a fight with Wikipedia. I did believe the site, at least for modern entries of working people in the arts, is as much a self-promotional tool as anything else. There are others in my filmmaking circles who have placed pages here, and I thought I'd do the same. After two months, I've had enough, I'm sure you have, too. Apologies and thanks. (AW) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beauty111 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable screenwriter. The coverage is not there to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an as-yet non-notable screenwriter. The article was created by the subject and her entourage for admittedly promotional purposes and she seems determined to control the content, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Franke (philosopher)[edit]

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

Not notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary for a deletion nomination to give at least a few words of explanation of why the nominator thinks that a subject doesn't meet the applicable notability guidelines, in this case WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe he meets WP:ACADEMIC based on Google Scholar citations; however, article needs massive cleanup. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as not only is the nomination thin with only "not notable" when it's in fact necessary (for these subjects) to be clear and specific, and he is in fact notable both as a professor and author, it's enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think counting Google scholar citations is the wrong way to go for this subject. However, I think he has enough academic monographs by respectable publishers, and enough reviews of them, to pass WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 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. Article at the moment fails to assert WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreation if it can assert any kind of notability. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Lei (basketball)[edit]

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

I think he fails WP:NBASKETBALL, no international experience, just a benchwarmer in the Chinese Basketball Association (CBA), and already out of the league since 2011 (when he was only 24). Whereas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Underwood averaged 10.8 points in 24 games in China ([41]), Feng Lei only averaged <3 points in the CBA over 4 seasons, including 2 seasons where he only played in 1 game each ([42]). Timmyshin (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 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]

Delete. Perhaps notable on an Asian-language Wiki, but not enough sources in English to satisfy WP:GNG on the English Wikipedia. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jrcla2: The sources don't have to be in English to establish notability, as long as they are reliable. → Call me Razr Nation 23:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but this doesn't have any sources to begin with. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether this has sufficient non-English sources I do not know at this point, but Razr is correct that Jrcla2's initial statement - which I gather he now retracts - was not correct, as he does not need "sources in English to satisfy GNG on the English Wikipedia". 2604:2000:E016:A700:BCF9:21E6:5705:D71E (talk) 21:36, 2 December 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 23:59, 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.

[1] ttp://www.blitzquotidiano.it/blitztv/emma-morano-116-anni-ci-si-arriva-single-e-con-uova-crude-2461083/

[2] ttp://nepszava.hu/cikk/1098330-a-titok-a-ket-nyers-tojas

[3] ttp://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/texte/anzeigen/44814/

[4] ttps://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/33044154/emma-morano-worlds-oldest-person-and-egg-fanatic/

[5] ttps://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASUC_enNL572NL572&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=emma+morano&tbm=nws

[6] ttp://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/oldest-person

[7] ttp://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2016/5/guinness-world-records-announces-emma-martina-luigia-morano-as-worlds-oldest-liv-428983

[ls03_imdb-8] Lesbian Seductions: Older/Younger 3 (Video 2005) - IMDb. Retrieved January 14, 2013.

[ls03_iafd-9] sbian seductions 3 - porn movie - iafd.com - internet adult film database. Retrieved January 14, 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]