Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 November	30 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Userifies can be requested on WP:REFUND, along with the name of who to userfy it to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Doi[edit]

Kenta D

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

Fails WP:BASE/N. Never played in a regular season Nippon Professional Baseball game. Honestly, I'm not even sure this is a real person. No corresponding Japanese Wiki article, and the roster for the 1965 Taiyo Whales which he supposedly played for doesn't list him. The lone source is from an Out of the Park Baseball simulator site, which makes me believe this is a fake player. Penale52 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Initially was on the list on wikipedia [[1]] but reference site was deleted. Appears here, but no usable stats are available. [2] BlackAmerican (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find a single verifiable source on this person. The Baseball Reference link from the above editor is for a page for a person of the same name, but who was born in 1989 so clearly not this guy. Spanneraol (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons stated by Spanneraol. CBS527^Talk 21:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, if person even exists. Lepricavark (talk) 15:36, 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. No consensus to redirect, but certainly to remove the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Araidai[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASE/N. Drafted by the Chunichi Dragons , but never played in a regular season Nippon Professional Baseball game. Penale52 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Chunichi Dragons as reliable statistics of his stats aren't readily available. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Played only in NPB minor leagues not in the main league so has no claim to notabiliy.. No reason to redirect to the Dragons page as he is not listed on that page and is not on the current roster. NPB statistics are available from numerous sites contrary to the opinion above.Spanneraol (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No reason to redirect. Lepricavark (talk) 14:28, 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. No consensus to redirect, but certainly to remove the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Perez Brito[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Did play in the Israel Baseball League, which is not enough to confirm notability, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Fish. Penale52 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Israel Baseball League as reliable statistics of his stats aren't readily available. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to redirect to the Israeli league as he is not listed on that page and playing in that league by itself does not make one notable per our guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No reason for a redirect. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 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. Wizardman 16:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de la Cruz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASE/N. Played in the U.S. minor leagues, and was signed to the Hiroshima Toyo Carp, but never played in a regular season Nippon Professional Baseball game. Penale52 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the very least redirect ToHiroshima Toyo Carp as reliable statistics of his stats aren't readily available. IT does say he pitched for the team. He did play though as he was the subject of controversy ^[1] Upon further look he serves as a coach head coach for the Dominican National Team during the Pan American Games ^[2] He was scouted by the Yankees. [3], was the subject of tampering by the Boston Red Sox [4] and other places [5] BlackAmerican (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Again, it makes no sense to redirect to a team where he is not on the roster.. and yes NPB statistics are readily available. Getting scouted is not notable, lots of people get scouted, playing in the Japanese minor leagues is not notable, being the subject of "controversy" can help with notability but the controversy here was fairly mild and didn't lead to any substantial articles about him. Playing in the Pan Am Games has occasionally been considered acceptable for inclusion, barely, by some, but thats not been clear cut.. coaching on the other hand is not. Spanneraol (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spanneraol. There is no reason to redirect to a team he longer plays for. Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/baseball-war-yen-japanese-article-1.750648
^ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/2007-07-27-3483105245_x.htm

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect, but certainly to remove the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryosuke Eguchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASE/N. Drafted by the Chiba Lotte Marines, but never played in a regular season Nippon Professional Baseball game. Penale52 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Chiba Lotte Marines as reliable statistics of his stats aren't readily available. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stubby article with little content. Sources only show that he played in a winter league in Hawaii which has no notability. Without statistical evidence that he played in a NPB league the article has no justification and despite the claim above, there are numerous sites with reliable NPB Statistics. Spanneraol (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to direct to team he does not play for. Fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 15:00, 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 Deleted. Bgwhite deleted under A10. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Panos[edit]

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

Recreation of soon to be deleted post by likely sockpuppet. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify its a carbon copy of Jimmy Panos. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete permanently with WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 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 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego State–San Jose State football rivalry[edit]

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

No reliable source says there is a football rivalry between the two schools, and "El Camino Real Rivalry" + "San jose state" + "San diego state" returns few quality results beyond Wikipedia. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:NOTSTATS...Rameshnta909 (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For above reason, also this is not a rivalry. These 2 teams have played 40 times in 81 years which is hardly a rivalry. Sure they play in the same conference, but that's hardly a reason for an article. Merge the results of the games into both football team pages.--Rockchalk717 23:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Lewis[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wp:GNG. Google search produced no reliable source for notability. CBS527^Talk 21:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as according to IMDb, roles apart from Grange Hill are uncredited. Does not meet WP:NACTOR for multiple, significant roles. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Porter[edit]

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

The article doesn't cite any reliable sources. Also, it contains original research. Hakken (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article contains original research and the references do not indicate significant third-party notability, which is not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:55, 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 00:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Pixie Snowdon[edit]

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

Does not meet General Notability Guidelines. Sources are all self-created (including the "magazine articles"). Exemplo347 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I put a CSD tag on it but that was declined ~~for reasons I don't quite understand~~. AFAIK Snowdon doesn't meet the notability criteria at all. Yintan 20:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's some marginal coverage of her in some marginal sources, but the best coverage is from her relationship with Oliver Sykes, which can be covered in his article (assuming there's more to add than the single line that's already there.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as clear personal advertising and WP:NOT applies in that alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Completely NN. Notability is not inherited eother from the clothing brand or a boy friend. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 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 keep. Consensus to keep the article, particularly after a bit of clean-up was performed. Joyous! | Talk 00:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Neutral[edit]

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

Tattoo artist with "70,000 Facebook likes". Presented one documentary. Doesn't meet the notability criteria, though. Yintan 19:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. Too much reliance on self-created content like Facebook/Instagram. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO. Article contains original research and cites self-published materialMorganglick (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person does pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG with continued significant coverage from independent sources like the Evening Standard, the Daily Record (Scotland), The Daily Mail, Yahoo! News and others. [6][7][8][9][10]. According to the Evening Standard, Vice will have Neutral be one of it's main Viceland presenters. [11]. This is way beyond Facebook hits being a claim to fame. Like it or not, this person passes our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt because, yes, although it was only 1 other deletion, it shows no one cared to take genuine reviewing steps for this, this giving us thoughts of either a G4 or 2nd AfD. The sources listed are simply entirely trivial and unconvincing, as is the current information here, they're simply focusing with triviality about her job and her own information thus trivial, regardless of publication and name. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes it explicitly clear that current article condition is not a reason for deletion. The article was only created a day ago so that "no one cared to take genuine reviewing steps for this" is irrelevant not to mention nonsensical. When a topic has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and thus passing WP:GNG, salting is out of the question.

Additionally, I just performed some WP:HEY work, removed most of the the content relied and Facebook/Instragram and replaced them with actual reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I noticed this AfD was created only a day after article creation. The sources listed above were found within seconds. It appears that WP:BEFORE wasn't even attempted. --Oakshade (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources provided such as The Evening Standard and Daily Record press coverage , the subject may not be academic but GNG should be applied fairly to all professions and not be too elitist or snobbish. New editors need help not a kick in the teeth. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This subject does pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Although there are references from her social media channels, she's been covered in reliable independent sources i-D and was featured documentary series for VICELAND like Oakshade mentioned above. Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 00:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as missing international articles in German, Portuguese. Also HN and Stuff. Will defer to other editors on removal of Instagram, POV bios. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:36, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and dark traits, depression, and suicide[edit]

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

Clearly falls under WP:NOTESSAY, reads like a literature review. PROD removed by author without comment. Previously speedied as a test page by User:Exemplo347, which I contested once author started adding content. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above - this is just a review of an article Exemplo347 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination says "Clearly falls under WP:NOTESSAY", and that just about sums it up. It is a subjective essay, reviewing a research paper and expressing the author's personal opinions, not an objective encyclopaedia article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY/WP:NOTJOURNAL. The topic of using social media to track/predict mental illness could be notable, if all the references weren't primary sources. Joe Roe (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY/WP:NOTJOURNAL the topic itself could be mentioned in Social Media if more secondary sources can be found Morganglick (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I still don't understand why WP:NOTESSAY does not qualify for speedy delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:NOTESSAY and above. This is obviously never going to survive so I don't see why we need to go the whole hog, even if a PROD has been contested. Adam9007 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bears no relevance to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droopdead (talk • contribs) 11:16, 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. Sandstein 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willis McDaniel[edit]

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

Despite what the lone source claims, I do not believe McDaniel ever played in the negro leagues. No other online sources back this up, he lacks a Baseball-Reference or Seamheads negro league page, and does not appear in James A. Riley's The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues. Therefore, he fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability. When you say he doesn't appear, do you mean to this website? [12] BlackAmerican (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That confirms that he exists, but it doesn't confirm that he played in the negro leagues. No stats, years, or teams are listed. If it can't be proven that he played at least one game in a top-level negro league game, he doesn't pass WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One source says he played in the negro leagues. All the sources you listed show some people playing and others not playing. Neither are comprehensive. Playing means he played, and thus qualifies as satisfying. So he passes GNG. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Baseball-Reference page doesn't even confirm that its the same person as the article as there is biographical information. It could have been a person with the same name who was listed on a minor league roster at some point, a minor league umpire, as Baseball-Reference (Minors) has pages like that for both. And that lone passing mention about him in that book literally says absolutely nothing about his career, with no positions or teams or years. McDaniel may have played on semi-pro teams, or maybe even was on a roster of an actual negro league teams, but again there are absolutely no sources with can prove that he ever played a regular season,major league quality game in the negro leagues, which is needed to pass #3 of WP:BASE/N. A passing mention in a book which contains almost nothing about what supposedly this person is notable for, and a Baseball-Reference page with no biographical or statistical information is not enough to pass GNG.--Penale52 (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Source says played. It didn't say he was on the roster. BlackAmerican (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no verifiable proof that he played in the Negro Leagues and no substantial coverage of him from any sources. Find proof of games he appeared in and we can revist... possibly would consider a redirect to the article on Jimmie McDaniel, his son as a compromise. Spanneraol (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, no convincing evidence that he actually played in the Negro Leagues. Lepricavark (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately there does not appear to be any definite source that verifies that the subject actually played in the Negro Leagues. Only reference to him playing in the Negro Leagues is from an article in "World Tennis" magazine about Jimmie McDaniel and the Jimmie McDaniel entry in the book "Blacks at the Net: Black Achievement in the History of CBS527^Talk 02:19, 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 merge to Environics. Consensus to merge. The article has been tagged, and is awaiting an eager editor. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environics Analytics[edit]

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

Part of a group of promotional articles all centering on a non-notable marketing firm. Basil Monster 17:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environics is notable as a Canadian pollster, as seen here. I think the two subsidiary articles can be selectively merged to parent article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Environics. While the company does have a valid notability claim and reliable source coverage, I have to agree with Shawn in that we do not need three separate articles about Environics, Environics Communications and Environics Analytics as three separate standalone topics — at this level of substance, we only need one article about the whole company, with subsections for its communications and analytics divisions. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Madra[edit]

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

Non-notable "nightlife personality" and "employee of the Butter Group". Doesn't meet the notability criteria in my opinion. The company he works for might, perhaps, but he doesn't. Yintan 16:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main source on this page was www.ronniemadra.com . I edited some errors, exaggerations, and false claims. The group he works wth does parties with notable attendees of events such as The Met Ball after-party but these are not official parties related to the event. The timeline of his claim to have befriended Eric Goode when he owned Area nightclub doesn't add up since Area existed from 1983 to 1987 and Ronnie was born in 1971. Madra would have been 15 or 16 years old when it closed and people under 21 are not permitted to be in nightclubs with a liquor license. Perpetual808 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and I will also concur that every single overfocused "business information" is clear advertising and everything shows it, so WP:NOT applies, regardless of anything listed. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 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 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Argetsinger[edit]

