Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 November	1 December >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Krischan[edit]

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

Sources are too meager to sustain an article. The only citation apparently refers to this - unfortunately, it's someone's personal website. This and this are similarly self-published, while genuine independent coverage is glaringly deficient. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are some German books, although many of them just refer to his work and don't mention him. There's at least a bit of biography at but it's in snippet view. Unfortunately, the German article seems to have essentially the same content. It's unfortunate that there wasn't better work done there, so it might be translated. As it stands, I am not finding sufficient information to establish notability or build an article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the German wikipedia has an article on Krischan here, unfortunately it too only has the one reference, this article may be a copy? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 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 speedy delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auditect[edit]

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

I could not locate any reliable sources to verify the claims being made in the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax or non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM that editor Marcel Kroese invented within the last 24 hours. All references to auditect are to a Thai company that does audits: auditect.net, or old Latin books with audite et and poor OCR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:41, 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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDITER VENKAT[edit]

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

Non-noteable move editor - fails WP:GNG Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hard to say whether he meets GNG or not given that it isn't clear what name he's even known under in connection with his films. Offhand, I would venture that being an editor on films isn't the most likely position to earn one notability. Largoplazo (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film editors can certainly be notable--this is a major creative position, see Academy Award for Best Film Editing. But there is no indication that this particular individual has anysignificant honors or other reason for notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Idle comment Granted, film editors can be notable. But while you might be able to name spontaneously the directors of, say, each of the Harry Potter films, Fargo, and Cloud Atlas, I'd venture that you are substantially less likely to know who edited any of them, and that they've received correspondingly less coverage. That's the context for my previous comment. Largoplazo (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Completely non-notable Film editor.Clear lack of WP:NOTABILITY.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:CREATIVE. We almost always delete stubs of lesser-known film producers and editors, unless they win an Academy Award or the equivalent in Europe/Bollywood. "Commercial success" doesn't really matter for notability, which is not the same as "fame" or "wealth". Bearian (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply a listing and therefore WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Following up on my comment above, the article's writer has advised me that, professionally, the editor does go by "Editor Venkat". Well, I can't find anything except inclusion in a list of credits about an "Editor Venkat" where Venkat doesn't have some other last name. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks any sort of significant coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding any sort of significant coverage. Margalob (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Stowe Puett[edit]

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

Unprodded without rationale. Original prodding was due to A local level of notability, but does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Searches turned up very little. News only came up with the single hit on her papers; Newspapers - nothing; In books there are several hits, but nothing in depth (all to do with her History of Gaston County, and all appear to be from North Carolina; there's a mention of her book on Scholar, without a single citation; zero on highbeam and Jstor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article relies too heavily on primary sources (such as Puett's own book) and does not show that secondary sources have considered her notable. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and Wikipedia articles are not for publishing original research, which is what hunting down books published before the 2nd world war and gleaning biographical information published with them about the author amounts to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google Books has some more citations of her work to make me think that it was probably significant at the time it was published to people who might be interested in Gaston County/the study of Belmont Abbey, and it could possibly be highly cited in that very narrow sub-field (not really sure how many academicians study the area, but I suspect it is low). That being said, I'm not convinced that she is notable. WP:GNG is not passed, and while Gbooks did have some information about her will and probate, the original research issue raised by JPL has merit. On the balance, I'd say delete, and if better sources can be brought, it can be recreated. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Master (video game)[edit]

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

Unreleased/early-access video game (WP:CRYSTAL), no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Author is evidently affiliated to the publisher. PROD contested by author with following comment: "removed deletion flag for following reasons: the game is released on steam greenlight; nature of article is unbiased; contains only general information (can be marked as stub) about game and not interfering with GNG or any other policies of wikipedia" (here). RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the only web info seems to be from non RS forums - and no credible indications of importance in the article. - Brianhe (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything that suggests this meets WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. Adam9007 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable video game. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page author has since been blocked for inappropriate username and promotion. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no results are returned in the WP:VG/RS Google custom search, indicating a lack of notability. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kilico[edit]

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

Stub consisting largely of plot summary and no signs of notability. Series ran for 10 months and 4 volumes which is generally a bad sign. Japanese wiki article is just as bare bones. No author article to redirect to, and from what I can tell the author's other works are even shorter so I don't see any leads for creating that article and merging. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ANN has no reviews on the manga. [1] It exists on MADB but so what. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Water battery[edit]

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

Stub based on a technically illiterate press release. Anmccaff (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think its a notable concept for now. For a better overview, here is a long article on the official USC page about it and here is the official press release. It has been picked up by some sources after the initial press release, but there was no follow up than the initial limited coverage. This is a thing for science papers but not for WP at this moment, as it is still very experimental and we cant write much about it. I think it therefore should be deleted for now until (if) it becomes a viable concept. Dead Mary (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As junk science promoted only by churnalism. Xxanthippe (talk).
It is not junk science, there are serious publications about it, but IMHO better information can already be found in Flow battery#Organic. There you can also find information on more types of redox flow batteries. Would an article for each and every one of them be justified? If so, this one would have to be renamed, e.g. to "Quinone battery" and seriously improved. The current title is just silly. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article for each type would be justified if there is enough material to justify distinct articles. There are already a lot of articles on various battery types. Maybe an article on organic batteries can indeed be created, but this would be a different matter than the article we discuss here. Dead Mary (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. We do not publish new research. Bearian (talk) 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nhật Linh[edit]

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

Article makes no claim to notability, and I could not find any sources on Google JDDJS (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There exists no biographical information on the individual the page was made about. Information presented is based on my personal relation to the individual, how can I go about addressing Wiki's Afd considering the fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyendustries21 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the individual personally, you should not be writing about him because you have a conflict of interest. JDDJS (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:MILL. We are an encyclopedia, not a memorial website for dead, non-notable singers. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 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 merge to Coastal artillery. This seems to be the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Land battery[edit]

ADMIN responding to Category:Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests - Please close this ASAP. However, be advised ... I did not check redirected page's Links here and make such fixups. FrankB

made a redirect with cats as of moments ago. FrankB 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect undone. It did not belong there. Anmccaff (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced, imprecise, ambiguous, partly inaccurate, and redundant...and has been for almost a decade. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything necessary into Coastal artillery and Artillery battery, then redirect to Artillery battery. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine but I wonder if Coastal artillery should not be the redirect. The current lead certainly suggests that it is the coastal nature that is most notable. I suppose it comes down to how the phrase "land battery" is typically used. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the phrase is that its meaning is completely variable. It sometimes means a water battery or a sea battery, but it sometimes means the exact opposite, a battery intended for defense from landward. It sometimes is used for ship's guns put ashore. It is sometimes meant in contrast to ship's guns afloat. It is sometimes used in contrast to floating battery. It sometimes is used in contrast to water battery, referring to a seaward-facing battery on higher ground, but sometimes it means ~~water battery~~, as mentioned above. There is no way to tell outside of context. Anmccaff (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh, Anmccaff ... welcome to the English language! FrankB

You are about 60 years late for that. Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anmccaff ... Water battery linked is NOT artillery. Do you have a better link? FrankB

Oh, did one of those stay in? Feel free to strike through it, but consider the implications of that. Water battery was a stable term of art in fixed fortification, far more so than "land battery." Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude!—then why can't you cite one or three? Never heard of the 'water battery' term outside a discussion of high versus low locations when a landing party wanted to take one, and apparently we were both born before 1956 and both well read in historical matters; besides, — it's your 'offensive post', so you should edit your own paras!
... Googling "sea battery"+gun and "water battery"+gun really shows the above reasoning is full of shit. The terms aren't showing up at all, at all, on the NET so any & all ambiguity seems to be in your beliefs.
That the term is normally used with some necessary context is not unusual for many terms (e.g. saddle). But to expedite this, I went ahead and crossed out the obvious falsehoods... leaving those with contrasting contexts, as a writer might be making; such as those batteries sited low down you termed 'water battery' mentions, and those upslope. The guns on, off and flying about hither and thither in small boats to and from Shore batterys is clearly a tactical situation (One common when ships were mothballed in the Age of Sail), so again, context rules. WE ARE, after all, still using English herein with all its glorious flexibility. Enough time wasted. Just redirect the damn page! FrankB 14:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, when I google up "[water battery"+gun'] I get about 9500 solid looking book results, although, obviously, some of them are essentially duplicates of each other. Here, for example, is a A Naval Encyclopædia: Comprising a Dictionary of Nautical Words and Phrases .... I think the only bullshit here is that fake blue link above. Anmccaff (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help what you have or haven't heard, but the many book cites right bove there show water battery to be a boringly common term, especially in USAnian usage. Anmccaff (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Another reference. Note, again, the absence of land battery

Merge/redirect - Per nom, the content is uncited and significantly overlaps with other existing content. However, as the term itself is established and demonstrates SIGCOV,[3] I don't see the case for outright deletion. Anmccaff's concerns on variable meaning notwithstanding, Shawn in Montreal's compromise proposal (to merge any valid content and redirect to Coastal artillery) seems most sensible to me. Depending on the outcome of the AfD discussion, I'm happy to take the merge/redirect action. If needed the "variable meaning" issue could likely be addressed in a sentence or two in the merged Coastal artillery article. Guliolopez (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That search yields six results, after removing duplicates. Only two of them are related to the article's subject; one is simply happenstance. Anmccaff (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - JUST MERGE AND REDIRECT (for Pete's sake!) -- if anything, delete coastal artillery. But this is the same culture clash ole song and dance -- British English vs. North American. This term is simply more common on the American side of the pond--and in writings of C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower, and other authors using a Age of Sail mileau.

However, I also argue the gun emplacements of the Maginot Line are and have been termed land batteries. That boondoggle was not just forts and pillboxes, but had plenty of rifled guns shielded by domed steel turrets. I'm sure we've all seen pictures. Lastly, been about five minutes to find these references mentioning the term in proper contexts: [not sure why {{plain link}} is blowing up below!)

Ref- 1
"Land+battery"&source=bl&ots=0amJnLLxsN&sig=PHiNNbYgD_-b9K_xDQfHJF7vlOE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqneGe-tHQAhVI6IMKHaHUB7M4ChDoAQgnMAE#v=onepage&q=%22Land%20battery%22&f=false Ref- 2
"Land+battery"&source=bl&ots=s0VsOj01FA&sig=jk4LSZWwl9kcn4TrNRjKSFjsJN4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqneGe-tHQAhVI6IMKHaHUB7M4ChDoAQgrMAI#v=onepage&q=%22Land%20battery%22&f=false Ref- 3
"Land+battery"&source=bl&ots=XX_W9VrwFs&sig=tNLZUP7ZQRorekZvTMBbn1_-vAY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqneGe-tHQAhVI6IMKHaHUB7M4ChDoAQgwMAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Land%20battery%22&f=false Ref- 4
"Land+battery"&source=bl&ots=aYxP-wsZhI&sig=l7rOyoe8_Lk18gfSUTIEAtQZPok&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqi7Dw-tHQAhXs8YMKHecBBbI4FBDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=%22Land%20battery%22&f=false Ref- 5
and that's just into a second google grouping ... so next time Anmccaff, if you want to spend time contributing to Wikipedia, try actually spending time fixing up such, which in this case also means weighing the time cost to others... With WP:AGF, I could have supported you acting like an adult editor per WP:BOLD and making the one a redirect with apropos & Fair coverage of the alternative TERM, but instead you chose the route of an insecure child, wasting our time and worse, unprofessionally... to sneer at the ten years of history of a well established term. The topic doesn't need a lot of coverage, so the lack of attention is hardly reason to ding it for lacking cites. It's a completion term of art, so a short article covering the dic-def completes other coverages, SO KEEP THEM BOTH. I have no sympathy with deletionist philosophy for One term does not fit all needs', as we never can predict how and what angle any another's mind is thinking, nor the context of their search. Cutting out searchable titles is counterproductive to servicing our customers.
If this is made a redirect, be sure to use {{R from historic name}} so the title is in the search bar search queues. (printworthy) // FrankB 03:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the referents from each of those cites.

Ref 1 A temporary battery, field or siege guns, to deal with a naval threat. The article fits it.
Ref 2 }...as does this
Ref 3, on the other hand, uses the word in the exact opposite way, referring to a battery intended for landward defence.
Ref 4 also refers to something different, a siege battery, with land used opposide "gunboat."
...as does reference 5, again noting the relative weakness of seaborne guns.

Three of your five cites, then, have nothing to do with the article.

The cites google-dredged here support at least two different meanings of the phrase, and none strongly suggests a term of art, but rather simple descriptives. Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next, there appear to be absolutely no Pondial differences seen in your cite. Two American usages, with two different meanings, two British, with the same two different meanings, and a (xlated) Russian piece using a third. On the other hand, you can see differences based on POV, shooter vs shootee, groundpounder vs. sea life, etc. This shouldn't be an article, or even a redirect; perhaps it should be a disambiguation page... Anmccaff (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake my point--I didn't need to puruse any of those cites, nor consider their biases, for I reject the notion that the term is something that should be buried at all as a redirect. There are plenty of historical references using the term, and if that 'used two ways' ambiguity is bothersome to you (there are plenty of other such terms in English we need explain such differences about--actually a reason to retain the article!), run it down and write a paragraph or two saying when and where someone used the obverse case... but cutting a reasonably written article page about a term of art is just wikilawyering at its worse, and causeless as well. Cites are and should not hardly be needed for short articles on point, particularly for technical languages, as this is part of military science as was used in my ROTC classes long ago.
Perhaps I was misinformed and this is not a EDUCATIONAL PROJECT to provide basic information on a topic... for say a curious nine-year-old, or a single mom trying to answer a question to another child? Get off your elitist shoes and put on some mission glasses. The article can be tweaked, but assuredly, it isn't like some band or song title where the provenance of its notability needs established by cites. The term is and has been used. It is and has been useful in describing situations. Period. // FrankB 14:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (if necessary) and redirect to coastal artillery. "Land battery" actually suggests an ordinary mobile artillery battery, as opposed to one of these things which is commonly called a "coastal battery". If "land battery" is used in American English then fine, we can say that in the coastal artillery article, but it certainly doesn't need a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Land battery" is vanishingly rare in USAnian, and uncommon in BrE. It's occasionally used as a phrase in naval parlance, but it isn't a propert noun, just a thing (battery) with a modifier (land) needed for the situation. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your distinction for Land Battery as horse artillery matches my 'usage' recollections as well. Shore battery is my recollection of the Americanism, but have to accept 'coastal artillery' is the more erudite uptight asinine academic style and more modern term likely in current use. Bottom line, why are we discussing this no brainer at all? // FrankB 14:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "shore battery" is used in British English as well. Probably more often than "coastal battery". But Coastal artillery is the general title for the whole shebang in both versions of English, so far as I'm aware. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and close per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge except WP:OR, and a self-contradictory illustration. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 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 speedy delete and salt. Three differently titled variants of this hoax article have now been deleted and salted. The matter is also now now at SPI, as suspected sock accounts of indef banned User:RealMadridCF2012. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadzid Husić[edit]

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

Article is a hoax - no evidence exists that a person by this name has done the things that are listed in the article. Claims all based on self-published sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have examined every single source in the article. The 3 that claim to be from Austrian newspapers are mock ups or hoaxes. In particular, the one that claims that the subject of this article is "Working on the soundtrack to Transformers 5" is based on the article here - http://news.tfw2005.com/2016/04/09/major-lazer-joins-soundtrack-transformers-5-313156 - with the name changed. Blatant hoax. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-These are not self-publishing newspapers that are relevant newspapers from Austria and this article is not a hoax or vandalism but corresponds to the guidelines of Wikipedia.--Enoscore (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should be pointed out that this is not the first time it has been claimed that an individual of this name has done things that he quite obviously has not. 216.106.129.70 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -I have also find the same thing on the same site [4] and if you say "Self-Publishing newspapers" that is not right. Salzburg24.at is a part of Salzburger Nachrichten and they are relevant I have the article translated by a friend and in the article stands the Sadzid Husic possibly as a composer with Steve Jablonsky would work. --Enoscore (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have posted is a forum post, not a reliable source and therefore irrelevant here. As irrelevant as this: https://twitter.com/jablonsky_steve/status/775038767098847232?p=v Exemplo347 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have just posted the link from the same forum and as I said it was at Salzburg24.at and I quote "He could become the CO composer of Steve Jablonsky" that does not mean he is the CO composer of Steve Jablonsky for Transformers 5 is. In addition, the media spread many rumors when it comes to big films that we should all here know.--Enoscore (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this myself I speak German but as far as I can see I have nowhere written in my article he would be a "film composer" and have there also no films listed, but only trailer credits.--Zylo-Cen (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any evidence from a RELIABLE SOURCE that backs up any claim in the article. Please post something that is A) Not from a forum post, B) Not from Youtube and C) An actual newspaper article. I've looked myself, and all I've been able to find is a long list of claims that this person is a hoax. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here also something from the newspaper of Vienna.at found where he congratulates the "Mozarteum Orchestra Salzburg" for a birthday. And when I look at the article by Zack Hemsey I find there synonymous YouTube videos, blogs but no relevant newspaper as a source. But here, Zack Hemsey is not referred to as "Hoax" although all of the source claims are YouTube or his blog.--Zylo-Cen (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if you yourself can see that the subject of this article has no evidence to back up any of his claims, why did you create this article in the first place? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, I have to turn to Wikipedia support since obviously all sources here are not relevant to them personally although Vienna.at, Vol.at and Salzburg24.at have written about this person is referred to my article here as "Hoax". This is the same as I would say "Times of India" is not relevant as a source and since my sources are not "self-publishing newspapers", my article does not violate the guidelines and therefore I will weden there another Wikipedia support Is obviously working against the directives. I have more sources specified than with most Wikipedia Wikipedia, which are also relevant here, although as a non-German speaking it claims its not relevant enough for a Wikipedia article. --Zylo-Cen (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though at a first glance, the person may look to be an actual composer. Researching him even a bit makes it clear that this individual is indeed a phony, and all his claims are bogus. This is definitely the most elaborate hoax I've seen first hand. It doesn't only go back a few months, but years. At least three years, in fact. All I'd like to know is why? What does this gain anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.143.174 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow the same Guy with another IP ;) --Zylo-Cen (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...yes, because I'm somewhere else now. You do know we can't take our IP with us, right? Anyway, the point being? 128.230.143.174 (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -What I can see is that there are enough sources, but here are seen by some users as not relevant although these newspapers write from Austria. I am against a deletion of the article and I also applied to the Wikipedia support and the situation described obviously stood this article almost a month online without the there were problems with the sources and other. And now a person has been asking for hours of deletion, and a Wikipedia Admin falls for it purely because in the past someone has created articles with the name "Sadzid Husic" which have been marked as Hoax. Here in this article there are sufficient sources that are relevant and which correspond to the guidelines. And it is not a Hoax since I wrote with the person via Facebook about 4 hours ago it should continue here to vandalism I will report the users at the support. This is a living person working as a composer for trailer music at the label Remote Control Productions and everyone who says that person does not deny thereby a living person! --Enoscore (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you confirm that it was you who was talking to me on facebook? Oh, but I thought it was the real Sadzid I was talking to! So this supposed official page is in fact you as opposed to Sadzid Husic? Then why were you impersonating him? Or are you Sadzid himself...So many questions! 128.230.143.174 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No i have written that I have write with him on Facebook for few hours ago , you can read? --Enoscore (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do you man, I'm sure this will be resolved sooner rather than later anyway. 128.230.143.174 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously as I see here you have personal reasons for a delete of the article here on Wikipedia since I can see from your Tet above you were already in contact with Sadzid Husic so I can not exclude personal reasons. I will get in contact with Sadzid Husic via Facebook to find out what these reasons are for the deletion because only you have applied for it.--Enoscore (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are Enoscore and Zylo-Cen the same person? Let's have an honest answer please. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm from France where the other comes I do not know but he says he speaks German that can be that he comes from Austria, Germany or Switzerland we are not the same person. I am only against your representation that the sources are not relevant and I will now turn on the support and report the here vandalismus is operated on cost a Wikipedia page as far as one is familiar with Wikipedia is against the rules. --Enoscore (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through the guidelines for reliable sources here WP:RELIABLE - it is not MY representation that the unreliable sources used are irrelevant. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes then read the "definition of source" by what is listed there and "Self-published sources" which is listed there. --Enoscore (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I'm very familiar with these guidelines. The fact is, every assertion in the article you created is false. This article has no place on Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the sources are not relevant and describes them as "self-publishing" which is wrong from your side and that is already a offense against the guidelines.--Enoscore (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another is false i don't have created this article on Wikipedia it was (talk) --Enoscore (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -I have contacted Sadzid Husic and I have been informed about the obvious problem here is a personal problem before the user who submitted the application for deletion for this Wikipedia article his YouTube video has been deleted because he uploaded copyright material on his channel. The video was allegedly reported by Sadzid Husic on YouTube and here the reasons for a deletion application are directed personally against the person. --Enoscore (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely true. Unfortunately for him (you?), it was obvious that the content was not owned by him. And as I said before, even a little bit of research showed me that this whole persona was an obvious hoax. And now here we are. This being personal doesn't discount the fact, that this whole persona and the claims are indeed bogus. 128.230.143.174 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that I am not the same person as the other editor who has posted here in support of deleting this article. I read the article, checked every source and then listed it as an Article for Deletion based on the fact that every claim in the article is either an outright lie or unsupported by what Wikipedia deems to be Reliable evidence. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also mean not you but the person with the IP address here the article for deletion has reported. Here is the SalzburgWiki and can give you 100% confidence that this source or sources are relevant. Here you are exactly described that it is not a "self-publishing newspaper".--Enoscore (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's really simple - the assertions in the article are false and that's that. The accuracy of Biographies of Living Persions is essential - any false information contained within should be removed. In this case, the false information is the only reason this article has been posted - without it, this article wouldn't exist. Stop arguing about semantics - this article is based on falsehoods and should be removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all my name is Sadzid Husic and yes I really exist I live and breathe also in this world a hoax I am not synonymous. If someone has the opinion here he has to delete this article he should do me an article in Wikipedia nothing at all I know with which I make my money and from which I live. I want the dispute to stop here if the article should be deleted makes it easy if it does not comply with the rules of Wikipedia or if the whole sources are not relevant. Do not waste your time with such a silly I find there are more beautiful things where you could invest the time and wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy new year greetings from Austria. By Sadzid Husic :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.153.43.10 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sadzid. Would you care to tell me why you added yourself to a list of footballers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NK_Bratstvo_Gračanica&diff=prev&oldid=614514466 - seems a bit strange. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well his name is clearly Bosnian and it would appear he also played football at some point in Bosnia. [5], [6], [7]. He's fairly young and this club is not exactly Manchester United. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact Enoscore himself proved that both the supposed individuals are different. 128.230.143.174 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider Enoscore to be a WP:RS. The first link above clearly identifies Sadzid Husić as an Austrian, not an Albanian. Husić is a Bosnian name. So either this is an incredibly elaborate hoax, that has fooled media for years, or he is legit. The Austrian/German links below are not hoax sites. I will change my vote to delete and salt if you can find anything relative to this being an elaborate hoax - has this article ever appeared on the German Wikipedia? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this page, it's mentioned there that similar fake pages were created on German Wikipedia by sock puppet accounts two years ago, but deleted after they were found to be fake. 128.230.143.174 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Delete it if you mean but i will report this the Support. Thank you very much so i go away from this here peace People--Enoscore (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to suspect this article is a hoax. Why are these Austrian and German newspapers/website writing about him for years now? Have they all been fooled and it's all an ongoing prank on the public? This AfD makes no sense, or the creator did zero searches for article subject. [8], [9], [10]. [11], [12], [13] —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - I answered my own question above. Article has been salted on German wikipedia for elaborate hoax. de:Sadzid Husic How they did it, I don't know. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you found it too. I don't know how they did it, but more importantly why did they do it!? 128.230.143.174 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I do actually check before I come straight out and accuse someone of something. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Per nom and discussion. Clear hoax and obvious sock nonsense evident in creation and subsequent AfD process. Meets speedy criteria WP:G3 for deletion. And meets WP:SALT for page protection. Guliolopez (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is a Consensus for the deletion of this Hoax article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric B Kline[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements for athletes. The high school success doesn't mean much and at the college level he played only parts of two seasons in NCAA Division II and only has very modest statistics. Pichpich (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doe not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a major league professional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Per WP:NHSPHSATH, coverage of a high school athlete must pass a very high bar of prolonged, non-local coverage which is not met here. As for his college career, he played at the Division II level and, even there, did not have accomplishments of the type needed to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. Nor have I found the sort of significant coverage of his college career in multiple, reliable and independent sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. Further, I note that the article is written in a manner that suggests it may have been created by someone who knows him personally (especially the "Personal Life Post-College" section that lacks any citations). This hypothesis is bolstered by the fact that the article was created just last week by a user (User:Valerieguiza) who has never made an edit to any other article. Cbl62 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, likely a vanity piece. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:32, 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 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BitChemy Ventures[edit]