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

The level of playwrighting and directing that Argetsinger was involved in does not seem to have risen to an actual level of notability. This is even more suggested by the fact that all 3 sources are written by Argetsinger, or biographical blurbs connected with material he wrote. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything here is still trivial and WorldCat itself only lists 900, simply not enough for a convincing article, let alone genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:43, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George C. Weir[edit]

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

Interesting article but I don't think the subject passes WP:GNG, although possibly the individual aircraft does. TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to trivialize a person's life, but article is not needed. Zedshort (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sufficient for stand alone article; WP:Memorial applies. But, believe there is enough for a mention in the Consolidated B-24 Liberator article as to the plane or may be enough for the start of an article on the plane itself, with additional information from RS sources to flesh it out. Kierzek (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see reliable in depth coverage or even a significant amount of passing coverage. However, I agree that there may be enough for an article on the plane (note that the Memphis Belle (aircraft) includes a list of the planes crew).Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NCO with no significant decorations. Sorry, admirable but NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough coverage to warrant notability. --Molestash (talk) 00:09, 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 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Iqbal[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the Wikipedia's notability standards as he got covered only in local media two times. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and the overfocus and from several accounts show it, so WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 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. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piggate[edit]

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

The previous debate was closed as no consensus; I believe that enough time has passed to show that this was merely a small bubble swirling around on the top of the political cesspool and is not worth a standalone article. We live in a world that is truly beyond satire. TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep satisfies WP:GNG. Contrary to the argumnt WP:NOTNEWS, the issue is not just a temporary splash and still discussed, as Google News shows]. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as before. Yes, it's not complimentary to an ex-PM. No, that still isn't a policy-based reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I,m certainly not propsing this for deletion because it shows Cameron in a poor light. He has, after all, done many more dreadful things. I simply think that this was a remarkably short-lived sensation.TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you proposing it? Because it sure ain't GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, WP:NOTNEWS.TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable enough political scandal (even if it might have been a false allegation). The article seems to cover all the aspects well, especially the apparent non-coverage by parts of the media. Shritwod (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a political scandal. A couple of days of sniggering and eyeball-rolling,; the rest is silence.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a part of a much bigger story. if anything, it should have it's own section in the article about David Cameron. The source of the story is uncorroborated with little to no proof Morganglick (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article, or are you just reacting to what you think it says? Yes, the source of the story is uncorroborated. Why does this matter? There is nothing in this article, about the story and reactions to it, which is equally unsourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as unfortunate as this supposed story/scandal is/was, it is widely and well sourced with nearly 50 good sources. We can't just remove the story because it's unpleasant. It has high level politicians, presenters, comedians and news outlets reporting and speaking of it, as well as officially published biographies. Could be improved but has to stay. Slashmire (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No solid reason for deletion, previous keep arguments stand. Artw (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Misgivings about the title of the piece notwithstanding, this is an easy pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced, satisfies WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 02:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:46, 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intertec systems[edit]

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

nn business. No independent coverage; a bunch of awards of questionable notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: recreation of Intertec Systems, which was speedily deleted three times. LittleWink (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Press releases regarding inclusion in local reseller lists are not evidence of encyclopaedic notability and my searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt due to persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shiori Misaka. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 15:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akemi Satō (voice actress)[edit]

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

Only main role is that of Shiori Misaka from Kanon. Delete or redirect to Shiori Misaka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk8erPrince (talk • contribs) 15:27, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shiori Misaka, her only Wikipedia-notable role. [13] She is also in Meltylancer but not sure what character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shiori Misaka as suggested above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's a member of AKB48 that has the same name (same kanji, at least), and I found a lot of articles about that person. She doesn't appear to be the same as this person, though. I can't find sufficient reliable sources about this person to satisfy notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Searches for Satō (the seiyuu) can be done at this link. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sir John Eardley-Wilmot, 2nd Baronet#Marriage and issue. A late suggestion, but probably uncontroversial. Obviously, "He existed. We are all notable" cannot be taken seriously, see WP:N. Sandstein 14:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Henry Eardley-Wilmot[edit]

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

Lieutenants aren't notable. Baronets aren't notable. Fourth sons of baronets, who've only risen to Lieutenant, definitely aren't notable. Cabayi (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, fails GNG and WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This chap lived and died. He existed. We are all notable. The entry should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.252.148 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have to draw the line somewhere, and this is nowhere near the line. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see reliable in depth coverage or even a significant amount of passing coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His photograph was held in Queen Victoria's collection - see https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/2500958/lieutenant-frederick-henry-eardley-wilmot-1846-73-royal-artillery While on its own its not enough evidence of notability, it is unusual. Greenshed (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (regrettably) or, perhaps better, Merge to a future article on the Eardley-Wilmot family. A Google book search reveals little about the man and so I doubt that there are sufficient reliable sources for a stand-alone article. Greenshed (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to his father. That article contains a list of his children. A sentence on his military service and death would fit well there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BreakTudo[edit]

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

Non notable, salt, burn and delete. Kavdiamanju (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is remarkable, the site is part of one of the largest communication in Brazil that is R7.COM, is the only one that is a reference in Internet celebrities. Katyyyy 5 (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Katyyyy 5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is remarkable, the site is part of one of the largest communication in Brazil that is R7.COM, is the only one that is a reference in Internet celebrities Maria Silva 12 —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC) — Maria Silva 12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I read the article and according to Wikipedia policies it is notable and should remain on the wiki. The site is one of the biggest portals of the genre entertainment of the Brazilian people, listed by sites as such and belongs to a strong communication group that is the R7. Bia Jjota —Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC) — Bia Jjota (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note: Maria Silva 12, Bia Jjota, and Katyyyy 5 are Confirmed sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maria Dulight.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have struck above comments. Relisting. Nordic Nightfury 15:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 15:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly merge/redirect) Doesn't seem notable in its own right (I couldn't find any reliable sources). Maybe redirect/merge to Grupo Record, the article on the publisher, if that seems reasonable. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Most of the sources given are directly connected, and the reliability of the remainder is quite doubtful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yurika Hino[edit]

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

Looking at the arguments in the previous discussion, it would seem that whoever recreated the article has NOT addressed the issues that were brought up. That in itself is grounds for deletion, quoting from the WP:G4 tag, "...[failure in addressing] the reasons for which the material was deleted". Aside from that, the subject is blatantly non-notable, and there's also no news source to assert any form of notability. I am well aware that this article does not fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion, as it is not (exactly) a lookalike to its previous revision; however, the fact still stands that the previous concerns were still not addressed at all. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:08, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Emi in Baki the Grappler's a main role, Ghost Hound is a supporting - main character's mother. Sara in New Fist of the North Star is main. JA wikipedia article shows only a stub with filmography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources that indicate notability per WP:N. She has a lot of roles, but coverage of her career is hard to find. I suspect regular magazines and newspapers probably have articles, but you would have to be in Japan to look them up. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per OP, fails G4 criteria of resolving a previous deletion. Should go with the same consensus as the last discussion.--Bensci54 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No improvement to previous article, no sign of likely improvements.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:36, 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet English Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Aizawa[edit]

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

Zero main roles, limited to no news sources to help establish notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:46, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see much promise for this article. He's got a bunch of roles, but no leads or strong supporting charaters, and his JA wikipedia article has no sizeable bio. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources to support notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted. Drmies removed the page under G4. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Soura Pandey[edit]

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

Not clear how this passes WP:N and appears to be a repost of previously deleted BLP Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soura Pandey. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep--and G4 applies. Wait for it. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, I just had to do some fancy footwork: it took me a while to figure out what was going on since you renamed that song and then PRODded it. I reverted it as a kind of hijacking, and then re-redirected Revolution (music) to the disambiguation page. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: yes, thanks. I renamed it per the normal (song) dab without realizing it wasn't a notable artist THEN went to look at the artist. All gone now, thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 19:10, 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 redirect to Itamar (name). (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isamar (given name)[edit]

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

Unsourced, the alleged popularity (where ?) has been due a TV series, not described here. Xx236 (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find a single mention online in a WP:RS as a given name, though there's a holiday village with that name, and a maritime services company. Hebrew, eh? I doubt it. Sounds like one of those names some well-meaning parent gave their child because they liked the sound of it, like Barkevious, or D'Brickashaw. Wikishovel (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... well I feel really stupid now. Sorry. Redirect per Uanfala. Wikishovel (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Itamar (name) of which it appears to be the Yiddish variant. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Itamar (name) , Wikishovel, this name is a valid Hebrew name, we even have an article on Issamar Ginzberg. When you transliterate names, some of the letters don't translate to Latin characters very well. I would speedy this redirect and make a mention at the target that the name can also be spelled Issamar/Isamar. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Itamar (name), which already lists Isamar as one of the English spellings. Yoninah (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Itamar (name) Sure, there are differences in orthography, but the existing page handles this quite well. Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of night clubs in Lagos[edit]

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

Unsourced listing already covered by voy:Lagos#Drink. WP:NOTYELLOW Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic was placed on wikiproject:Lagos and I decided to lend an helping hand by writing it.

Encyclopedias are not to be confused with anything else. If an article is in wiki voyage it doesn't means that it should not be in Wikipedia [and actually upon closer look wiki voyage doss not talk specifically about night clubs in Lagos. if cities like new York can then why can't Lagos. If a reasonable reason can be provided how and why this does not meet Wikipedia standard. I would support a delete but for now I remain resolute.Mahveotm (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Notability is not inherent and to be fair List of nightclubs in New York barely scrapes the barrel.Ajf773 (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. The topic lacks enough bluelinks to be a standalone article. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 18:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it looks like a page of a tourism brochure. Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL big time...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion Haven seen the number of people that voted against keeping the article [3-1] I think the article can be deleted and the discussion closed.