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

Blatant advertising with blatant advertising sources by blatant advertising-only accounts, with the history of accounts showing it, with absolutely no leniency about it, therefore WP:NOT policy explicitly states advertising is not and should not be tolerated, especially when this is a noticeably covert advertisement, take the "Entrepreneur" source which is actually the Indian section of it, and in fact a clear advertising, not actual independent news. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam & a WP:MILL business. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete--Typical corporate advertisement.Fails WP:CORP.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:56, 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 03:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Katsenelson[edit]

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

Borderline notable person - lots of sources but sourcing is largely primary, or non-independent mainly his works. Previous AfD found sources [14] (dead, primary/non-indi) [15] (passing mention/book notability), [16] (primary/non-indi), [17] (primary/non-indi) sure but checking all these sources they mainly point towards notability of the book rather than the person. (Combined with creator being duck COI/paid editing by blocked sock.) Widefox; talk 18:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising and everything literally confirms it, especially the consistency in overfocusing everything, only what PR involves. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME. This is not an article, it's a LinkedIn page. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia has improved over the years. The sources presented in the first nomination are not independent and reliable enough to even keep the article in the first place. Thelmz (talk) 12:18, 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 03:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albania national football team World Cup and European Championship squads[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT (#1, #3 and #5). The article is also redundant as it is completely covered by the article UEFA Euro 2016 squads. Spiderone 18:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per WP:CFORK. Content uplifted from UEFA_Euro_2016_squads#Albania Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contest speedy delete It's an article based on List of Italy national football team World Cup and European Championship squads. At least let's moved it to another title where we remove "World cup" since Albania has never participated.
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given they have only qualified for one tournament, this is a needless duplication of UEFA_Euro_2016_squads#Albania. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides everythiing already said, the list title and way article is created sugest more squads will be added to the list in future, which will happend only if Albania qualifies again, however WP:CRYSTAL clearly forbids this kind of predictions. FkpCascais (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 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 03:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Millslagle[edit]

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

This is a biography of a non-notable person. There are no real claims to notability - only that Millslagle was one of the dancers on a TV show (but the personal blog used as a reference for this claim does not currently even mention Millslagle) and that she was an audience member chosen to appear in a skit on another TV show. Deli nk (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete When an article mentions that the subject appeared in a skit on a variety show (chosen at random from the audience no less) we are dealing with a truly non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I didn't have time to comment on new page patrolling when it came around recently. However, my recollection of events related to not only this article but the attempted article on her sister (Draft:Penny Wojtacha, deleted out of process about eight months ago) is yet another reminder of why AFC, NPP and related processes have been an abject failure to this point, favoring blatant COI/SPA spam such as this. I don't know what's worse, the creator's claim that this article "will be a popular search" and an enhancement to the encyclopedia, or the lack of due diligence on the community's part following the initial hoop-jumping after its creation, leading to another time-wasting AFD. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and permanently please. Read it, go ahead. This is as close to nonsense as I've seen in a page that purports to be about somebody. The page alleges she danced once on a TV show and was an audience participant in another. Come on, folks! This person is about as common as one can get and we are not a webhost. The closing admin should also consider blocking the creator of this horror. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, speedy deletion has been declined twice by two different admins. Feel free to {{trout}} them.

Deli nk (talk) 19:23, 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 speedy redirect to Gwynn Oak, Maryland. I hope there's no objection to simply redirecting, per WP:CHEAP? (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynn Oak, Baltimore[edit]

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

We already have an article for this (Gwynn Oak, Maryland), and it's in Baltimore County, not Baltimore. Although it's unreferenced the place does exist ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928^Talk 18:11, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean's Bar[edit]

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

Seems to be extremely suspect and the results of a successful marketing campaign by the owners. No independent references have stated it is the oldest. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. The bar has been recognized as the oldest pub in Europe (example source: [18]), but it's unclear if the news source researched this or based it upon the bar's claims. If this and other claims, such as being listed in Guinness World Records as the oldest bar in the world are not substantiated (being discussed on the article talk page), such content be removed from the article, rather than deleting the entire article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Business Insider
IrishCentral
Irish Mirror
The Irish Times
Newstalk
Irish Mirror

Withdraw AfD North America is correct. This article does not need to be deleted but rather a proper source for the claim for the "oldest bar" should be found. I'm not 100% sure if it is correct for me to close this AfD so I will leave it to someone else. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 03:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balada a symphony of eternity[edit]

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

Speedy delete declined (should have just done it myself) as for some reason we don't have a criteria for non-notable books. Which this is. Self-published through Amazon, no references, nothing whatsoever to indicate it's got any notability whatsoever. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, as it may have sources eventually, so it should be kept as a draft. Pika chu RP25 17:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, in this case, would be somewhere around the heat death of the universe, I'd suggest. This series of books appears to be nothing more than the tens of thousands of other self-published pieces shoved up onto Amazon - the author has zero coverage, the books have zero coverage, they appear to have pretty much zero sales. I know we've got lots of storage space, but I'm sure there's better things to use it on than this. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. FWIW, I did try making a speedy deletion criteria since there's been a definite uptick in the amount of nn self-published books getting added to Wikipedia, but there was no consensus for it. Hopefully we'll see it at some point at the future, since it seems like this number is only increasing. In any case, I can't find anything to suggest that this book series is ultimately noteworthy enough for an article. There's no coverage out there in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable and would help the work pass NBOOK. While we can't use WP:SPS like blogs, I have to mention that I'm not even seeing any blog coverage to show that there's a big fan following for this author. Why I'm mentioning this is because if a book series has zero coverage in RS or in the book blogs, that usually indicates that it's very unlikely that it will pass notability guidelines any time soon, if ever. It could happen, but it's so rare that it means that the article isn't really worth incubating at this point in time. I suppose someone could, but it'd be better to just wait and create an article if/when the books gain notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is pretty obvious. We keep drafts when there is a reasonable chance of showing notability within 6 months, but that's very unlikely here. We don't have a speedy for books, because there have been too many cases of very notable books, especially children's books, getting deleted because nobody recognized the title, but maybe the time has come for a change for , say, self published books with no published reviews. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 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. Sandstein 14:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhtree[edit]

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

Previous deletion discussion closed as no consesus per WP:NPASR. This company clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as the only secondary sources are press-release-y in nature or fleeting mentions. The only "in depth" article is super promotional and on a website well known to operate as a pay for review site. Deleted as non-notable in 2010. agtx 17:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm thankful for the notification, I saw this earlier as it is too, I still confirm my earlier Delete vote as this is still blatant advertising and the article itself is full of publications we know for a fact are only paid-for news publications, hence not independent or confident to be genuine, hence delete, because WP:NOT policy applies (something we have used and should still use as it's important). SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Additional search options provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -- Restating my comments from the prior AfD: "CIO Review linked above is generally non-RS (if I'm not mistaken it's pay-per-play or close to it). Best of Andhra Pradesh: a salute to the spirit of the state is clearly a promotional vehicle for local business development. I saw some local coverage, but that's about it. This company appears to be an unremarkable IT consultancy as the article does not provide any indications of notability." In summary, this is a WP:MILL business and its article does not provide any value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment − Please always use Google custom search engines to find India-related news articles – see here for more details. e.g., in the present case, look here. BTW, the above company has received some coverage in the reliable independent sources, e.g. Mint—[19], [20]; Business Line—[21]; Firstpost—[22]; The Financial Express (India)—[23], [24], [25], [26], etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these are press releases. agtx 06:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote "some coverage". Anyway, the purpose of my comment was to give the link of the appropriate search engine. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Campos[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Speedy delete - no content. Db-person should apply. PK T(alk) 17:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per No content and not found a good source/ref. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 18:47, 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 03:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Asian Friends[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable organisation, created by an editor whose name is that of the General Secretary; A7 nomination removed without explanation by an IP who also removed relevant maintenance tags. No indication of notability. PamD 17:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any evidence of WP:ORG being met Spiderone 09:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Fails WP:ORG.No notable sources to demonstarte for it's keep.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Creator of the article is the general secretary of the organization.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:20, 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 merge to LaMia Flight 2933. Consensus is clearly against a separate article. It is up to editors to determine what, if anything, still needs to be merged. Sandstein 10:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the LaMia Airlines Flight 2933 accident[edit]

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

Not necessary as it is adequately covered in the main article for the crash Adamtt9 (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To main article of the crash, no need to have several sub articles on this matter Seasider91 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - no need for separate article —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reactions will highly grow durying this week, the original section is too large for the main article and therefor a support article is nedeed to add homages made by several sportmen and international figures such Pope Francis, Lionel Messi, presidents from different countries. It is based on Remember this is the biggest tragedy on football history, a new section is nedeed. Thanks, Bruspek (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was of course a major tragedy for everyone affected by it, but no, it wasn't the biggest tragedy in football history. It wasn't even the air crash involving a football team with the highest number of fatalities. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bruspek That was a passenger plane shot down over a conflict zone, carrying mostly EU passengers and therefore putting a heavy strain on EU-Russia relations. The inquiries and the need for neutrality within them were major political issues. This is a mechanical failure. The Pope prays for everyone and apart from those of Brazil, Colombia and Bolivia the reactions of presidents are as relevant as my own. Tooter69 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, yes it was the biggest airplane crash involving a footbal team, we are talking about a full professional team killed on the way to play the final of a major continental tournament. Second,the accident cause was not revealed yet, in fact there are some newspapers in South America talking about the responsability of Conmebol. There are a lot of pieces to connect on the next weeks, it was a plane owned by a Venezuelan citizen, with Bolivian crew, transporting a Brazilian team that crashed on Colombian soil. Conmebol recomended this company to several teams in South America, incluiding the Argentine National team. The repercutions are so intense that Barcelona is thinking to stop allowing Lionel Messi to play with Argentina since he was on that plane 2 weeks ago when Argentina traveled to Brazil. I don't how much you guys know about S.American football but as an expert on the topic I assure you this will definitely have more repercutions. Thanks, Bruspek (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may well all be true, but much of what you say would not belong in an article about reactions anyway and none of what you say constitutes a reason to have two articles on one subject, which is the crash of an aircraft and the wiping out of a football team. A content fork has been created for no good reason - the air crash article is only 32 thousand bytes in size. YSSYguy (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not particularly relevant, as explained by YSSYguy, but let's get the facts straight. This crash killed 178 people, including a Soviet top-devision football team, and there have been all too many non-aviation football tragedies, such as those in stadiums, that have killed more people. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you maybe misunderstood what I want to mean, Chapecoense crash has more professionall footballers killed, 19 vs 17 in This crash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruspek (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - article is useless. - EugεnS¡m¡on 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The material is certainly well documented. Later on it can be decided if it should be merged to the main article. In general air accidents are over covered here, which is probably because they are of such intense interest to people working in the industry and people who fly a lot. I average about 1 round-trip flight a year so I'm not so interested, but who am I to say. "Default to keep" seems to apply. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This debate comes up every time there is a catastrophe and to be honest its pretty annoying. Can be adequately be summarized in the main article, and should not be kept as a separate unless something out of the ordinary happens in the reaction. For the most part it is not much different than how these governments and bodies have reacted to other tragic events. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's all mentioned in the air crash article in more detail than in the article under discussion, so really there isn't anything to merge. It is nowhere close to being "the biggest tragedy in football history", but even if it was, the air crash article is not so large that there needs to be a content fork either. YSSYguy (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the article has expanded somewhat since my delete !vote but could do with a trim; and the air crash article is still not so large that we need two articles for one subject. YSSYguy (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now These tags always get put on these pages and needlessly so because the consensus is keep. In this instance it is not so clear-cut; the loss of life was high but there was no known malice and unlike say Charlie Hebdo, it is not an overtly political event. That said the reaction has been much larger than I would have thought and how much the reactions can themselves be regarded as noteworthy remains to be seen. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only time an article about reactions to an event is appropriate is when the article about the event itself gets too long and needs splitting. That is not the case here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is not like the Dutch plane that got shot down over Ukraine, causing more friction between West and East. All that needs to be noted is the inquiries, and the reactions of the football authorities to Chapecoense (like they have said that the team may be exempt from relegation for the next three years). It doesn't need a list of every world leader or celebrity who said a prayer on Twitter Tooter69 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait to this weekebd at least, in South America news are talking about changing the way clubs and Conmebol plan international competitions. Same thing with FIFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruspek (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's not how this works. Second, I don't think changes to international competition format falls under international reactions to this disaster. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main article. The only truly "international reactions" came from Brazil, GB and the Vatican, all of which can be fitted into the main article. All the other "reactions" are just sports teams reacting with condolence, hardly a big deal. WWGB (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not an international (political) incident where we could think about a separate article, and none of these reactions will be of any relevance for air transport safety. Wait some days and merge the most notable reactions into the main article. The one from South Africa won't be one of these, I hope. --188.174.106.186 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The section LaMia Flight 2933#Reactions more than adequately summarises this, and is in fact better than this article. Not everyone who tweeted about it needs to be mentioned. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one mention of Twitter, could you please be more accurate? Thank you. Bruspek (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the stuff mentioned in the article is common sense and seems to be not notable enough to be listed on an article. We should merge some of the more notable things with the article LaMia Flight 2933 and then delete this article.--KDTW Flyer (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Big tragedy in football history. 95.135.110.45 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it's a big tragedy in football history, but that has no relevance to whether a separate article is needed for the international reactions, and let's remember that this was just as much a tragedy for the non-footballers who were killed and injured and their loved ones. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this event is a huge tragedy, it does not merit a separate article for international reactions. Basically all football teams around the world have been holding minutes of silence at their games as well as many wearing black armbands. It is also unprecedented for an international reaction article for a sports teams plane crash. For instance, when the US Figure Skating Team died in a plane crash the World Championships were cancelled and they don't have an article on international reactions. The World Championships being cancelled is a huge reaction. Furthermore none of the other sports tragedies have separate international reaction articles. Also minutes of silence, prayers, black armbands are not notable international reactions. Also as mentioned above none of these reactions are relevant for airplane safety.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's starting to seem that the main crash article has a better reactions section than this one. And a majority of the reactions that were on here before weren't very notable international reactions. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - no need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 10:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article The main article and this reactions article are not too long for them to warrant a separate article for the reactions. The information mentioned in this article is useful in understanding the main article, so merging the information will help with reading and the understanding of the main article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Still !merge after article improvements. Its sprucing up and minor improvements still don't make it lengthy and comprehensive enough to stand as its own article, but is still appropriate and beneficial to be included in the main article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - no need for a separate article per WP:SPINOFF at the moment, as simply not lengthy enough to give undue weight in the original. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of work, the article not only was improved and added a lot of usefull information but also got its spanish version linked to the main article as it was done on this version too. Thank you to those who helped on this! Bruspek (talk) 04:00, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Carnoustie Masters Championship[edit]

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

A non-notable tournament since it involves entirely non-notable golfers (WP:NGOLF). A handicap event with nearest the pin and longest drive prizes. Just a group of mates running a fun event. Clearly way below the required standard for inclusion as a WP:GOLF tournament Nigej (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Tewapack (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is entirely without any sources. The content of the article can't be verified. A quick search didn't turn up any coverage in reliable sources. As well as failing the sport-specific criteria for notability, this also fails WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable golf tournament....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:10, 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) 09:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panchayat Cricket Ground[edit]

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

I'm sorry but your procedure is too complicated for me. The page is unsourced, the ground not notable. Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for opinion in two India-related forums, one voice not notable.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I reserve any comments on the nomination itself for later. --Finngall ^talk 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't hosted top-level domestic matches, so not notable. IgnorantArmies (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-The word panchayat usually refers to a village or a small town in daily use in Hindi.Now,if we start listing all(thousands) of the village grounds, with a description of the village-level tournaments played there--it becomes the perfect recipe for a mess!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can find no real reference to its inherent notability. It seems about as notable as my local cricket grounds - which might merit a sentence or two in the locality article at max. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. On the one hand, the "GNG not met" claim is not contested. On the other hand, "secondary schools are inherently notable" has been a guiding practice at AFD for a long time. I think the question of which prevails needs to be settled in a RfC or at a project talk page, rather than a particular AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L.E.F. Eden Garden Matriculation School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 17:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs: The Series[edit]

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

Part of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and mentioned in main article(s). Since there is little known at this point, shouldn't it be merged with main article until it premieres, if a wiki article is warranted? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 15:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added references. It appears they have been working on this for at least two years and it is coming out next year. For animation that means they are well into production. It's produced and distributed by big players (Sony, Turner, etc). It's fine as a stub. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements. Jclemens (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep added sourcing seems sufficient for inclusion. Artw (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references provided by Wikimandia are sufficient to show notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:41, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 10:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretzel logic[edit]

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

This is a pure dictionary definition. It's not even a proverb or some sort of slogan with a notable history; it's simply a phrase (or, if we're being generous, an idiom). No reliable source appears to meaningfully discusses the phrase itself in-depth (i.e., no significant coverage); the references merely catalog some places where the phrase appears. Neutrality^talk 23:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DICDEF, and not even quite that, as it seems to define it as just "bad logic", which is covered by anyone of a number of more specific concepts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:17, 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. The repair-work of User:Innisfree987 seems to have turned the consensus to KEEP. Joyous! | Talk 15:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanshil Arajakta[edit]

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

Source searches have provided zero coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It is unclear what this even is. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These three pages probably contain some links that would help explain:

Would require a willing and language-capable editor though. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerebellum (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That isn't an article, it's a 2-sentence opinion piece. It's short enough that there is no loss in deleting it and starting over. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Rabinrai, Ashishlohorung and Mijash Tembe who have contributed to related articles, in case they are around and can help clarify. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found an English-language source--Kathmandu Post--that describes the movement clearly: http://kathmandupost.ekantipur.com/printedition/news/2013-08-16/homeland.html. I've added it, and revised for neutrality, so though a very brief stub, I think we're much more like to get an editor with the relevant language skills to expand it if the stub is open rather than deleted. I've also added categories, WikiProjects and a relevant stub tag to encourage attention to the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Innisfree987 handled some of the issues. This article now only needs expansion, as it has been proven that the movement actually exists. Ceosad (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Innisfree987 has now provided enough to presume it at least squeaks past WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:17, 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 15:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O.B. Macaroni Company[edit]

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

Barely any reliable sources on Google web and news searches. A few Google Books hits, but I'm not sure if that's enough for notability. I'm not seeing any claim of importance, but A7 was declined. Adam9007 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on this 100+ year old company being historically significant, both for the Texas region and for the food production industry. More research is needed to identify sources, many of which may only be available in archives offline, especially newspaper coverage during the early 1900s when this company was known as the Fort Worth Macaroni Company. For starters, check out this blog[27] with info about the company, and pointers to a May 17, 1903 newspaper article about the company in the Telegram[28]. We can WP:AGF that more sources like this exist in the historical archives. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that the company was ever significant. The references are worthless. The Congressional Record prints naything that any member of Congress eds it--it does not imply that it ever was actually spoken on the floor. Theo ther two references are the merest notes that show nothing more than existence. If actual references can be found, then it may be possible to make an article--I think we should in generalinterpret notability broadly for pioneer companies in a region. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I was not able to find any sources; not every 100+ company is notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerebellum (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Age doesn't imply notability. There is no indication that this ever had a significant effect on culture/cuisine to merit coverage. If sources do not cover it, we shouldn't have an article on it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:51, 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 United States Senate election in Idaho, 2016. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 17:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Sturgill[edit]

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

Politician who does not meet the standards of WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Sturgill isn't notable enough for his own article. I started this as a redirect page, linking to the article about the election he was in. I think it should be reverted to the redirect page rather than being deleted entirely. Pha telegrapher (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have no problem with a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable candidate for US senate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the United States Senate election in Idaho, 2016 page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.167.198 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Idaho, 2016 as original creator intended. He is still a plausible search term. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Indeed, what happened here is that Pha telegrapher created him as a redirect to the election, which is entirely acceptable, and then a new editor with the username User:Candidatebot converted it into an article. As always, however, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate — if they don't already have preexisting notability for something that passes another notability criterion, then (with rare exceptions on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell) you have to wait until they win the seat before you can start an article because election. And for added bonus, this is sourced 75 per cent to primary sources, with just two pieces of purely WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage for reliable sourcing, which means there's no basis to claim that he passes WP:GNG. Typically these days I prefer deletion rather than redirection for unelected candidates, but in this particular case since the title was a redirect to start with and then got turned into a campaign brochure, reverting it back to a redirect is preferable. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful candidate for office. I see no reason to redirect. Tiller54 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Idaho, 2016. Despite Tiller54's argument, it has been our custom and is reasonable to maintain some record of major party candidates for U.S. Senate seats, even in a state with as few people as Idaho, where minority parties sometimes nominate utterly non-notable individuals. E.M.Gregory (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. If material is requested for a merge, ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morayfield Shopping Centre[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG.coverage is extremely routine. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the sources I found are passing mentions. It is just a typical shopping mall. Ceosad (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I couldn't find anything more significant than a newspaper report of a stabbing which happened to have occurred there, and a YT video of floodwaters trashing the place. Seen one shopping centre, seen a mall. (I'm here all week.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Morayfield, Queensland. Kerry (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. There's nothing extraordinary or particularly notable about this by all appearances. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant coverage and does not pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 04:13, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Hughes[edit]