But after that apart from linking me to some lengthy article can any one calmly tell me which list is worth being on wikipedia and which is not.Mahveotm (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the mentioned New York article barely meets WP:LISTN in any case; this Lagos article clearly fails as per WP:NOTTRAVEL also. Despite what it says, the night clubs do not appear to be notable at all. Spiderone 21:38, 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 redirect to Fargo-class cruiser. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USS Chattanooga (CL-118)[edit]

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

Uncompleted ship, nothing about its building before being scrapped is particularly notable. Information on here is already present in the Fargo-class article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per nom. Not converted; not even finished, just not notable for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Parsecboy (below). Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to class article - longstanding practice is no articles for unfinished ships unless they are otherwise notable (see for instance Japanese battleship Tosa or German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Parsecboy. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Parsecboy. Llammakey (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Parsecboy. Cuprum17 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Parsecboy. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nom. (I had initially Redirected it but it was reverted so I brought it here.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Parsecboy. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:41, 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 Keep as withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rye[edit]

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

Keep Withdraw nomination reliable sources. Does pass GNG. BlackAmerican (talk) 12:07, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I see on the Gnews result link above, there seem to me to be enough articles about her in enough reliable sources to more than meet GNG. I am not familiar with her myself, but she does seem to be notable. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. There are more than enough reliable sources about Angela Rye to merit notability. She is also a regular commentator on CNN and ABC and is featured on several different TV programs each week. Keep. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per others above. She seems to be very high in the public eye with plenty of coverage of her thus passing WP:GNG.[14][15][16]. We're way past the WP:TOOSOON period. I found these sources in seconds. Did the nom follow WP:BEFORE? --Oakshade (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There was little participation and no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vignan Vidyalaya, Rayagada[edit]

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

School that has not received significant and reliable third-party coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rayagada per standard practice for schools below high school level with no exceptional indications of notability: Noyster (talk), 11:14, 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 00:42, 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 11:56, 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. Up to editors whether to also create a redirect. Sandstein 13:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stakeout (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor characters from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 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 11:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fictional character, covered in only transformers-related sites and media that I can see. Does not have the sources to justify an article. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator, as there appears to be a lack of third-party, reliable sources on this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. Will defer to other editors if content can be pulled as well. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:39, 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 redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Seekers[edit]

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

Minor fictional element. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 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 11:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete same as Stakeout (Transformers), there aren't enough real sources talking about this to justify an article. ValarianB (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of sources to justify an article as already stated by ValarianB. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters. Will defer to other editors if content can be pulled as well. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:40, 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. BethNaught (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ephixa[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no (or very few) reliable sources, fails WP:MUSICBIO + seems like a promotional article. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has released several songs (including singles, remixes and albums) on the ever-growing and popular Monstercat record label, I believe this does not make him fail WP:MUSICBIO and the page will soon get more reliable sources User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2016 (ACDT)

Comment: Which one of the twelve criteria does your claim meets? There's no chart of any single or album (for #2), Monstercat is not a label with many notable performers (for #5), the page was created one year ago and the musician is active since 2007 but still no reliable sources (for #1, #4) - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am refering to #5. Although you said that Monstercat is not notable, I'd say it very much is, as it has several notable performers, some later singed to larger record labels like OWSLA (Notably Marshmello & Slushii). It comes down to who you would define 'notable', maybe someone who is easily recognisable, made it in the top charts or someone who has had tens or hundreds of millions of views on Youtube. Monstercat probably isn't a 'major' record label, but it is an important indie label, with it having a history since 2011, having roster of 72 musicians in the 2016 roster alone and has featured many big names or notable artists such as Seven Lions, Marshmello, Vicetone, Timmy Trumpet, Slushii, San Holo, Pegboard Nerds, Tristam, Jauz, Excision, Aero Chord, SCNDL, Project 46 & Krewella. I belive this makes Monstercat fit the criteria and more importantly, make Ephixa a Notable Artist along side his ever growing fanbase, with James having over 400,000 Youtube Subscribers, over 60,000 Soundcloud followers and over 25,000 twitter followers. - User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2016

Comment: And what about releasing two or more albums? I don't think he released a full-length album under Monstercat, it says self-released in the discography section. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's released two EPs (Matches Remixes EP) & Some Wobbles EP), he has been featured on the Monstercat 5 year anniversary album and has songs released in the following main Monstercat albums: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005,006,007 & 009. He has also been in Going Quantums Hello? Remix EP which was released on Monstercat. He has also released 9 singles on monstercat, all of which has been featured in the albums listed above. I'm sure he has released on Monstercat enough for him to pass #5. Just a quick catch up, I put Some Wobble EP as self released because Ephixa listed it on his website, he doesn't list any songs or EPs he has released on Monstercat on his website. After a quick google search, I have changed this to be correct, which it is released my Monstercat. . - User:MicroPowerpoint (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (ACDT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 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 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, your claim to its notability is hyperbole. It's not even close to meeting the criterion and the closing admin will know what to do. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of any debate about whether anything here passes an WP:NMUSIC criterion or not, a person does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because the article claims passage of an NMUSIC criterion: he gets an article only if and when he's the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. The NMUSIC criteria clarify the kinds of things that are accepted as valid claims of notability if they're supported by proper sourcing, but they do not hand the article an exemption from having to be properly sourced just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion has been unsourcedly claimed. Out of 36 "sources" in this article, not a single one of them is a valid one — it's almost all Reddit threads and YouTube videos and his own social networking profiles, with no evidence of real media coverage shown at all. No prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can source it better than this — but regardless of what NMUSIC criterion an article claims to satisfy, NMUSIC is still not passed until reliable sources are carrying that claim past GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass the WP:MUSIC criteria. Karst (talk) 11:34, 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 procedural close. The article was deleted by Materialscientist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osmosys software solutions.[edit]

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

My article was blocked from editing Lorem Logo (talk) 11:13, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magà Ettori[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG the article in French for this Frenchman was deleted as he was not considered notable enough in 2013 and there seems to have been little or no change in his notability. Article here Domdeparis (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's actually Corsican, not French. He's received enough coverage for his films and his animal rights activism that I think he meets GNG. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course he is French!!! Corsica is a French Island there is no such thing as the Corsican nationality. You could say he's from Corsica or he is Corsican but he is also French. Domdeparis (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's Corsican, similar to the way that Puerto Ricans are Puerto Ricans, even though they are also American citizens. I didn't say his passport was Corsican, I said HE is Corsican. He is not a Frenchman. You can't seriously argue that there is no such thing as Corsican people. I pointed this out because, being that he is Corsican, which has its own language, the fact that his article was deleted from the French-language Wikipedia is not relevant. He has achieved notability in Corsica as provided by the links above, in addition to the English-language magazine article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have dual nationality, French and British I have been living in France for 25 years i know what i am talking about. Of course he is a Frenchman i don't want to get into a sterile argument about Corsican independence and i never said that he wasn't Corsican but you cannot say that he isn't French, that is intellectually dishonest. When Corsica gains independence and is no longer part of France you can say that they are no longer French but until then this is blatantly wrong. In the same way you cannot say that Sicilians are not Italians. Corsica is a French department and all Corsican are French whether they like it or not. the situation Puerto Rico is totally different there are 2 citizenship Puerto Rican and American, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth but is not a US state. I suggest you read Puerto Rico and Corsica to get a better understanding of the differences. Domdeparis (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were identical; I said they were similar. In English we would not refer to someone from Corsica (or someone who is Basque for example) as a Frenchman as this has ethnic connotations. The same way you have the terms Englishman, Scotsman or even Yorkshireman - adding the suffix -man applies ethnicity or locality, not citizenship or nationality. My point is that your argument about the article being deleted off the French wikipedia is totally irrelevant. I have provided sufficient coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Wikimandia: I'm not sure if English is your first language but the normal way to describe a man who has French nationality and is a citizen of France is as a Frenchman it has nothing to do with ethnicity it is a simple matter of semantics and nothing more. Someone from the USA is an American someone from Germany is a German someone from Great Britain is a Briton (he may also be a Scot) someone from Spain is a Spaniard and a chap from the Netherlands is a Dutchman it's just the idiosyncratic way that English works. You might like to read this Demonym#-man it should help you understand. Someone who holds an American passport is an American even if he describes himself as being a Hawaiian, I would say that Corsica is much much closer in status to Hawaii than Puerto Rica, you might want to compare the 2 to understand the similarities. Domdeparis (talk) 14:46, 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. Whether as a copyvio or otherwise, nobody wants to keep this around. Sandstein 14:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multidimensional Signal Reconstruction[edit]

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

Looks like copyvio from this: book The Banner talk 00:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I can't view the Gbooks entry you shared, for some reason, but the way the article is written seems like it wasn't originally formatted for Wikipedia. I'm inclined to agree for that reason. It's also a guide, which doesn't belong here. If it's not a copyvio, we might move it to Wikiversity (supposedly, I just learned about this). Jergling (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update - Fixed the gbooks search by re-submitting. I'm not sure it's a deletion-worthy copyvio, but it is made by a SPA switching between two similarly named accounts. The methods described here are not credited to anyone or properly cited at all, and the refs here are mostly "letters" as opposed to accepted papers. No case is made for this being a disctinct subset of Signal reconstruction or even Analog to digital conversion. Jergling (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alquifou[edit]

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

The sentence in the article now is all of the info I could find on the topic. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Has already been moved to Wiktionary Ajpolino (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added "See also" section, subject bar, pottery template, pottery category; created Talk page. Added links to this article to better integrate into WP encyclopedia. Uncertain if this is enough to prevent deletion. Will ask for help on wikiproject talk pages. — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another name for galena according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/alquifou. This term doesn't appear to have any independent notability: the only reference for the content in the article is over 100 years old, so is not necessarily accurate today. Maybe galena needs an "Alternative names" section. Otherwise the Wiktionary entry is appropriate. —SMALL JIM 14:58, 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 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete or perhaps merge to the currnet name for the mineral. We have nothing here but an imprecise dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Higham-Smith[edit]

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

WOMAA is not the karaté world championship or kickboxing world championships so he cannot be titled world champion; His musical career is not notable. So fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:MUSBIO and WP:BIO and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one governing body for Karate and Kickboxing. WOMAA (which stands for the World Organization of Martial Arts Athletes) is a governing body for numerous Martial Arts. On their website, stay that "All competitors who compete in the WOMAA World Martial Games are of Olympic Caliber and travel each year to the games to find out who will win the Gold and earn the right to become a WOMAA World Champion". So, he could and was be titled World Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdavis1992 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTKA is also a very well known governing body for various Martial Arts. He left this World Championships with a Bronze medal, therefore he competed at "World Championship or Olympic quality", as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdavis1992 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humm couldn't find much about either governing body and they don't have their own wikipedia pages...you know it's very easy to create an association and write that all the competitors are of Olympic standard...it doesn't make it true...especially as neither karate or kickboxing are Olympic sports. Please read Kickboxing and Karate for more information. This is the explanation from the web site of what the competition is...

a TRUE international competition which is OPEN to All Styles, All Systems, All Belt Ranks (Beginners, Intermediates, Advanced and all Black Belts), and all ages (kids and adults) doesn't sound like what you could call a world championship to me...I think we can safely say that the subject is not what you could call a world champion...Domdeparis (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTKA is the Traditional Karate section of the WKA. WKA overlook WTKA. WKA has a Wikipedia page. All it takes is a simple search to find that out. It's okay though, I found it for you (http://www.wkaassociation.com/category/world-events/) . If you were to ask any Karate athlete, in any part of the world, if they'd heard of WTKA/WKA, then you'd get a unanimous yes. Also, Karate is an Olympic Sport. If you didn't know that, I don't think you're the right person to comment on the validity of any governing body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdavis1992 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree that we can forget the "world champion" bit? In June this year it was decided that Karate will be an Olympic sport for the first time in 2020 but this is the first time and in the article you need to provide a source that proves that he was that he was bronze medalist in the WTKA world championships in 2010, I have looked and can't find it unfortunately. We are talking about a junior medal I suppose at the age of 15/16? IMHO a bronze medal as a junior fails WP:NSPORTS Domdeparis (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a all. I think we need somebody'/ else's input on this, apart from you and I. Nope; the category he got Bronze in was ages 16-39. I think we need somebody else's opinion on what classifies as a sporting achievement at World Championship level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdavis1992 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this page is for but you must add sources to claims if you want them to be accepted. Domdeparis (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding sources to that part of the article, over the next 24 hours. I've asked to meet with Ben to ask him more about it tomorrow, as I train with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdavis1992 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed up some of the formatting (especially the references). The lack of references through out the article makes notability a big question but I am willing to wait for the original author to beef those up before I comment further on the claims themselves.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single Bronze? It doesn't sound very much like notability to a non-expert. A search gives practically no sign of notability (although Google guesses 35 hits, there are actually fewer than 20, nothing substantial among them). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. WOMAA has over 500 divisions from 6 and under beginners to 54 and over black belts and crowns a "world champion" in all of those categories. As a 16 year old who had studied martial arts for 1 year I doubt he was competing "at the highest level". There's nothing to indicate he's notable in either the martial arts or music business. There also appears to be a strong COI since the article was created by someone who trains with him. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Lesotho[edit]

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

Not a travel guide WP:NOTTRAVEL and list contains barely any notable hotels. Ajf773 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. <signature>

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. <signature>

Delete - totally redundant list; the category is sufficient Spiderone 20:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTPURP, esp. the navigation element. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 13:37, 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 redirect to Educational_technology#Over-stimulation. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Syndrome[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, very few citations or references other than by the inventor. Most searches for "everest syndrome" yield something else. Vectro (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be irrelevant but did you come here from reddit too? Support deletion or merge, btw Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 06:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like jargon known only to a small in-group or clique of teachers and virtually no-one else. I don't think there's sufficient notability to allow for it to be kept or merged. Support deletion. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty plus years in education, many as a leader in classroom tech initiatives. This phenomenon exists but I've never heard it referred to by this term. It may belong in an article discussing technology in the classroom but doesn't seem enough for a separate page. (Yep, reddit TIL) TBoaN (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Educational_technology#Disadvantages or possibly Educational_technology#Over-stimulation. Notability as standalone term not established. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:36, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grüum[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. They've advertised quite aggressively so they do have some web presence (looking at the Google hits, you get the impression that they sent a free kit to hundreds of bloggers) but nothing beyond short reviews of their products. Pichpich (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Fails WP:ADVERTISEMENT...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parity (software)[edit]

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

The ONLY reference I could find to this software was the company's own website. KDS4444 (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found references in Gnews (adding "blockchain" helps the filter significantly.) However, they mostly appear to be standard press releases. Delete for now. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which one are the criteries for delete an softwre article?. Wikipedia is full of articles about software pages. It is one of the few implementations of new Ethereum Blockchain Technology. As new software and not being backed by an important corporation it is normal not many references. Just wondering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkzwkz (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. There is little in the way of third party coverage available and I don't see evidence that this is very popular. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Schwartz[edit]

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

WP:BIO, no updates since tag placed in August 2016 Jsmith206 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very little info on her, per the first nomination for deletion. Delta13C (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and clean up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not enough sources out there to expand the article. Her bio section is only supported by her own website, and the rest of the article is basically a back and forth between her quack claims and criticism of them. Delta13C (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also closing editor statement: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz. Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I understand the interest in improving the page, however biographies on Erika Schwartz from reliable sources do not exist. The current citations are snippets likely placed by publicity teams. Consequently, since the last AFD request, there have been no valuable additions to the page despite the maintenance tag (refimprove) in August. Thus, attempts to find reliable sources to verify have failed. In the last AFD, editors felt that Schwartz fails to meet the relevant notability guideline; she lacks significant in-depth coverage from reliable sources (WP:BIO). This combination seems to warrants deletion. Morganglick (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG with extensive coverage on her and her work from sources like the New York Times, the Daily Mail, USA Today, CBS News and others. [24][25][26][27]--Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that are proving her "notability" violate several rules of Wikipedia.
- 1. One source links to ProQuest which violates WP:ELREG. There is also a WSJ article that also violates WP:ELREG [28][29]

- 2. The first NY Times article (BOOKS ON HEALTH, Standing up for Nature) is a page about her book, rather than establishing biographical facts [30].

- 3. The springerlink resource is from 2007 which speaks to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS [31].

- 4. Finally, there is a WP:ELDEAD link in the article. They have linked to an archived version on Web Archive but the original link is still dead [32]

- 5. Her personal website is used as a resource, when it does not support the statement at all [33]

At a glance, these support WP:GNG, but once investigated do not prove her notability. Once you remove these sources, and the statements that go along with them, she loses WP:GNG Jsmith206 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are only speaking of some of the sources in the article at time of AfD, not the additional ones presented here and a couple of other ones in the article that establish notability (except the NYT one which I'll get to). WP:Notability makes it explicitly clear that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. That something like her personal website is used as a source is just a red herring. It's the existence of qualifying sources that count to notability, not possible flawed sources in the article at time of AfD. For the WP:ELDEAD issue, WP:GNG makes it very clear that the sources don't need to be available online. As for the NYT book review, that the New York Times reviewed her book is further coverage on her and her work and further indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, You only added here two sources that are not cited in the article. The first one of these is the Daily Mail piece which is low quality because it represents churnalism, rather that in-depth coverage independent of the subject. The other one you added here is the USA Today article which is barely anything more than the result of her book publisher running a press junket, which does not add any relevant biographical information. There still remains a severe lack of sources that cover her at the level needed to write even a minimal BLP. Delta13C (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a second look at that Daily Mail article and I see it is really in depth. Your original research speculation that journalist Frances Hardy is just copying a press-release is noted - by the way, without any evidence of such, you just committed a WP:BLP violation - but the coverage of this person demonstrates there is a high amount of sources. --Oakshade (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Notability is established from in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources, which this page lacks. The sources do not show recognition from the medical community, but rather the press as a result of promotional activity (around her book releases). Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' - as said by Techwikikitty above, notability is established through coverage in reliable sources sufficient to provide enough data for a standalone article. There might be sufficient sourcing for an article on one or more of her books, or her theory or theories, but not so far as I can see on the lady herself. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably a great person and very capable in her vocation, but authoring some non-notable books don't make you notable. I'm not seeing the significant coverage that is needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not enough sources and that introduces tensions between two competing imperatives: WP:BLP versus WP:NPOV. Any article needs to be absolutely clear that her ideas are bogus, but we cannot do that without overwhelming the scant biographical data there is and ending up as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang the reality-based consensus on bioidentical hormones. Guy (Help!) 01:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 04:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Om Prakash Mishra[edit]

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

Unelected politician, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be salted after deletion - see history of deletion notices at User talk:Opmishra123 --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - publicity for non-notable unelected politician. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt from his WP:Help desk#My Page - Pt. Om Prakash Mishra post, subject does not seem to understand that this is not "their" page, and expects us to resolve the issue of his lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as per nom --Domdeparis (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sole reference says only that a candidate of this name came third in a 2012 election but is being used to support his candidacy for 2017. His name is mentioned in SP releases 142-candidate list for UP Assembly polls (26 March 2016). I am seeing nothing which meets the WP:POLITICIAN or wider WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:02, 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 keep. Add the new content written by User:Penbat, and then move to Isolation to facilitate abuse. This will preserve the article history.. Cerebellum (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isolation Techniques (Individual)[edit]

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

A pointless list of isolation techniques including WP:OR. If you want to get a list of isolation techniques just look at Category:Shunning or Category:Social rejection. Isolation techniques tend to relate to different contexts rather than being a homogenous concept. I am not aware of any bodies of work devoted to isolation techniques generally. How much each one is aligned to bullying or abuse (which is the angle of the article) is arguable and different. --Penbat (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to Social isolation as tagged. The article is not only list; It also has some meaningful referenced mergeable text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Staszek Lem, I can see that abusive isolation is a credible and important concept. I have experienced it myself as part of a bullying strategy. Your opportunity to interact with others is restricted so you cant get help from others to overcome the abuse. This applies, for example, in domestic abuse and cults. It is something that is missing from all the Category:Shunning and Category:Social rejection articles. In principle I agree to merge to Social isolation#Abusive and punitive isolation but the list needs to be truncated and the text in the Purpose of Isolation section expanded and Wikified. Isnt punitive isolation already covered by Send to Coventry, Ostracism and Silent treatment ? Maybe just focus on "abusive isolation" stuff that isnt already covered elsewhere. Actually the expression "abusive isolation" is ambiguous as it might imply a form of torture such as sensory deprivation for its own sake. "Isolation to facilitate abuse" is clearer so section heading would be Social isolation#To facilitate abuse.--Penbat (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked at this in more detail. It will not work to create a new section in social isolation as the scope of the material is broader than just social isolation. Also the rest of social isolation is entirely about voluntary social isolation which is something different. I have created a draft of new article User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse which uses all the usable material I can see in Isolation Techniques (Individual) and some new material which I have added. I believe User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse is good enough to launch although there is plenty of scope to improve it over time. That renders Isolation Techniques (Individual) redundant and in my opinion is not even worth keeping as a redirect as it is an unlikely search expression.--Penbat (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isobel Chaveh, the sole purpose of publishing my article Isolation Techniques (Individual) on Wikipedia was to create necessary balancing controversy (विनाश) on this subject - to the point of Undoing, which it has, by Penbat.

Isolation Techniques is a short excerpt from a sociopsychological analysis of the Financially Controlling Psychological Abuser, an abstract by Sri Neale Tamal, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Oxford Hindu Studies. Isolation Techniques are but a part of the methodology used by FCPAs. It is of interest to note that other male sociopaths such as dictators, emperors, cult leaders, abusive husbands, fundamentalist evangelists, all employ the same identical tactics & methodology in gaining power over their victims or subjects.

You may read Dr. Tamal's complete work on this subject after it has been translated in its entirety & published. Retaining excerpts of his articles on Wikipedia as a reference source of materia is not necessary. Isobel Chaveh (talk)