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

BLP. I can only find social media, podcasts and the like related to him. Not notable enough, IMO. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of sources indepdent of the subject covering it. We need sources that show anyone cares about his show, not just that it exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:10, 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. MER-C 05:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filco Majestouch 2 Tenkeyless[edit]

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

User removed PROD tag which clearly does not show why this product is NOTABLE. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable product in non-notable line from non-notable company. Appears to be a white label product, at that. Some reasonable independent reviews exist [29][30] but they're still routine. Back to Deskthority Wiki, then! Jergling (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious advertising of non-notable product. Should have been PROD'ed and done with. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Hulin[edit]

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

No evidence for notability and she doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. The only criteria that she might satisfy is 8 ("chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area") but I'd say that the Palestine Exploration Quarterly is not a major journal. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is very poor on women academics, especially non-US academics, as British roles are frequently misunderstood in comparison to American terminology, so it would be great to avoid being overly hard-line. Here's the key points for meeting PROF, any on their own may be sufficient:

I disagree that Palestine Exploration Quarterly is not major or established. In fact it has a publication history starting in 1865, making it extremely well established, and with 3 publications a year is more regular than most other academic journals. I suggest checking the description and archives at http://www.pef.org.uk/quarterly/.
She is a "Supernumerary Fellow" of Harris Manchester College, and any fellow of an Oxford College normally meets PROF, there is no exception for supernumeraries.
As the Director of the Western Marmarica Coastal Survey in Libya (which appears to have been running for the last 6 years), she can be presumed to be holding a significant research position.

Lastly this deletion was raised 4 hours after creation, it's still a stub and that's a good thing. Rather than rushing improvement, it would be nice to have questioned notability on the article talk page as a bit more ad hoc searching over a few days may find evidence of committee membership, prizes, etc, for example though I noticed http://www.torch.ox.ac.uk/inhabit, I have yet to look at it properly for including her co-organizer role in the article. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for increasing the number of biographical articles about women (this has in fact been my focus these past few months). However, that does not mean creating articles for individuals who might only be considered notable at a great stretch. I am my self British, so I understand the complicated system we have. To reply to each of your points:

The Palestine Exploration Quarterly is very old. That wasn't why I questioned it. The requirements are that a journal is "major, well-established". Why its long-levity may make it "well-established", it isn't a major journal. Something like Antiquity would be a major journal. There are many small academic journals around but most are not what could be described as "major".

I disagree that all fellows of Oxbridge colleges satisfy PROF. Notability through academic rank requires the person to have "held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor ... or an equivalent". An Oxbridge fellowship is not equivalent to a professorship; they include everything from final year doctorate student up to the top academis in their field. The rank notability comes from their university appointments (reader and above). Regardless, she is a supernumerary fellow (an extra fellow). A quick glance through HMC's supernumerary fellows shows that this is a category to reward individuals. For example, they include the PA to the principal (she surely doesn't satisfy PROF?), Zouhair Khaliq (a businessman), and Will Gompertz (a journalist). At university level she is a "Research Officer"; this is not a title I am familiar with but the research track equivalent to reader/professor is a senior research fellow, which she is not.

Looking at all the research projects undertaken with the school of archaeology, it is clear that they are fancy tiles for the research of individual academics or collaborations. So the "Western Marmarica Coastal Survey" is just another way of saying "Linda Hulin is carrying out a survey of the Western Marmarica coast". As for the TORCH network, it appears to simply be a grouping of academics with similar interests that runs the occasional seminar.
I put it up for deletion because I know it attracts more people than a simple comment on a talk page. Having read it and looked the individual up, I couldn't find anything that made her notable, hence the nomination for selection. The problem is, I can only really judge her notability by what is in her article, if I had found something to add I would have. I want more biographies of women, but they need to be notable nonetheless and she isn't. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can make it pretty easy by agreeing on what "major journal" means. I assert that Palestine Exploration Quarterly is a major journal, being a choice established channel for academic papers on Levant history and archaeology. Hulin is therefore notable by being its Editor (per the Executive listing for the journal). What can you link to as being an existing consensus on how to measure "major", rather than it being subjective? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=editorialBoard&journalCode=ypeq20 shows that Professor Philip Davies is the assistant editor. By a weird co-incidence I happen to know Philip as we were doing masters degrees together at Sheffield, but I don't think that's a conflict of interest. Anyway, Hulin having Davies as her assistant editor, an extremely well established Professor in this field, seems a bit odd if this were not a major journal. --Fæ (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is the sticking point. My first reaction is that it is not a major journal. It isn't insignificant, but to me it is more a minor than major one. Hopefully someone else will weight in or point out a non-subject measurement. A quick google of "major archaeology journals" has brought up this website. Palestine Exploration Quarterly is not mentioned in its top 50 archaeology journals. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Google test was discounted years ago ;-) As a balance http://www.ancientneareast.net/journals/ is a useful list for Ancient Near East focused journals. --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that yours is just a list of journals. The is now weighting to it, unlike the one I found. Ultimately this comes down to weather or not Palestine Exploration Quarterly is a "major journal". I say it isn't (and I defending my nomination) and you say it is (and you are defending your article). Hopefully someone else can come shine some light on the subject. I'm going to ask some wikiprojects to get some relevant advice. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at the help desk, and they say that its a "low impact" journal and therefore wouldn't be considered major. One even used the same site that I did above (it measures how the average amount of citations a journal gets to measure its "impact" on the wider subject). Like I said above; I want more biographies of women, but only if they are notable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of balance, you also asked at WikiProject Archaeology and WikiProject Palestine and got the opposite answer. The help desk based their on answer on PEQ's (supposedly) impact factor, but it's well known that impact factors are far less reliable and fair less useful in the humanities than in physical science (due to significantly less complete journal and citation indexes, lower citation rates overall, and the greater importance of monographs – all of which would affect PEQ). Note that the site they linked Scimago) only uses data from the last eight years and between 1972–1974 – a tiny fraction of PEQ's publication history.

For my part I don't interpret WP:PROF#C8's reference to "major well-established" journals as only including very high impact journals, rather it's excluding bogus vanity presses, very new periodicals, student-run journals, etc. In that sense PEQ definitely qualifies. Joe Roe (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Off to a good start but too little impact so far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Editing the oldest and most prestigious journal in Near Eastern archaeology meets WP:PROF#C8 in my book, but I agree from most other regards it seems a little WP:TOOSOON. Erring towards keep because I do think she technically meets the SNG, this article helps to counter systemic bias, and we at least have enough sources for a solid stub. Joe Roe (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note Hulin does not appear to be a university lecturer but a member of the research staff; see School of Archaeology Research Staff, which lists her as a "Research Officer" vs School of Archaeology Academic Staff, which does not list her. The Faculty of Oriental Studies calls her "Research Assistant to the Director". According to Google Scholar her highest citations are 37, 24, 10 [31]; I'm not sufficiently familiar with the area to put these into appropriate context, but they don't seem to me to represent a substantially cited body of work. So we seem to be resting on the editorship alone for meeting WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems right. Note that Hulin is the Editor for PEQ, this is not a case of a board of editors. I agree with the previous comments, my feedback from a historian in this area was amazement that the PEQ might not be recognized by Wikipedia as a major journal for the field. I guess the issue is the unlikelihood of a single reliable way of determining "major", so it's an unpredictable test for encyclopaedic notability. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Magdalen lists her as a lecturer. It seems Oxford could do to update their various websites, but I can't see a reason why the college would list her at a higher rank than she has, so I assume it's a recent promotion rather than a mistake. Joe Roe (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, more confusing Oxford terminology! The college lecturers aren't senior. and they aren't equivalent to lecturers at other British universities. They are there to supplement the teaching of undergrads, especially in topics not covered by the tutors/fellows of a college. If you look here, you'll see that the pay is very low compared to what a lecturer receives at other universities (in the region of £30/40,000). This gives details of university level teaching posts though it isn't thorough on college positions and doesn't mention research-only ones. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UK titles are so confusing. Yes, her post is very junior. I was a lecturer at the University of Birmingham and that was a tenured position, presumably something like the Associate Professorships at Oxford. There was a great fuss at Oxford and Cambridge over such titles which led to the creation of many more Professorships and the Associate Professorship grade at those Universities, as none of us liked having to explain to academics from other countries what our titles really meant. I have to admit I was a wee bit jealous that my American academic friends were called Professor and I wasn't. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they do have to everything differently, don't they? It sounds on a par with a Teaching Fellow elsewhere, then? But thanks for the correction, it does seem to drop Hulin below the threshold of notability in everything except the editorship of PEQ. Joe Roe (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of Fæ's note about the expert perception of PEQ's standing, I'm prepared to go with keep. (I think, however, this is the first time I've encountered an academic who crossed the notability threshold for being an editor-in-chief without passing any other criteria.) Espresso Addict (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do point out that WP:Prof is a guideline, not a policy, and so does not have to be followed rigorously. I have noted that some journals are appointing more junior people as editors in chief. This has happened in the legal area. What these editors lack in achievement they may make up for in youthful vigor. It may be time to review WP:Prof#C8. Xxanthippe (talk).

Weak keep - I'm going to stub the article. There appears to be enough here, from a purely academic standpoint. Here's a little bit more biographical info from her early years.[[32]] Also pinging @DGG: - his talk page says he has a special interest in and insight with higher education and research.Timtempleton (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable on the basis of the editorship: As Fae says, Palestine Exploration Quarterly is the most important journal in its specialized field. But I am a little puzzled, as are Xxanthippe and Espresso Addict, for she does seem considerably junior for that position. It's possible that the position may be closer to Managing Editor, who does the work, while Davies does the traditional editor in chief role of recruiting the best authors. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered that, but she wrote the editorial in the latest issue, which suggests an editor-in-chief role. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manukau Supa Centa[edit]

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

Has been nominated before with no consensus (one keep but not overly convincing). Nominating for same reasons as with 36 run of the mill stores and barely any secondary sources, fails WP:GNG Ajf773 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be a significant shopping centre, and although the number of shops is quite low (compared to the nearby Westfield Manukau City, it has comparable retail floor area because the shops are mostly very large (by New Zealand standards). I've added a little to the article.-gadfium 21:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it's one of the larger shopping centres. Also, "run of the mill stores" is not a reason for deletion; which NZ shopping centre isn't made up of run of the mill stores? Schwede 66 08:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "keep" opinions do not cite any coverage as required by GNG. "Is a big shopping centre" is not an accepted criterion for inclusion. Sandstein 15:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GEOFEAT requires sources; I've searched high and low and have been unsuccessful in finding any sources (except one news report that has a one line mention, and three government sources with two line mentions). Lourdes 19:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suitable sources for big commercial entities are best found in the National Business Review. Here's two articles not yet included (with the first referring to the change in ownership back in 2008): [33] and [34] Unfortunately, their newer stuff is hidden behind a paywall. Schwede 66 23:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schwede66. This is a good source but has only a one-line mention. I also found three sources with one line mentions. GEOFEAT requires GNG to be met, and I don't believe one line sources are enough. If I am mistaken in my reading of GEOFEAT please do point out and I'll change my !vote. Thanks. Lourdes 03:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is the same as mine. All I'm saying is that the NBR has likely got sources that will meet the requirements, but somebody will have to have a subscription to confirm that. Schwede 66 04:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll check from my library sources if I can get access to the same. Give me a couple of days (please don't close this Afd till 12 December). If I don't respond by then, assume I haven't been successful. If I do, I'll post the sources I've been able to garner. Thanks. Lourdes 04:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Stafford[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail, thus falling under WP:WHYN. The award listed is not significant & well known. ~~Many articles created by the same user have been deleted in the past; pls see multiple notices at the User talk:Epbr123 page.~~ K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Saying that article is probably non notable because editor X created it is a very weak argument. The creator (a former admin) made porn-related articles that met the WP:PORNBIO guideline as it was understood at the time. In this case, the subject won an individual category of the AVN Award. Until recently, that was considered a pass for PORNBIO. Question to the community: how many cuts to the "well-known award" definition will it take before the guideline becomes useless? • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k: What I've observed from participating in pornography related discussion is that there is a big disconnect between the SNG (for presumed notability) and the ability to create an article on a subject that has a technical SNG pass. I believe this to be a failure of the SNG.

I've observed very similar situation with WP:SOLDIER (which is an essay, but otherwise has a similar purpose) when it comes down to certain awards. Ironically, the notability of German Knight's Cross holders was being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) at the same time as the proposed change to PORNBIO (I think that's how I got into the pornography-related deletion discussions).

The indiscriminate application of SOLDIER to KC winners has resulted in articles that are often built on unreliable sources (some of which may be neo-Nazi): sample. Other types of articles contain an exhaustive list of awards and say nothing else about the subject, resulting in permanent micro-stubs / WP:MEMORIAL articles: sample. Both types include a tricked-out infobox and often a glamour shot.

The end of the discussion (in 11 parts and after two or three dozen AfDs) was the consensus to redirect them to alphabetical list. So in short, I see a lot of similarities between porn actor and KC winner articles :-) . Perhaps a similar critical look needs to be taken at PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTE: I have recently edited the article under consideration here, and I'm sure that it can be expanded further in the future. The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the AVN Award for "Best Male Newcomer". All of the sources currently used in this article are reliable for what they are trying to cite and are independent of the actual subject of this article (Alan Stafford).

As for "Epbr123", they have not edited Wikipedia actively for a number of years now, so they obviously aren't around to try & defend their own work anymore. The fact that there are still plenty of Wikipedia editors that just don't like the subject matter in these kind of articles & are unfortunately very willing to edit Wikipedia with that slanted-POV doesn't really mean anything, nor is it a new concept here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another porn BLP without independent, reliable sourcing and barely a shred of a claim to satisfying the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:00, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Bearian's comment I am more inclined to call a "neutral". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Chams[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions about this Nepalese film director. The subject does not meet WP:BASIC, and finding no evidence of the subject meeting WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are lots of Ghit but I'm not sure how many are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:44, 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. MER-C 05:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sol de Sants Studios[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions in independent, reliable sources; does not meet WP:GNG. News articles only mention this studio in passing, instead focusing on the musicians that are recorded there (e.g. [35], [36], [37]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability is not inherited from the notable acts that used the facility. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough coverage about the studio itself. Article about events held there, with a passing mention of the studio don't count. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising alone and WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hepburn[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer and medical doctor, not adequately supported by reliable sources. This claims that he's named in the Guinness Book of World Records as "the highest scoring defence man in the longest hockey game in history", but fails to actually reference that at all or to specify which hockey game is involved -- and other than that, what we have is that he exists as a retired surgeon and writer, sourced to primary sources like two press releases from directly affiliated organizations and the program of a conference where he was a participant. The closest thing to a reliable source here at all, in fact, is a blog entry in which he's not the subject, but a provider of soundbite. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just because he can be shown to exist, or because he gave soundbite about medical marijuana to a blogger -- he gets an article only if and when he's the subject of reliable source coverage in real media independent of his own publicity machine. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a doctor. Nothing shows that his columnes have recieved attention in reliable sources. The rest of the claims are a mix of primary sources and unverigfied. Nothing that even comes close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he holds a "the highest scoring defense man in the longest hockey game in history". That should count for something surely. DarthVader (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were reliably sourced as actually true, then it might make some difference. But it counts for less than nothing if it's merely asserted without a valid source for the claim, however, because people routinely make false or entirely unverifiable promotional claims about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, that record, as currently uncited, counts for nothing at all. No indication has been given as to which edition of Guinness World Records published this alleged record; keep in mind that the book has been published for over 60 years, and records go into and out of the book based on the editors' discretion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 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 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - i would say he squeaks by WP:Golden rule. The hockey thing is trivial to his notability. 03:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hakan Erdogmus[edit]

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

Creator of entry requesting deletion of biographical entry about him Erdogmush (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of this AfD seems to be creator of that article. I assume his self identification is true. Wikipedia deletion policy allows deletion of articles about relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion. So my vote is delete, until someone proves higher notability of the subject of this article. Pavlor (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to subject's request, although WP:Prof#C1 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I think he may also pass WP:PROF#C8, but the article is not so important that we need to keep it against the wishes of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 14:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DDLC[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources. All sources are, ironically enough, poorly written blogs. Possible redirect target is Software documentation in case people are searching for "DDLC". – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:07, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Gomes[edit]

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

No indication of notability under WP:GNG, does not qualify for automatic notability under WP:NACTOR. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our guidelines say "multiple", "significant" roles, only his role as Keoki is maybe significant, but not enough so that it is named in the plot summary, so I actually remain unconvinced it meets the significant test, and clearly not enough to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:02, 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 delete. Main arguments for "keep" boil down to a. passing the GNG, which is disputed, and this addition being judged trivial, if I may paraphrase; and b. "won a notable award", but that notability is disputed with strong arguments. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Amber[edit]

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

A BLP lacking in reliable independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources include interviews and award materials. The award listed (from NightMoves Award) is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, lacks independent reliable sources. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable actress who's won notable awards, meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NightMoves Award wins don't establish notability for WP:PORNBIO. Porn trade press coverage lacks depth. Mainstream coverage consists mainly of porn-star-tries-MMA passing mentions. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress who does not meet our inclusion criteria for pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are non-pornography sources - meets WP:GNG, two individual awards - one of the most known pornographic awards - meets WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 01:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davey2010 and Subtropical-man. I added an additional reliable non-pornography source and expanded the article slightly.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While Maxim may not be pornography, the source article provides no information about the article subject other than that she appeared in a short online promotional video (not a "special", whatever that means) for a porn studio she works for. That's not the sort of coverage that does much to establish notability or sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won one of the oldest (in fact the third oldest) porn award in its highest category, Best Female Performer (which would be the equivalent of AVN's Female Performer of the Year). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that "third oldest" does not mean either well-known or significant, as required by PORNBIO; the claimed NightMoves Award is not an "industry award", as required by PORNBIO, but handed out by a giveaway magazine promoting central Florida strip clubs and the performers who work in them, and that consensus in PORNBIO discussions has never supported the notion that those awards conributed anything to notability. Not to mention the complete lack of independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that age means a lot in terms of assertiveness and recognition. I guess, you know all the usually failed tries of establashing a new award, usually called spammery by you? Nightmoves even differentiates between regional industry from Florida (which is actually no part of the article NightMoves Award) and national one and does not even try to mix their regional personalities with the national awards, which are given to well-known Los Angeles performers and not to Unknowns from Florida. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the age of the award does not mean anything. To rephrase from another AfD: Editors' opinions do not constitute evidence in and of itself that the award is notable enough to make the fact of winning it a valid notability claim in an article about a person. The latter most certainly does depend on the extent to which reliable sources which are independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself do or don't treat the winning of that award as news — the extent to which an award makes its winners wikinotable because they won it is a factor of the extent to which the media do or don't devote their time and resources to creating news content about "so-and-so wins XBIZ award".. Source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Iron (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"does not mean anything" is absolute non-sense. It does not mean everything, however, the exceptional and rare age is of course very important. I could go back to an AfD which quoted a serious newspaper calling the NightMoves Award the third most important award in porn industry, but I won't as we don't need to spam this here with dozens of quotes and should instead accept that common knowledge. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The award itself may be notable, but this particular category is not. Nor does the awarding of the category generate sufficient coverage to help meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, SamWinchester can't "go back" to an old AFD because he's misremembered the quote. The claim was "third largest" as of 2002, and the source was a local newspaper. What "largest" means in this context isn't at all clear, and as I pointed out the first time that claim was advanced, the newspaper that was reporting on the event didn't even bother to report the names of any of the award winners -- a pretty damning signal that the awards themselves aren't significant. Note also that the claim has never been found sufficient to sustain a "keep" consensus. And, fiven the striking dearth of independent reliable sourcing, a marginal award claim is far outweighed by clear failure to satisfy GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:15, 16 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 15:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mirago[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent coverage inside the article or out of it. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2005 AfD discussion was rather light on substance, though, that said, there was some press coverage up to that time, although what I've found I regard as routine announcements. Shortly afterwards, the company appears to have decided not to compete with the major search providers and instead provide white/label functionality [38] which by its nature probably accounts for the minimal coverage over the past decade. There could be a case for a redirect to the original parent Compsoft, an article which contains much the same substantial content about Mirago, but as this stands, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quite honestly no actual significance given everything is either simply advertising-coated or trivial to begin with, especially since it's clear this has existed for showcasing exactly that, therefore there's no compromises for such blatant attempts. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated: Article updated with more recent content and third party reference links which were broken have been updated. Stanley Bridge (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is an article about a real UK software initiative, where the company commenced the development project in the same year as Google, but without their funding. Mirago developed the first European search engine which was immediately adopted by 'Ask Jeeves' to power their European search. It was ultimately eclipsed by Google, but the company had the presence of mind to adapt the best parts of their software (their ad serving and management platform) to a new market, which is the market where they flourish today. Stanley Bridge (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as badly written corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 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) 09:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The environments future[edit]