Comment Dr. Tamal's work may well be credible as one of the sources after it is published. Anyway with User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse your article lives on in a modified form. I think I have picked up on your "other male sociopaths such as dictators, emperors, cult leaders, abusive husbands, fundamentalist evangelists, all employ the same identical tactics & methodology in gaining power over their victims or subjects" angle.--Penbat (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am itching to launch User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse. Nobody has objected to it. I will wait until 7 days have passed with this AFD.--Penbat (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Penbat: Would'n it be a WP:FORK of the discussed article? Please explain what's the difference in the subject. Also, before progressing with your draft, please get familiar with wikipedia guidelines about WP:SYNTHESIS and other issues of WP:NOR so that you avoid the pitfalls. Also, I would advise a simpler title: "Abusive isolation". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already explained above that "Actually the expression "abusive isolation" is ambiguous as it might imply a form of torture such as sensory deprivation for its own sake." Anyway "Isolation to facilitate abuse" tells you a bit more. "Coercive isolation" might have been credible but unfortunately if you Google it it is mainly used as a political term. The original article and my draft both refer to "physical isolation", "emotional isolation" and social isolation". It makes no sense to make article a section in social isolation for this and other reasons. I am not WP:SYNTHing or WP:NORing anything. My draft already has 23 different cites. It spells out that coercive (non voluntary) isolation is a common feature of many types of abuse. As I have already started doing in my draft, isolation for the different types of abuse are to be described in separate sections. Some common features between different abuse types may in some cases become apparent. Unlike the original Isolation Techniques (Individual), my draft has a proper focus and is far less WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. That is the whole point. I was only suggesting that Isobel Chavehs theme may shine through incidentally but not explicitly. --Penbat (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"abusive" and "to facilitate abuse" is an unnecessary splitting hairs. Torture is abuse. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is self evident that if an abused person is isolated, an abuser can abuse more easily. Within individual contexts in my draft there is repeated mention of isolation giving the abuser power and control to allow abuse to take place. The fact that the isolation could itself be abusive as a form of torture (as sensory deprivation) is a different subject and a specialised case. To include it here and call article abusive isolation makes article lose its focus completely.--Penbat (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no question of WP:FORK as originally I wanted this article binned completely, hence this AFD. But I then realised that some aspects of the article address an important gap in the Wikipedia coverage in this area. As I explained I have copied over all that I think are all the usable bits of the original article and added some new material. Thus the original article can then be binned anyway.--Penbat (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you copied something, it cannot be binned, per wikipedia licensing rules; article histories must be merged instead. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. That could be got round by pasting my new version into Isolation Techniques (Individual) and renaming it Isolation to facilitate abuse. This situation is not unique and you seem to be looking for excuses to stall it. It is not uncommon for editors to draft major revisions of articles in sandboxes and in fact it is the sensible thing to do.--Penbat (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in a nutshell) - I originally proposed a straight AFD for Isolation Techniques (Individual). My position is now to replace the content of Isolation Techniques (Individual) with that in User:Penbat/Isolation to facilitate abuse and rename article Isolation to facilitate abuse. This creates a better focus, reworking material orginally in Isolation Techniques (Individual) and adding new material.--Penbat (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge the material though I am not sure what would be the best title. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG To avoid any ambiguity are you basically agreeing with my view as laid out in my previous comment ? --Penbat (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge the content in your draft with the existing material into one article, though I cannot decide whcih would be the best title. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Staszek Lem. This AFD is lasting an eternity. I have changed my position to accomodate your WP:FORK concern. We only now seem to differ on the new name of the article. DGG is happy with using my new draft but is undecided about the title. It looks to me like I am the only person with the motivation to progress this further. Please clarify where you stand now as this AFD has the real prospect of just dying a death. It is self-evident that my proposal is at least an improvement on the original article put up for AFD.--Penbat (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "abusive isolation" v "isolation to facilite abuse", the second option is self-evidently better as it better reflects the content of my draft and avoids ambiguities. Isolation as torture is a completely separate issue already covered elsewhere, for example in sensory deprivation and solitary confinement.--Penbat (talk) 13:19, 17 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Panos[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria WP:NHOCKEY Domdeparis (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to meet the WP:Hockey guidelines. Its a biography on a guy who is still playing on the side. There will be more information to come. This man does a lot of work with charities and such and we wanted to recognize him. Deleting this page would be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanHartman389 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article focuses on him as a hockey player, it is appropriate to look at the NHOCKEY guidelines. He doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, either. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet WP:BIO his name is in fact mentioned in all of the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.178.2.1 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RyanHartman389 please read WP:BIO if he has made some very significant work for charities despite his young age there must be some sources somewhere that prove this. As the article stands there are no WP:CCS. Please remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not everyone has their place in it. It's a nice gesture to want to pay hommage to a great guy but to be honest that's what social media is for. --Domdeparis (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't be deleted, it's a notable person as RyanHartman389 said. SomeRandomUserGuy (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Complete fail of WP:NHOCKEY and WP:BIO. This charity work that keeps getting mentioned only amounts to him playing on a team that participated in a charity event. There's no substantial coverage of him in the cited sources about the events: one only mentions him in the list of team members captioning an image, and the other doesn't mention him at all. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* His name is mentioned in the articles. That meets WP:BIO guidelines.

^ I disagree fully. This article should not be deleted it's only 1 day old and has a lot of notable information regarding this boys life already and is only going to grow. You google this name and dozens of sites show him. Not to mention his social media following that will continue to support the page and add more information to it as time goes on. There's no point. It will keep being brought back and revived. It also clearly states he has done work for various charities in the references.

SomeRandomUserGuy is right. Thos is a notable living person and infact does meet the WP:BIO guidelines. -J. Venino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B113:8FDD:5D13:CC80:4F54:A9B5 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page technically does meet WP:BIO guidelines and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackNimrod1414 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred and Domdeparis: I have opened a SPI case, as all of the opposes appear to be the same person, also Strong Delete as non notable. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete Obviously fails WP:NHOCKEY as they have never been a professional hockey player. No significant coverage in references to pass WP:BIO. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even come close to meeting the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fluff articles on totally non-notable people would ideally not even survive a full hour, it is scary if the article makes it a whole day. I still think we need to tighten the guidelines on who can create articles, too often it is done by single-purpose accounts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Given the above user's threats to bring the page back regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I also recommend page protection to prevent recreation. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 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. Sandstein 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Savvycom[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP criteria or WP:GNG the 3 external sources who gave them "awards" are referencing websites. I have come across Clutch several times and to be referenced and noted you only have to have a linkedin profile and supply 3 customer references and they carry out a phone survey to note your company... Domdeparis (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor/passing coverage, minor awards, not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rauno Nurger[edit]

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

College basketball player with no indication of notability. I can not find any significant coverage of him. The only sources on the article is a ESPN profile and the college newspaper. An A7 speedy delete was declined as he plays for a notable team. Based on this no college sports player should ever be speedy deleted if that is a credible claim to significance. -- GB fan 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the high notability hurdle for college basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable CBB player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.68.216 (talk) 01:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motin Rahman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is very unacceptable nominee dear Kleuske. He is one of the notable film director from Bangladesh and also winner of Bangladesh National Film Award. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 14:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very much fulfills WP:FILMMAKER...Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Poor reasoning behind nomination. Subject meets notability guidelines.--Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Răzvan Benche[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable kick boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers or boxers. Routine sports coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Figgers[edit]

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

WP:COI WP:SOAPbox of a minor entrepreneur. The asserted notability is all to gee-whizz-ery from local news sources which does not rise to the WP:BIO level we require. Delete and wait for the subject to become truly notable beyond showing up in the local papers or on the local news from time to time. jps (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He may currently be the youngest holder of an FCC cell phone license, but there is no assertion he is the youngest to ever have held such a license. I always am very reticent to grant youngest notability, and there is no reason to think this is a good case for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see the notability here; fails WP:Corp and reads like a press release or local newspaper article. Kierzek (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the editors here have considered the sources in the article, why did I find a 404 error on "The Story of Freddie Figgers, CEO of Figgers Communications Inc"? Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable businessperson. Sources are insufficient; many are PR or PR-like. The article even includes a quote from the subject:

Freddie Figgers said, "All the laws in the world can’t change behavior. But the Figgers X1 can."

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 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 is he is notable. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Böcker[edit]

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

He had some major positions, but I think he still fails WP:BIO Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG, with significant coverage in, amongst others, the FT, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and plenty of Swedish sources besides. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained at Forbes.com, that is not a reliable source as they have gone to a contributor model. Indeed, the article you've linked to is bylined to someone who, while she calls herself a "reporter," is identified as "Subscriber." Despite the cachet of Forbes name, Forbes.com is now a different beast. He may well be notable based on the other RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. I just picked that out as one of a large number of sources, without paying too much attention to who had written it. There are plenty of other, more reliable sources available here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, in fairness, I was just checking the notice board. I may be wrong about Contributor's articles being rejected as RS. See here, for example. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It would come down to the reliability of each "contributor." Anyway, just fyi.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Böcker was CEO of OMX, the company that owned the Stockholm Stock Exchange and several other Nordic exchanges and was involved in its merger with NASDAQ (it is now known as NASDAQ OMX). He was later CEO of the Singapore Exchange. It is difficult to see how anybody could consider this an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. Böcker was featured on the front page of Swedish business weekly Veckans Affärer in 2003, the year he was appointed head of OMX.[34] (There was probably an extensive profile inside the magazine, but it is unavailable on the web.) Some additional Swedish sources: [35][36][37][38][39][40]. --Hegvald (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should never have been nominated for speedy deletion under WP:A7, because it clearly made a claim of importance at the time. I have pointed this out to the nominator. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's clearly notable. He may even be notable just with his English-language coverage but when Swedish RS are considered, it's an easy pass of GNG, I'd say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher A. Morris[edit]

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

State-level political operative (not elected, worked for a campaign.) He's a hard person to search for because his name is rather common, specifically there was a Time magazine photographer with the same name who covered the Trump campaign. I ended up searching for '"Christopher Morris" trump michigan -time' and found very little outside of routine news coverage. Also note this article is almost certainly autobiographical, given the name of the article writer ([User:Trumpmichigan]) and this edit: [41] Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sole claims are only for working with other people, not that there's actual substance for the man himself, hence there's also nothing for actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete state political operatives for campaigns do not get default notability and there is not enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" per WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is this is how medications are now being split on Wikipedia. WP:MED and WP:PHARM may be useful to review. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norepinephrine (medication)[edit]

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

It's nonsense to have this extra (highly redundant) article. Everything is (or needs to be) in Norepinephrine. Leyo 07:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original motivation for a separate article was to have an article that could use {{Drugbox}} rather than {{Infobox neurotransmitter}}. See [42]. The medication article is rather short which makes 1#Split the argument about conflicting manuals of style rather moot at the moment. I stand by my suggestion of modifying the infoboxes to allow embedding the drugbox (or at least the clinical data portion) inside the neurotransmitter infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to see which idiot editor proposed this pointless splitting in the first place.... Oh, it was me :p Sizeofint (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disclosure: I'm the editor who split the two; I am also the primary contributor to norepinephrine and took it to GA status. I sympathize with the motivation here, but I don't think AfD is the right place to have this discussion. The issues have already been discussed extensively at Talk:Norepinephrine, and it will be necessary for contributors to familiarize themselves with that background in order to have an informed opinion. I believe the question ought to be handled with an RfC at the talk page, if anywhere. Certainly the ordinary criteria for deletion do not apply here. Looie496 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep in general we are moving toward splitting articles like this. see Splitting articles about endogenous molecules used as drugs Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Yes that is the way we are looking at dividing subjects that are both used as a medication and are naturally occuring molucules. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a few editors in en.wikipedia are really on the wrong path here. Luckily there isn't any other Wikipedia following that nonsense forking of a single chemical. The content of the two drugboxes is highly redundant. There is no doubt that if kept, this needs to be changed. --Leyo 20:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo if you look through the main article's history, you will see that that infobox on the main artilce is Template:infobox neurotransmitter and has been since Sept 2015. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the template is different, but the content is highly redundant. --Leyo 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by other editors, there is currently a consensus at WP:MED and WP:PHARM to allow separate pages for medications that are also endogenous substances. There's a clear rationale for doing so, based on what readers are looking for, and it is specific to these specific kinds of compounds, so this is not just any "single chemical", and it certainly isn't "nonsense". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the above 4 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sorry but I have to say I'm with Leyo on this one, I feel these splits are unnecessary and potentially confusing to readers, and I don't feel they are helpful to the project as a whole. There may be some cases where there is so much to be said about the medical uses of an endogenous hormone / neurotransmitter etc that it is best to split it from the "non-medical" content, but I don't feel this to be the case for any of the examples we have discussed recently. And frankly I don't think there is consensus for a split either, having a handful of very active and vocal wikiproject medicine members who refuse to compromise and will just argue endlessly until they get their own way because no one can be bothered arguing with them any longer, is not the same as building consensus for a change of this nature. Meodipt (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we need to split medications so people looking for rapid answers during an emergency can find them easily. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not serious, aren't you? If this is a major goal, pretty much everything but the following sentence should be removed from that article: "At high doses, and especially when it is combined with other vasopressors, it can lead to limb ischemia and limb death." --Leyo 08:25, 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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Cinema[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable minor series, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. References provided are hyper-local university sources or are promotional/not independent of the subject. Article was recreated following a 2006 deletion discussion, but unclear whether it's identical to the deleted version. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aired on a student television station. " In 2011, Deadly Cinema premiered on YouTube. In 2012, Deadly Cinema premiered on Facebook." No refs suggesting reviews of any critical reception. Can you spell v-a-n-i-t-y s-p-a-m? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG. The "award winning" award does not meet WikiP's notability either. MarnetteD|Talk 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ostracism. Consensus is that this form of ostracism does not merit a separate article. Sandstein 13:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qahr and ashti[edit]

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

I don't think this worth to have a dedicated entry on an encyclopedia, if it some kind ostracism, I guess it is better to be merged to that. −ebrahim^talk 20:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Isobel Chaveh:

Qahr & ashti is not ostracism, qahr is an Iranian social behavior, a ritualized custom of avoidance towards a family member to let him or her know that he or she needs to change a certain behavior. Once the behavior has been changed to satisfaction, then ashti (forgiveness) can be enacted.