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

Raised as an issue at WT:CHEM#Essays for a class project. Basically, this is conglomeration of disparate information, mostly all included in their separate topics. It reads as WP:SYNTH, even though there are only a handful of sources. Izno (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, it reads like a WP:SYNTH project, not an article, and it plainly duplicates existing articles from Conservation downwards (that article lists many related topics). I'm sorry for the work involved, but the people have obviously learnt something of the basics of wiki-editing even if misdirected about what an article is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of this article definitely overlaps with existing articles, has problems with core Wikipedia tenets such as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and is written at least partly from a personal perspective ("It is common knowledge that this planet was created for everybody to live", for example). ChemNerd (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Once the WP:SYNTH issues are addressed, what is left (if there is anything) can easily be included into other articles related to the topic. There is nothing to justify a standalone article when everything it addresses belongs in the articles listed in the sectionEnvironmental dour concerns. Sorry - kind of a word salad there but I believe you get the point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What content there is that belongs on WP and is not under WP:CRYSTAL, item 3, belongs in articles on individual environmental topics (as CNMall41 notes) and not in an omnibus article. There are problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and the titling of the article shows the premise is a crystal issue in violation of WP:NOT. This discussion brought the article to my attention, and according to its creator's user page, is related to this class project in which "students will learn art of Critical Thinking through argumentative styles such as Rogerian, Socratic, and Toulmin." This article may be a good example of applying those skills, but not of an encyclopaedic topic, as it is basically open to endless opinions – just imagine what pro- and anti- global warning advocates will do with an article predicting the environment's future. I don't see how this article can be rescued as it is based on a flawed and policy non-compliant premise. It is unfortunate that the situation has reached this point without the student (Jsotelo3), the instructor (Norobello), and the science content advisor (Ian (Wiki Ed)) identifying the potential policy problem. It appears that this is not a unique case for this course, as the article Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate from the course is duplicative of Creation–evolution controversy and has already led to a merge discussion which could easily become another deletion debate. EdChem (talk) 00:59, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anttonio Pereira[edit]

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

Hello, I'm an administrator on Wikipedia in Portuguese I selected this article for consensus elimination, for not seeing enough notoriety, only a person fulfilling their profession, the sources only attest that the person exists and worked in a mere short or developed illustration of books not acclaimed and little known even in Brazil. Analyzing the histories, I noticed that the article was created by the same user on the Wiki in Portuguese, Spanish and English. In Portuguese, the user has even created an article about the biographical studio on the Anttonio Pereira, which makes clear a probable conflict of interest. Evoking a cross-wiki spam Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 00:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the citations in either English or Portuguese Wiki contains more than a mere mention of his name. I see nothing like the independent coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that The Adventures of the Red Airplane (As Aventuras do Avião Vermelho), linked from Anttonio Pereira, does not mention him. Narky Blert (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert This animated film is based on a book by a well-known author in Brazil, but the film does not even have an entry in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I did not find any quotes from the biography that links him to the participation of this film. Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 01:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Conde Dantes: Erico Verissimo looks WikiNotable, in all languages. I'm not so sure about the book pt:As Aventuras do Avião Vermelho for English Wiki; but IMO the film's fame is based only on that of the book. Narky Blert (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert Exactly, the fact is that not one of the films that the biography participated like producer or director has notoriety or fame, as well as the books that illustrated. The attempt to spam wiki-cross is more than clear. Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 02:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Conde Dantes: The more I look at The Adventures of the Red Airplane, the more I think that that article should be about the book, with the film as a secondary topic. I'll sleep on it, and have another look. Narky Blert (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert I agree with you. I did a research on the movie, You'll see mixed results, some about the movie, some about the book... Because the movie was based on the book, it gave some repercussion. But I did not find any quotes from the biographer. Which leads me to think that the participation of this is in production (behind the scenes). About the article "The Adventures of the Red Airplane", I would advise completing the article with information about the book (which is more relevant) and cite the movie in the form of a section, But I do not want to get into the merit of this, but the article about Anttonio Pereira. Thank you for your participation. Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 03:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Narky Blert and Conde Dantes. The creator of that article used English-language wikipedia to circumvent the re-creation protection undetermined applied to this biography in losophone Wikipedia. For this he relied on the content translation tool.--Leon saudanha (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leon saudanha I believe that this attitude is worthy of blockage or other sanctions. Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 22:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conde Dantes Yeah,for cross-wiki abuse--Leon saudanha (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leon saudanha: Comment - well spotted; I agree with you. Comment (copying in Conde Dantes:) - from my researches, I believe that the book The Adventures of the Red Airplane is indeed WikiNotable. It's only this attempt to inherit notability from the book and film by a non-notable person that I object to. Narky Blert (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of his supposed notability is based on WP:NOTINHERITED. No significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources to stabilish notability. It was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese Bilhauano (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, the discussion in Spanish Wiki seems to be heading towards the same conclusion as in English and Lusophone Wikis. Narky Blert (talk) 01:11, 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. Clear consensus to delete. We've got lots of sources, but what the sources supply in quantity, they lack in quality. As DGG said, What is really needed for architects is discussions of their work in professional publications, not the relatively minor comments in newspapers. If somebody wants to take a shot at writing at rewriting this, I can restore the deleted version to draft, but please do some research first to find the kinds of sources we need. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gebler Tooth[edit]

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

Evidently this architectural management/refurbishment practice is competent and successful, judging by the fact it has existed in some form or another for over 30 years. However, it seems to have not attracted attention until its refurbishment in Shoreditch won a Local Authority Building Control award (and this was only a regional award). Their grand sounding Team GB House for the London Olympics turns out to be a refurbishment of the top floor of an office building (and doesn't seem to attract much attention anyway). The article seems to be pieced together from brief mentions, and non-news sources such as company websites. Much hangs on the fact the mother of one of the partners was a well-known writer. Though I'd originally hoped there would be more to this company than at first glance, this hasn't transpired (especially when you scratch beneath the surface of the claims). There are many notable architecture firms that deserve a Wikipedia article but there's not much evidence this is one of them. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SionK 1* have now deleted the inclusion of mention of Sasha Gebler's famous mother, as it seems to be so offensive. In any case I think you're right, it's nothing to do with the architecture, so the references aren't needed here. 2*here is a list of the articles about Gebler Tooth's work that I am searching for, in order to prove to your satisfaction that Gebler Tooth are worthy of note. Please help me in trying to find them online so that I can include links to them in the article: 1. The Independent 26 Feb 2001 – The Arts pg 12 ‘Not yet the last picture show’ 2. The Sunday Times 4 March 2001 – Culture supplement pg 22 ‘Shock Treatment’ 3. Evening Standard 1 May 2002 – Commerical pg 11 ‘Star of the Big Screen’ 4. Evening Standard 24 Feb 1999 – Arts pg 28 ‘Land of Electric Dreams’ 5. The Guardian Space supplement June 29 2000 ‘Electric Dreams’ 6 Vogue Living, Jan pg 147 7. Moving Pictures magazine 8. Homes & Gardens Magazine, Kitchen & Bathroom Living supplement, July 2011 9. Intra Magazine, June 2005, interview with Nick Jones of Soho House Group

3* I will change the focus from the Team GB project, to something more interesting for instance the Working Title Films HQ, or the Ferrero Rocher UK HQ, or the Electric Cinema, or something more suitable. For your information, at the time of 2012 Olympics, there was a lot of talk on BBC sports coverage TV, about how wonderfully the HQ was designed. Unfortunately there are not many articles about it, so I won't waste my time trying to prove it. Gallura (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SionK (2) I've also deleted the image link for Team GB House at 2012 Olympics. That way you won't feel there's so much emphasis put on it. (Actually there was only one sentence about it, so it must have been the image that you found unacceptable). I'm sure there are many other Architecture firms that are worthy of articles - but that does not mean that GTA are not! Perhaps other people, like you, could be persuaded to donate their time and expertise to write them? I don't think I have the time to write them all for you1 Gallura (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Sionk has created 221 articles and Gallura has created a total of 25. Deb (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good for her. Perhaps Sionk has more time to donate to Wikipedia than I do. Gallura (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was forgetting how important you are. Just drop your attempts at sarcastic put-downs of more active and experienced contributors. Deb (talk)

To be honest, I appreciate the generally constructive response Gallura has made in this discussion. True, I have written articles about architects and architecture practices. But as I said at the start, I'm not convinced this example, Gebler Tooth, have had enough recognition to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I've no opinion at the moment on Gallura's other articles. Sionk (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising and was only ever started to be as such, as the statements above also emphasize, therefore with everything here including the sources being trivial, there's nothing to suggest anything else but that exactly. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sionk, Thanks for your comments. Good to hear a rational voice. I do not consider myself important, as I'm sure you realise, and I was absolutely not trying to put you down. But I am a contributor to a (2016) Thames & Hudson book on the history of design since the industrial revolution, and I have previously written a Wiki page on an Italian architect which was considered OK enough to be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I've also been published in newspapers of record such as The Telegraph and various magazines on design/architecture subjects - which interest me along with millions of others. I've written the Gebler Tooth page in order that people can access information on GT Architects, because I believe they have made a significant contribution. (It's not advertising. I think advertising generally has to be an awful lot more engaging/emotive than a wikipedia page will ever be! and that's as it should be). On a separate issue, do you know why it is that this article does not come up on a google search for 'Gebler Tooth Wikipedia'? Whenever I want to work on it, I have to find it by other means. It seems odd. with thanksGallura (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional brochure on an unremarkable business. Belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At best Weak keep -- The number of blue links to buildings they have designed may make them just about notable, but it has the feel of ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, there's not much evidence they designed anything notable. They are a jobbing refurbishment/management company. They were involved in the upgrade and refurb of the Electric Cinema, Notting Hill for example, but that doesn't mean they created or designed the theatre. As far as I can see, that is the only bluelinked building that they've had any significant part in. Sionk (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I suggest a move to draft space for further work. What is really needed for architects is discussions of their work in professional publications, not the relatively minor comments in newspapers. If they can be found, the article should be sustainable. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify/Draftify and let the above editors work on the article outside of mainspace to provide the sources they think are out there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

Delete Companies need to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. This one is about an architectural management/refurbishment firm. While I generally look for sources about the company, in certain cases it is OK for a company to be known because of its achievements. Zaha Hadid Architects is a notable firm for example. It's works have been referred to in multiple reliable secondary sources. This is needed here. I would have been happy to see some reliable secondary sources talk about the company's works and mention the role the company played. But I mostly see local sources and company websites - which I am not willing to rely on. Accordingly, I am not convinced that the firm is notable at this point. I don't see the point in drafting/userfying this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Asian Schools Swimming Championships[edit]

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

I don't think a continental schools competition is notable enough, fails Wikipedia:GNG Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:50, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - It clearly fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Furthermore, I do not see how this could work as a standalone article. Media coverage is very sparse for all of these related events. We also have a related, and useless, article for 2015 games here. Creating spinoff articles out of Asian Swimming Championships is not very helpful per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Ceosad (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Ideally we'd redirect it to Asian Schools Swimming Chamionships as WP:NSEASONS says that's preferable to deletion, but that article does not appear to exist. And if we don't even have a main article on the tournament, individual iterations certainly aren't notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

José Medina (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There's simply nothing of note here. Kbabej (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Isn't notability self established by being a film director? Does one of his films have to be successful? I'm curious. {MordeKyle} ☢ 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article would have to show where his work as a whole is notable. If it was just one film that was notable then we could argue that there should be an article on the film itself, as it'd be more likely that people would come to Wikipedia to look for information on the film. However if he's put out multiple films that have each received a review in a reliable source, then all of those reviews could show notability for the director even if the films wouldn't warrant individual articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the films are notable in this case, however. They're all shorts, none of which have an article. Kbabej (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks sources, coverage, and context needed to meet notability guidelines. Sources in article do not meet reliable source guidelines. Even if one of his films was notable. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Marks[edit]

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

The article is about Sally Marks, and she doesn't want to be in Wikipedia. I can provide her e-mail address, if necessary. She'd like to delete her page in the French Wikipedia, as well as the English page. She e-mailed me, "Please ensure that the entry is removed immediately.... Being on Wikipedia is professionally damaging, besides which the piece is pretty bad and very incomplete. Definitely not up to Wikipedia standards." Jim47658 (talk) 13:10, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what's damaging about this rather innocuous stub -- apparently just being in Wikipedia is damaging, which will be news to all the non-notable academics who try to worm their way in -- but surely Prof. Marks is minor enough that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies rather perfectly. Delete on that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject arguably fails WP:PROF and I see no reason we should deny this request. It does not appear that fr-wiki has the same policy but a Francophone could request deletion on her behalf there. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasoning above; per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:PROF. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to subject's request, but evidence is needed that request is genuine. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Have her e-mail WP:OTRS? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines.