Iranians do not sit down & discuss family problems the way Americans do - they play nonvocalized behavior games like qahr, taarof and "Face"

Taarof, another Iranian social behavior, has its own separate page.

Face (sociological), a social behavior, is another separate Wikipedia article that has entries of the different "Face" behaviors of several countries, including Iran. "Face" is the primary social behavior of Islamic cultures.

Another page, Culture of Iran, does not address social behavior at all; this is not a good page to incorporate Iranian customs of social behavior such as qahr, taarof & "face".

Ostracism is an ancient Roman-based form of legal punishment - banning an individual from his hometown for a prescribed number of years - this custom was carried over into the Middle Ages, Dante was ostracized from Florence for 10 years.

Today, ostracism is a public form of avoidance & condemnation of an individual or of a group.

Qahr, on the other hand, is designed to be played within a family setting only; it is shockingly bad manners to publicly ostracize anyone, or to let anyone outside the family be aware than an individual is being shown qahr.

Ashti (forgiveness) is a component of the social behavior called "Qahr & Ashti". There is no forgiveness with ostracism.

Therefore, merging Qahr with Ostracism would lead to misconceptions that they are different names for the same behavior - they are not. Ostracism is very public & all are encouraged to join in the shunning; qahr is very private & kept hidden from all outside the family.

Qahr can be a form of psycholgical abuse by a perpetrator towards a victim; different forms of similar psychological abuse such as silent treatment, shunning, Isolation Techniques (Individual), snub, & Isolationism, & ostracism all have separate pages on Wikipedia. Isobel Chaveh (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Shunning#In religion per Isobel's rationale, though I'm not sure that was their intent. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 20:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Isobel Chaveh:

Iran is not a religion, it is a country, so this article cannot be merged into Shunning#In religion. Qahr is an Iranian cultural custom, it is not a religious concept. Unless someone writes an article about sociological concepts of Iranian social customs, or psychological aspects of the Iranian class system, this article needs to remain a stand-alone encyclopedic subject Isobel Chaveh (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just following up from my watchlist: No, we don't need a separate article about Iranian shunning just because it has a local name. It's still fundamentalist shunning; it's still studied and described in the same way, which is confirmed by your sources. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ostracism per WP:ATD-M. Taking user:Isobel Chaveh's arguments that this is a specific societally-bound and not religious cultural practice at face value, it still doesn't demonstrate a reason for a standalone article. Specific cultural variations within an ancient custom (which it apparently is) can be easily accommodated within the article on the generalized topic. This linguistic formulation may well be worth a redirect to a section of the larger article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Barbara County Office of Arts and Culture[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines and is promotional in nature. Creator of the page is a declared paid employee of this organization which suggested on the talk page that their intent in creating the page was " to better inform the people of the world wide web about our office and what we do while our website is down" which goes against WP:NOTWEBHOST. My google search only brought up this organization's website and press releases. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 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 02:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete County level departments are not inherently notable. There doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy WP:ORG here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this seems to have been a good faith creation by an intern. Technically this should have gone through AFC. But oh well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:19, 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 06:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Admitted by article creator that this is a basic WP:NOTWEBHOST problem, as well as WP:GNG lack. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Mackowycz, Sr.[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a single-market local radio personality, referenced only to a glancing namecheck of his existence in an overall history of one of the radio stations he worked for. As always, a radio personality does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. But nothing here demonstrates that — and the reliable sources I can locate on his name are overwhelmingly more about his son Bob Jr. (a still-current and nationally-syndicated radio personality), with the only hit that maps to Bob Sr. being a one-line soundbite in an article about the El Mocambo. That's not what it takes to make a local radio personality notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's Anti Gravity Lean[edit]

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

My redirect to Michael Jackson was reverted without explanation. I maintain this is not a notable thing, not notable enough for its own article. If there's anything worth saving we can merge that into the main article, but there's not much--the color of his pants, for instance, really doesn't matter much in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I started a thread re: this account several days ago at ANI, as its sole purpose is loading up unsourced music-related articles, most of which give tour date listings for BeeGees concerts in the 70s. Then there's nonsense like this. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not indepdently notable enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The material is only relevant as it pertains to the song Smooth Criminal. It does not merit its own encyclopedic article, specially when contrasted with Moonwalk (dance).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 10:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Pyro[edit]

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

Article about a recording artist who lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The artist has been an independent artist until recently but he has been brought up in many different reputable sources including The Source, JamSphere, Genius, HotNewHipHop, and The Daily Loud. He is a verified spotify artist, his vevo account has been verified, his twitter is going through the verification process now. The artist has his own website. The artist has 1 album and an EP out that was released on iTunes, Spotify, and Tidal. He just recently signed a deal with Ruby Recordings. There are over 15 reputable sources/links on the artists wikipedia page. According to WP:MUSICBIO This artist meets the criterion which includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media. He has reputable online versions of print media. — Olympus722 —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disagree with the above comments that the published sources (The Source, JamSphere, Genius, HotNewHipHop, and The Daily Loud) are significant. They each openly solicit editorial content from artists wishing to promote themselves, rendering these publications/websites non-independent. The rest are user generated, which includes getting ones music on i-tunes, Spotify, etc. All if it proves existence, not notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of sources that shows the artist exists, but none that show why he is Notable. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MiddlePeak Railways[edit]

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

Non-notable subject, no (immediate) pings on Google. Nordic Nightfury 12:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 13:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny company only incorporated in 2001; looks it might no longer be active, per Companies House. No evidence of notability. Mcewan (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur, there's no significance and WP:NOT in fact applies. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- pure advert for NN company. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 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. Redirect can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global sea ice decline[edit]

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

This information is better merged into the article Sea Ice as it is not a specific concept. Domdeparis (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's nothing worth merging, but Sea ice would be the target as it covers the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here to merge, and no need for a separate article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave and Chuck "The Freak"[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a single-station local radio program airing only in a single media market, with very little reliable sourcing to pass WP:NMEDIA: of the nine sources here, six are primary sources, user-generated chat forums and blogs that cannot confer notability at all. And of the three sources that do actually constitute reliable source coverage, they're all to local media in the show's own home market. This is not enough sourcing to make a single-market radio show notable, however: if you cannot show nationalized coverage demonstrating that the show is known beyond its own local market, then getting it past NMEDIA takes a lot more than just three pieces of the type of coverage that every radio show in existence always gets in the local media. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another unnotable morning zoo among many unnotable morning zoos; doesn't help that the article is a spelling nightmare and most of the sources are complete WP:PROMO inaneness. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 22 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 04:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distorted Circuitry[edit]

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

Delete. Article about an internet radio program, citing no reliable source coverage at all. Internet radio programs do not get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just because they exist; they must be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google does not reveal any reliable third party coverage as far as I can tell, ergo non-notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 22 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 04:25, 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 14:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Show (with Manic Mike)[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a single-station local radio program with no evidence of notability per WP:NMEDIA. As always, single-station radio programs are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist(ed); reliable source coverage supporting a credible claim of notability must be present for an article to become earned, but nothing here satisfies either part of that equation. And, in fact, the article's been flagged for both sourcing and notability since 2010 without seeing any improvement on either score. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Google search for sourcing revealed nothing by way of independent reliable coverage. A Youtube link, a link in another Wiki project, that's about it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 22 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 04:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation in the discussion. Article re-creation available at WP:REFUND. Joyous! | Talk 14:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Overload[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a radio show, referenced exclusively to its own self-published website about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, a radio show is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists; RS coverage supporting a proper claim of notability per WP:NMEDIA is required for an article to become earned, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 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 04:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psiram[edit]

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

I don't think this passes WP:WEB. The sources listed are namechecks at best, nothing substantive that's actually about this website apart from a single blog post. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few sources: [43]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But reliable? Namechecks don't substantiate notability, of course. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the links to the parliamentary discussions given to demonstrate notability show only passing mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Idaho gubernatorial election, 2010. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith G. Allred[edit]

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

Allred was only ever a candidate for office, not a holder of office. He does not meet the notability criteria for politicians. The coverage of him in the sources does not rise above routine coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no significance in or outside WP:POLITICIAN and simply nothing else beyond it. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Idaho gubernatorial election, 2010, as is standard practice for unelected candidates running in notable political races. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election per Cullen328. Being a losing candidate in an election is not grounds for an article in and of itself, unless the person can be shown to clear a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some reason independent of the candidacy (e.g. already having preexisting notability for other reasons.) But that's not shown here. As a gubernatorial candidate rather than a legislative one, however, he is a plausible enough search term that his name should lead somewhere relevant rather than just redlinking. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Andelin[edit]

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

For the record I actually created this article. I have since come to realize we need stricter controls on Wikipedia content. There is just no evidence that Andelin is widely recognized for his work at a level that would make him a nottable sculptor. 2 of the sources are essentially his website and an add source. The Mormon Times article was written by the LDS Public affiars rep in his stake, and thus has lots of conflict of interest points. The LDS Church News article might go for something, but to establish him as a notable scultor I think we would need more than at best 2 articles about him. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur like with the other ones here, there's nothing here given there's only 1 trivial published book, and other trivial achievements at that, hence nothing meaningfully significant. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lili de Hoyos Anderson[edit]

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

Anderson just has not received the level of notice to make her notable per general notability guidelines or author notability guidelines. I hate admitting this, because I created the article, and having an article on the half Mexican, half French Mormon wife of a fully American man is the type of stereotype busting I like to do. However there just are not enough sources to show that Anderson is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or anything actually close to it, the library collections are quite trivial and there's nothing beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 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 14:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ashdown[edit]

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

Ashdown just does not pass the notability guidelines of musicians. On the side of GNG, the Church News article might be enough for one point, see here [44] although others might argue it is too much a recapped interview without fact checking to be useable. The Palo Alto sourced article is not about him, and the other source is from his publisher. So we do not have multiple independent 3rd party secondary sources as required by the GNG. For the record I created the article, but have since come to realize that GNG requirements are more stringent. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely trivial as not only is the information barely anything, it's not actually significant, everything else summarizes it as this also, hence not notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 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 delete. Wizardman 16:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Baer[edit]

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

Baer is a motivational speaker/writer. The article is mainly sourced to his websites and promotional material, speaker bios from places he is about to speak, and it has an article that only mentions him in local coverage of an LDS youth conference in Rome Georgia. There is a lack of reviews we would need to pass the notability guidelines for writers and nothing approaching the level of sources needed to pass the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this case as although WorldCat has a considerable number, everything else is still weighing against genuine notability, especially since the holdings are still undersatisfying as it is. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree about not finding reviews for his books, and I'm not finding enough to support WP:GNG. There are some articles and, I assume this is the same Greg Baer, found in Cosmopolitan several times.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 14:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Barclay[edit]

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

Some opening thoughts, in preparing this article I realized we need to discourage people from removing "broken links". The broken link removed was the Deseret News article on Barclay, which is the only thing that could count as a reliable, 3rd-party, secondary source. I was able to find her Linkedin page and her website, which include information she got a masters degree from George Washington Univeristy, lives in the DC area and works in public relations. Still even with the Deseret News article the place of and date of her marriage are totally unsourced. IMDb is not a reliable source. Being Miss Utah is in and of itself not a claim to being notable. I thought it was when I created this article back in August 2008 on the day the Deseret News article used as a source was published. My google search showed up nothing else except short one sentance mentions in Sanpete County publications, nothing to support passing the GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only trivially known for 1 pageant and only other trivial ones accompanying hence there's nothing at all for genuine significance. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 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 02:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bills[edit]

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

Bills does not meet the inclusion criteria for American football players. He was not notable in college to rate an article, went undrafted and then was on the Eagles practice squad but didn't ever play on their regular team. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all here for the applicable notability and clearly nothing close to it given it's only ever had a college football position. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any worthy sources to indicate passing WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:07, 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 02:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Burridge[edit]

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

Burridge does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians. Canadiates for the US house do not pass notability guidelines on that alone, nor do county party chairs. Also, the article essentially has no sources except the link that may establish he was county party chair. Definately nothing like a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur as our politicians notability is quite clear and there's literally nothing close to it for notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, especially if the resulting article is completely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not meet WP:NPOL for significant press coverage. Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:50, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 02:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akaga[edit]

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

Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources aren't difficult to come by [45] [46] [47]. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 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 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG. Google search provides quite a number of reliable source, although most are not in English. CBS527^Talk 04:06, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. I understand the article creator's frustrations about having difficulties with research due to poor internet infrastructure. At the moment, the article doesn't fit with Wikipedia's need for WP:GNG. Later, when better sourcing is available, the article can be re-created by visiting WP:REFUND. Joyous! | Talk 14:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pangasinan Solid North Transit, Inc.[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we instead improve the article? Pangasinan Solid North is a prominent bus company in the Philippines. I can participate to improve the page, just give the article a chance to have the nomination for deletion be lifted at the moment. Bumbl_loid 07:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Added some secondary and tertiary links to the article. Give me time to add more links and edits to the article to have the article restored. Bumbl_loid 08:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Kindly see the talk page of the article for updates. I see why the nomination was done. Talk:Pangasinan Solid North Transit, Inc. Bumbl_loid 18:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Comment - @Bumbl loid: Paperblog.com and Indagupan are not reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Can you consider to give me enough time to search for more sources? Unfortunately here in the Philippines, the most internet domains here are poorly maintained and only mostly here are run by WordPress and Blogspot which both aren't qualified for Wikipedia's Encyclopedic sources. Bumbl_loid 06:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumbl loid (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YWCA Metro St. Louis[edit]

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

Clear example of WP:BRANCH South Nashua (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and there may be several others in Category:YMCA that should go too. While we find mentions of this branch of the Y in news media, nothing that would satisfy WP:BRANCH. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 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 04:01, 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 14:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roomorama[edit]

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

The page has been around for over 3 years, so CSD may not apply here. The page however has gone for almost an entire year without a single source to show notability. At this point, this is just a page that says it's a website that exists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no strong opinion as to whether this is kept, but just to note that when this was written the sources were there and they were removed en-masse (along with most of the body text) by a SPA a few months ago. ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 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 02:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very odd that a SPA with the same name as the web site apparently removed the references, at least some of which were positive. Reverting to that version, however, would re-create a blatant advertisement and it did not appear to be savable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage in independent sources. Deli nk (talk) 00:25, 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 keep. Consensus seems to have turned towards keeping the article, particularly after noting the The New Yorker article. Joyous! | Talk 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cernovich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The majority of content is sourced to a single opinion piece in the New Yorker: Trolls for Trump. It's used to make a number of unattributed claims about the subject. Without it we're left with passing mentions in RS and the author's self-published blogs and tweets. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as nominator. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that it's an opinion, but I do not see where that's coming from. It's based on direct reporting. How is it an opinion? Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWSORG, specifically:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors...

Comments such as "His political analysis was nearly as crass as his dating advice" and "Without months of priming by Cernovich and others, Clinton’s collapse might have been seen as an isolated event" suggest both opinion and analysis. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an opinion piece as its commonly defined. A lengthier profile is not expected to be in the same news style as a blurb, nor would that make it more desirable or reliable. Not every example of a journalist's perspective is editorial commentary, and not every (arguably) subjective opinion discredits an entire article. Journalists are expected to interpret and connect different aspects of a topic to form a digestible summary. That's the entire point of this kind of story. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's relevant is how policy defines it which I've quoted. Opinion pieces, like the New Yorker's long form, encourage authors to take a position and support it which colors the article's claims; it's not the disinterested standard we require for factual claims and why we require attribution by policy. It would be good to give uninvolved editors a chance to weigh in. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's stopping them? There are problems with your stated reason for deleting this article which need to be addressed. Virtually all long form articles like this will include the reporter's conclusions about the topic. Not all of those conclusions are incontrovertable or will be agreeable to all readers, but that's not a realistic goal, and that doesn't diminish the article. Those conclusions can be contorted into being labeled as "opinions" but that doesn't make this an editorial or opinion piece. What's the actual opinion being stated? That Cernovich is sometimes "crass"? That Cernovich's comments primed his readers to accept a conspiracy theory about Clinton? Neither of those are meaningfully opinions, nor particularly controversial. There is no such thing as journalism which refuses to draw any conclusions. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are more than enough reliable sources for this person, the subject is very notable, they were profiled in The New Yorker and have gotten a lot of media coverage. Nominating this page for deletion is ridiculous. The editor who nominated it for deletion, James J. Lambden, has this on their Wikipedia user page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_J._Lambden

Yes, an obnoxious picture of Donald Trump. Is it any surprise they'd want to delete the page of an ardent Trump supporter? Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral towards its subject matter and not have a political agenda. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the merits. You claim he has "a lot of media coverage" – if so I can't find it. In fact, coverage is apparently so minimal almost every paragraph in the article relies fully or partially on the single New Yorker piece (search the article page for "[3]" to confirm.) I tried to salvage it with proper RS, then by removing opinionated claims, but it soon became clear we'd be left with a stub. If other sources do exist the sooner they're added the better. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Trident, your comment is known as an ad hominem attack. Take it to James' user talk, but it has no place in an AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New Yorker article is in-depth biographical reporting about Cernovich. Although the other independent sources do not go into as much detail, the sources taken as a whole are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from being an author and covered or quoted in The Daily Beast, Slate, Salon, Breitbart News, New York Times, The Washington Post, the Observer, and New York Magazine...the New Yorker - the premier literary magazine of the United States - thought the subject was newsworthy enough to publish a long-form story. I agree with Cullen328, the sources taken as a whole are sufficient to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJunto (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BLP subject has requested that this article be deleted.[48] The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how we determine what becomes an article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's a WP:RS that mentions him [49] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added this WP:RS to the article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating articles based on whatever topics that a bunch of radical left blogs and newspapers deem newsworthy sets a dangerous precedent. Citing Salon is particularly absurd, as it is perhaps one of the top three most disgusting smear websites operating today. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies our notability guidelines, as obvious after looking at Google [50] and following the corresponding links/references. There are actually hundreds of them. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 2 more reliable sources (both from the New York Times and not opinion pieces) [51] [52] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he's notable enough for the New Yorker, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Besides, I have a feeling we'll hear a lot about Mike in the years to come as the rocks are turned over and the Alt-Right insects have to leave the nest. Chisme (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete There literally only 2 articles from legitimate sources and one video interview cited in the article. The rest are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia (such as his own site) or reference him once and that's it. This guy doesn't even pass any of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Transcendence (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just added this CBS News source [53] to the article -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is literally just a reference to his tweet. This is prevalent throughout the vast majority of the citations that are not just form his own blog (which by the way fails the independence requirement for WP:GNG). This is not accepted under WP:GNG as it absolutely fails the significant coverage clause. I quote from that policy: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Transcendence (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure you'd agree that this is significant coverage --- The paragraph in this New York Times article [54] is significant as well. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added this New York Times reference to the article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relies too much right now on primary sources, but hopefully people will fix that. The New Yorker, The New York Times, CNN, USA Today, and Newsweek, all seem like the best sources used, so far. Sagecandor (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of credible sources and this article will continue to improve over time.Cllgbksr (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG based on the New Yorker piece alone. That article appears to be highly reliable to me. The New Yorker has an strong reputation for accuracy and regularly publishes opinion-y articles that are still thoroughly fact checked. This appears to be an excellent example of that. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as I wish it weren't the case. TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having an in-depth biographical profile in a major news outlet, combined with other sources easily establish WP:GNG GuzzyG (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cineworld. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cineworld Unlimited Card[edit]

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

The product itself doesn't seem independently notable. Any mention can be on the article of the issuing organisation. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 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 02:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company's article Seasider91 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FC Nelson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Still fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication this club meets WP:FOOTYN or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 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 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Meyer[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Sure, there are a lot of sources (to the point of ridiculousness), but none of them appear to constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. IagoQnsi (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another article based on passing mentions - fails WP:GNG on that basis. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just spent 10 minutes looking for anything significant to add to this article and there's really nothing. I would suggest merging this article with Getmii (app) if that page survives its own AfD discussion Exemplo347 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An overkill of passing mentions is not significant enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with the above, only sources I can find talk about the subject and the company in passing (an alumni newsletter) rather than anything of substance. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 18:27, 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McClintock[edit]

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

CSD was declined here because the subject "has notable relatives," but even if A7 is not applicable, this person is not notable. Notability isn't inherited, and none of the accomplishments detailed in the article are particularly notable. The secondary source mentions are passing mentions, not significant coverage. agtx 16:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 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 01:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no claims in the article that would at all suggest significance. -IagoQnsi (talk) 02:09, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beatty Brothers Limited[edit]

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

Page reads like a puff piece and lacks significant notability Meatsgains (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"Puff piece?" It's a long-defunct company. I see a company pool is a provincial historic site. There's a related collection at McMaster University. We do see some coverage in Google Books as a notable equipment and appliance manufacturer and innovator of the period. I don't think this is a slamdunk. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Puff piece" may have been a little harsh but content like this raised some red flags. Meatsgains (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- a vanity page on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the McMaster University holdings, I see there's also holdings by the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation. This is a business that was clearly once a Canadian leader as both an equipment manufacturer and barn builder. I grant you that sources are hard to find, but it seems to have been clearly notable, and notability is not temporary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and while it may not be RS, searching "Beatty Bros." reveals this article from a Canadian historical writer Pat Mestern, who has a great article on the firm, writing: "Beatty Bros. Ltd, the largest Canadian company in the manufactory of reaping machines, barn equipment, washing machines, churns, pumps, hay tools, ladders and other wooden ware. As a matter of fact, Beatty Bros. Ltd, by 1925, was the largest producer, and exporter of barn and stable equipment in the British Empire."Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also see workers housing adjacent to the former factory is now the Brock Avenue Heritage Conservation District. Now only were workers employed there: "The houses were designed by Harvey Matthews, a self-taught architect and designer, who worked in the Beatty's design department. The designs of several other properties in Fergus, including the Melville Church Hall, are attributed to him." So the company had an impact on the very face of the town (including the historically designated pool noted above. I would go so far as to say that even if consensus is against keeping, a selective merge to Fergus,_Ontario#History, which makes no mention of the company and its major role in the town's development, would be preferable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)Delete The subject isn't notable; I'm not seeing GNG here. I found this source, too and I still am not convinced. McMaster isn't a source we can use because fonds are archival sources. That the university is holding it doesn't denote notability, either. Similarly, the Beatty stable equipment piece is from the company itself. I'm also disappointed by the lousy arguments above that ignore guidelines and facts; we should be better than this. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a valid point about fonds and I'll remember that for the future. However I find Mestern's article about the company's scope to be persuasive, and the fact that there are a number of historically designated structures in Fergus all linked to Beatty Bros. and the role it had in shaping that town. If you find that argument to be "lousy," well, I don't see much room for polite discussion. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't actually have any rule that archival fonds are always invalid sources per se; rather, the issue is whether the documents in the fonds are primary sources or not. Archives can and do also compile and collect reliable source coverage about the topic of the fonds, and that type of archival content would be acceptable for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bearcat: No. Emphatically, no. Beatty Brothers donated business records of theirs to the university as the inventory shows. This is how archives are created. (I wrote the article on national archives. Please read it.) That those documents are archived in the university does not make the company or the records notable. Per WP:PRIMARY "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." If scholars write secondary material based on those archival documents then we could use those scholarly articles. There is no question about the fonds being primary sources. Further, the fonds are not even used as an in-line citation, so our argument isn't about the fonds as a source but as connoting notability, which it does not. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I personally volunteer for an archive from time to time, and we most certainly do keep reliable source press clippings about the topics of our files if such exist and can be located and clipped or printed. And I've done enough research in other archives to know that the one I volunteer for is not an aberration in that regard — and, for that matter, even the inventory you linked above does include a file titled "Newsclippings re sale of Beatty family business. 1961-75." So I stand by what I said — an archival fonds does not necessarily comprise only the topic's own primary source documentation of itself, but most certainly can also include reliable source press coverage that does satisfy GNG. The mere fact that it is an archival fonds is not automatically disqualifying in and of itself — the content in the fonds may or may not count as reliable sourcing depending on its nature, but the mere fact that it's in an archive does not automatically render everything in the file inadmissible as sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The firm has been featured a couple times in the local Wellington Advertiser, and along with the Gordon Smith article, I think the firm is notable. Whether or not the article is deleted, a couple lines from it could go into the article for A. O. Smith. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- " local Wellington Advertiser" indicates that this is WP:MILL business if they are only getting local coverage. Wikipedia is not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think The past is a foreign country, and that a local article about a firm which existed in the past carries more weight than a local article about a contemporary firm. I haven't had time to look through the newspapers.com archives, but I did notice that a 1979 puff piece about a Beatty grandchild claims Beatty Brothers was the "largest appliance firm in the Commonwealth". I'll look around and see if that statement might be true.Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am seeing a valid potential claim of notability here ("The company had become an international business, having branches in Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand."), although I agree that the article as written isn't properly demonstrating or sourcing it yet. However, on a ProQuest search of The Globe and Mail, I'm getting 445 hits — and while some of them are just daily stock quote listings, there are also plenty of genuinely substantive news articles about the company too. And I haven't even tried the Toronto Star or the Ottawa Journal (the other two newspapers in which I have the ability to dig back past 1981) yet. It's a key principle of WP:AFD, however, that even if the sourcing in the article is inadequate we can still keep it, and merely flag it for reference and content improvement, as long as a WP:GNG-passing volume of sourcing can be shown to exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- having once been the largest of a kind points to notability. Devising the agitator, which was formerly important in washing machine technology, even if not so now, also points to notability. The RS requirement is that the content should be provable, not that it is currently proved. The article clearly needs tags for improvement both of references and content. The presence of substantial archives in a library or record office also points to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the arguments above are convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 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. It is out of the scope of Wikipedia to cover new research such as this. When/if there are reliable secondary sources covering this topic, recreation can be considered. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expected float entropy[edit]

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

Undue propotion of a novel theory referenced from two primary sources Staszek Lem (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created (and linked to) by an SPA who would certainly appear to be Mason himself. At any rate, Gscholar produces precisely two Ghits, both for Mason's publication of his theory in Complexity (journal), and nothing else. However, maybe editors versed in this field can suggest a redirect? If not, delete.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet notable extension of Shannon entropy, compare to the notability of Rényi entropy, formulated in the 1950s and 1960s. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-noted OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Whilst being an extension of Shannon Entropy the context isn’t Shannon Entropy but mathematical theories of consciousness. This area of research (which is completely distinct from topic areas such as artificial intelligence) has only gained funding support and recognition in the last decade or so and there are only two (or three, depending on what is considered to qualify) such theories published involving rigorous mathematics; the other being Integrated Information Theory. Consequently, removing the page would leave a significant contribution to this, currently small, field totally unrepresented. In addition to the two peer reviewed articles about the theory that the page references, the theory is also cited by independent authors; e.g. Sergio Pissanetzky, Causal Groupoid Symmetries, Applied Mathematics, 2014, 05, 04, 628 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmyxjwdm (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Pmyxjwdm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of sufficient secondary sources to develop content from. Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas when they aren't yet established in the relevant literature. The idea needs to get decent coverage in the scientific literature first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 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 Redirect to FIFA Interactive World Cup. Michig (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 FIFA Interactive World Cup[edit]

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

This event has not happened yet, so maybe it's WP:TOOSOON? Adam9007 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIFA Interactive World Cup. It's not an issue of WP:TOOSOON - if it were notable, we're within an acceptable time range to create the article. But individual Interactive World Cups are not notable - none of the others have articles and individual tournaments get little coverage outside FIFA's website. So I don't think it's notable, or ever will be notable even after it happens. That all being said, WP:NSEASONS says that in situations like this, it's better to redirect the individual seasons/tournaments to the main article than to delete, and it's a plausible search term, so that's what we should do. It also appears to have already been done with the 2016 FIFA Interactive World Cup, which is a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - not independently notable but possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per previous arguments Spiderone 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Environics. Article history retained should anyone find anything worth merging. Michig (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environics Communications[edit]

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

No sign of notability from searches for sources (of which this page has none). Basil Monster 00:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

delele - no independent coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environics is notable as a Canadian pollster, as seen here. I think the two subsidiary articles can be merged to parent article, which is just a stub anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I see the suggestion that there is "no independent coverage" is incorrect. There is, and it's national, in the Gnews results. This Globe and Mail feature is national. So is this one. Etc. But given the fact that the main article on the Environics group is just a stub, my preference would still be, for aid of navigation, to merge to one Environics Group main article, for as the boilerplate text at the end of the second G&M ref states: "The company is part of the privately owned Environics Group, which includes public relations company Environics Communications and Environics Research." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Environics. While the company does have a valid notability claim and reliable source coverage, I have to agree with Shawn in that we do not need three separate articles about Environics, Environics Communications and Environics Analytics as three separate standalone topics — at this level of substance, we only need one article about the whole company, with subsections for its communications and analytics divisions. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate blurb on an unremarkable business. This material belongs on a company web site, not in an encyclopedia. There's nothing to merge as the content is strictly spam; the page opens with: "...full-service, management-owned marketing communications and public affairs firm that builds integrated programs from digital to traditional for measurable results... " 'nough said. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear and blatant advertising showing this in fact never actually existed for anything else but advertising alone, WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 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. czar 08:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShiChiya[edit]

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

All the references are dead links, cannot find any reliable secondary sources on Google, article is written like an advertisement. Rogermx (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a freeware a run-of-the-mill RPG Maker game of which thousands exist. I tried to track down some reviews for this game but I couldn't find anything. There aren't even non-RS (blogs etc.) which talk about this game, it is pretty much unknown apart from some rpg-maker forum discussion. Gamejolt, which is linked in the article, is just a download repository for indie-Games and not a RS. There are some playthroughs on youtube, but they all have only about 20-50 views. It should also be noted that the article has been created by a single purpose account. The article should therefore be deleted by directly failing WP:GNG due a lack of RS. Dead Mary (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, thank you for researching this so thoroughly. It makes me more certain about deleting this article. Rogermx (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything in the searches to show it passes WP:GNG either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both trivial and unconvincing information and sources are amounting to an equally trivial and unconvincing article with no notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kepompong[edit]

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

Source searches states that this television series was originally aired on SCTV, not TPI (an Indonesian TV station now known as MNCTV) ArdiPras95 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: After I searched for this TV series on MNCTV's official website, there is no synopsis for it. ArdiPras95 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reference: Kepompong's article on Indonesian Wikipedia ArdiPras95 (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ArdiPras95 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ArdiPras95 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have rejected speedy deletion for this article. The criteria only applies to blatant hoaxes, and the template clarifies that "This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism." A series which may or may not have been shown on TPI's roster eight years ago does not meet that definition.

I can confirm, however, that I have not seen any RSes related to a series by this name on TPI. (I wouldn't go by MNCTV's website, though; it's unreasonable to expect a TV company to list information on an eight-year-old series that ran before the company changed its name) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a WP:TNT specifically because it started out as a hoax. All the information presented in that article are entirely fabricated. There is no good version to go back to so it would be much better to be deleted. ArdiPras95 (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't a hoax. I said it doesn't fall under the "blatant hoax" criterion of CSD, which it doesn't. A blatant hoax would be like "Chris Woodrich is the president-elect of the Republic of Wikipedialand". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Are you seriously advocating on this massive hoax? A Google search on this TV series (in Indonesian) reveals that this is an SCTV television series, so this article is a hoax. Therefore, I urge you to delete this ASAP before it can be mirrored. ArdiPras95 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Did I say I was advocating it? "I never said it wasn't a hoax." "Saya tidak pernah mengatakan kalau ini bukan hoax". The criterion is blatant hoax, and this does not meet that criterion. Kalau ArdiPras95 tidak bisa berbahasa Inggris dengan baik, sebaiknya belajar dulu daripada salah paham. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the nominator: the user notification about this AfD is primarily meant for the creator of the article, which is Aichi210498 (talk · contribs). --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TNT as a hoax/blatantly incorrect with no good revision to go back to. I have every reason to believe that this is the same individual from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adam Aflah II/Archive. They seem to create all these hoax articles in the English, Indonesian and Malay wikipedia. See this article's history in the Malay Wikipedia. The history shows edits by 2 accounts -Armano Hakiim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Adam aflah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and also an IP 111.94.212.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). All of these seem to belong to the same individual. I also noticed that the individual seems to copy content from one article to another - here for example, they copied content from id:Ulat Kepompong to id:Kepompong (sinetron). They had previous done something similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mey Chan - copying content from other article and also adding some of their own. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, nice detective work, Lemongirl. Now that you mention this, the IP that has been editing Kepompong (111.94.214.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is indeed similar to the one in the SPI. Both of them lead back to the same ISP: Fastnet. Both have also been editing in Be Strong, Geum-soon!. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 speedy delete per Lemongirl's obervations. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fall under WP:G5 criterion of CSD and also per Lemongirl. Bagas Chrisara (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of this show actually existed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 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.

[1] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/baseball-war-yen-japanese-article-1.750648

[2] ttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/2007-07-27-3483105245_x.htm

[1]

[2]