* e-mail addresses for Sally Marks: [email protected], [email protected]; let me know if you need phone number or snail-mail User:Jim47658 14:06, 01 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate attempts to OUT me. Such communication should be done via WP:OTRS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not trying to OUT anyone, and I have no idea what's meant by WP:OTRS. I'm just trying to demonstrate that this is an honest effort to delete a Wikipedia page about a person who doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. This is not some sort of hoax or imposter or vandal. User:Jim47658 11:33, 02 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may find that your edits on Wikipedia are received better if you learn about its procedures first. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This article is essentially a list of her publications, which makes a bad article. If it is complete, 2 books and about 15 articles might bring her close to notability. I am accordingly neutral. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoshi Aoki[edit]

(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, only in the minor leagues for the Seattle Mariners or independent or minor league teams in Japan. Penale52 (talk) 13:31, 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. Per nominators rationale. Spanneraol (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in the top Japanses league (which would meet NBASEBALL) and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 15:01, 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. Sandstein 15:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karabo Moroka[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG has no sources Domdeparis (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; evidence of notability lacking. I wouldn't be too opposed to a merge to a character list (though I am worried about the lack of sources), but one does not seem to exist. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easton Cowboys and Cowgirls[edit]

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

Local amateur team which has never participated at a level of football deemed notable. Quite a few refs included but they do not provide the level of in-depth coverage required to meet GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Roms[edit]

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

I was beginning to think this page might be a WP:HOAX, until I found this Discogs entry. That is the only citation I was able to find - nothing in either Finnish or Lithuanian Wiki that I can see either for him or for the songs he's said to have written or for the people he's said to have worked with. I submit that he fails WP:MUSBIO Narky Blert (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 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 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:32, 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. MER-C 05:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fimbank[edit]

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

Sourced exclusively to press releases. Unmitigated WP:PROMO. Constructed entirely by SPAs including User:Fimbank. Jergling (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything here has literally only ever been advertising, to information to sources to accounts, none of this is negotiable when there's such blatancy thus deletion is best, not "hopeful improvements". SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 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 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom and SwisterTwister. - Mar11 (talk) 15:12, 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. MER-C 05:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Anandan[edit]

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

Literally an overblown advertising job listing since, not only is everything caring to overfocus and specific any single information for both his career, but also for his clients, thus there's literally nothing better beyond here, since the sources themselves are published and republished interviews, press releases, etc. This also comes from such publications which are notorious for publishing and republishing advertising and costuming them as "news". Also see the history which not only shows several advertising-only accounts, but this has literally existed since February 2009, showing the advertising-only accounts were quite satisfies with their advertising efforts, let's not encourage it by mistaking this as "news". SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not linked in and we do not list everyone given the title of vice president by even major companies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 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 11:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of WP:INHERITED notability. The subject doesn't seem to be independently notable for anything. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 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 14:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On That Point[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable local program; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Original AFD nomination withdrawn before discussion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 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 11:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undergrad talk show broadcast (apparently only on campus) by a campus station. Sole source is a university dead link. neither station founder nor any listed staff are bluelinked. a student is said to have once interviewed a candidate for governor on this show.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been prodded for speedy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched (my obsessive, double-checking thing) and found this [39] university source for the Telly Award. This [40] seems to be the Telly Award's "about" page; there are many other things called Telly Award in India. I'm frankly unpersuaded that the Telly Award is a big deal. If you can establish that it is, feel free to flag me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Fowler (racing driver)[edit]

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

Participating in the American Formula 4 championship, a not global championship "intended for junior drivers." He has participated in two other minor championships, but he has never won any of them. User:Supercarwaar/signature 20:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep - FIA F4 Formula_4 is an international sanctioned championship, IMSA Prototype Lite Mazda_Prototype_Lites was also an international sanctioned series and SCCA Pirelli World challenge Pirelli_World_Challenge is United States national championship. --F4racer (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 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 11:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus shifted to Keep after the relist. Joyous! | Talk 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha[edit]

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

This article is steering controversy and bullying of related people, also most of what is written is wrong and not true. I demand this page to be speedily deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknowncoolio (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to demand anything. Wikipedia works by consensus, not bullying. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does appear to have Danish coverage, but we'd have to seek someone knowledgeable to judge his notability. He mostly carries coverage related to his Jews as "offspring of apes and pigs" comments. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could indicate that deletion is appropriate under WP:BLP1E; I agree that we probably need someone who reads Danish to assist in evaluating the notability. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with the number of deadlinks, nor can I read Danish, but I did find much of the content corroborated by The Times of Israel, which is described as an independent paper without political slant, here [41]. I've deleted one claim that was erroneously attributed to Al-Khaled Samha, but involved a different Imam at the same mosque. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with WP:BLP1E is that while this meets the first two clauses, I'm not sure about the third. This individual was significant in the event, and it depends on whether you classify the event as a single anti-semitic remark of as part of a greater anti-semitic issue in Denmark/Europe. Note that you may need to search under alternative spellings of Mohamad like Mohammad or Mohammed. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also included here, with photo on page 93 [42], with the nickname Abu Bashar. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 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 11:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is quite a substantial biography, satisfying WP:GNG. Note that, according to said article, he is also called Abu Bashar. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has been in the Danish media for the last 10-15 years, and sources to show he meets WP:BASIC are present. I have fixed most of the dead links and added more sources, and there's plenty more out there. I may add that subject was indicted in November and, if convicted, faces up to two years in prison for hate speech against Jews. Nom, who according to their talk page and edit summaries is a relative to subject, came here some days later, blanked the article (Diff), repeatedly removed sourced material (Diff, Diff) and then started this debate. — Sam Sailor 21:59, 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 13:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Stanford (investor)[edit]

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

Advertising article for a man whose career is literally advertising and the contributions and history here all show it, especially since none of it is anything else but a business job listing, consisting nothing but published and republished PR advertising and its quotes, none of which is convincing, and then in fact violates policy WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. This is also then clearly part of an advertising campaign to advertise both the company itself and its other businessman, with the contributions and history once again showing.

We couldn't conceivable merge anything because there's nothing in fact significant from his job or career, apart from, not only simply founding an advertising company, but then being working with another businessman, none of which inherits notability. Anything else, and I myself have searched, is still only published and republished PR, so that alone emphasize something that was unsurprising to begin with, regardless of publication name. SwisterTwister talk 02:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable business person. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sherpa Capital, rather than deleting the page entirely.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per Carole, except that article is going to be deleted to. Anyway, few mentions in passing and the giant PR mill Techcrunch don't suffice for a bio. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even redirect to the firm. He is only one of their several investors, and therefore less notable than the company. . If the article for the firm is kept, it will be enough to mention him. We don't need a redirect from everyone mentioned in an article. Even the feeble Wikipedia search function will find them. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Towers Pune[edit]

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

The towers themselves aren't all that notable. Gnews has articles similar to the one linked about announcing it, but I don't see anything that currently justifies a stand-alone article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some article rescue activity, adding a significant amount of text and cites. It seems to me that the project has received significant coverage, enough to meet the notability threshold. Neutrality^talk 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as here are the serious concerns: One is that these listed publications have in fact been found to be paid advertising, especially focused and involving companies, and that's the case here, especially the flashy fact it cares to note people who bought from this company, therefore the next part is the simple fact the attention is largely only about its name. Hence none of this amounts to any actual meaningful significance or notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Are you saying that the following references (added by user:Neutrality are not wp:rs?

5 Washington Post Ottawahitech (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Basically the only best convincing of this would be NYT, because all of the others, and the listed articles here show it's simply reformatted PR company information, especially CNN Money which is literally only talking about its company finances and activities. None of this means anything when WP:SPAM and WP:NOT is applied (both policies), and as it is, we've established that anything of Indian companies are notoriously paid for, regardless of name and contents. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in The Guardian and The Washington Post do not even remotely resemble your description of them as "reformatted PR company information". They are both investigative articles containing information that I'm sure the owner of these buildings would have preferred not to come to light. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6 politico http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-overseas-security-231948

7 Buzzfeed

8 Chicago Tribune Ottawahitech (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Keep I created this article as a stub on November 23. It went up for deletion within an hour of creation. Since then User:Neutrality did wonders with this stub. Unfortunately, the article has still not been wp:reviewed, which I believe prevents most internet viewers from seeing it and chiming in. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Delete After taking a look at the sources and doing some searching myself, I don't see how this article meets the notability guideline. → Call me Razr Nation 07:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per refs added by Neutrality. Additional refs are likely to be found in the Marathi language. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like it has good sources now Victor Grigas (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Weak but notable enough. — JFG ^talk 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons noted by SwisterTwister--FeralOink (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the addition of good references, it clearly passes the WP:GNG, Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per enough refs. See also WP:WORLDVIEW. MB298 (talk) 04:08, 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 Speedy keep. WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion, WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Unscintillating (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot First and Pray You Live[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. Pyrusca (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 05:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)]

Delete: Fails WP:MOVIE. It certainly exists but there are no useful and reliable sources for this. This source calls it a "fair attempt at the old revenge ploy". Ceosad (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a few reviews and an award. I also found this, but it's more of a trivial source. It should likely pass NFILM now. I had to kind of dig for these - the Internet didnt' give them up easily. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Okay, it looks like that the references you added are enough for the WP:NFILM. Ceosad (talk) 16:05, 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, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Mabie[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as an unsuccessful political candidate. No Mabies about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates for state senator are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, unelected candidates for office are not entitled to Wikipedia articles because candidate — if you cannot provide and source credible evidence that they get over another notability criterion for some other reason, then they do not pass WP:NPOL until they win the seat. This makes no such claim, however, and its only "source" is a (deadlinked) raw table of election results of the type that just nominally verifies all of the candidates' existences and vote totals, but fails to provide substantive content about them. There's just no grounds for an article here. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 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. Sandstein 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Materiality (interior design)[edit]

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

This is a pretty awful article that I came to via the wikify tag. The more I look at it, the more I conclude that this is not an encyclopaedic, notable topic. Books with 'materiality' in their titles do exist, but they deal with architectural design and are therefore better covered in Materiality (architecture). I suggest this article be deleted and any salvageable content be merged with that article. Mcewan (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this instance (I have more time for Materiality (architecture) because, at least, it is a term/quality that has been specifically written about in numerous books). 'Materiality' means 'of materials' or 'quality' and certainly is a buzzword used by architects and designers. But this article is bordering on being essay-like, constructed using sources that aren't specifically about materiality and interior design. Sionk (talk) 00:48, 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 15:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Snyder[edit]

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

Deceptive and promotion cruft for non notable individual. Recreation of a sockfarm's spam. He lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a mix of primary, PR, listings, quotes and non mentions. Included downright fraud. Ref 11 is listed as "Jason Alan Snyder". Techcrunch. In fact it is "Augme Technologies To Acquire Mobile Ad Firm Hipcricket For $44.5 Million". Techcrunch. And it doesn't even mention Snyder. There is nothing of any real susbtance about him. A search found nothing good for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article demonstates Chief x officer creep to the max, when such a title is held by someone in a sub-unit of a sub-unit of a company. Nothing about it shows in any way that Snyder himself is notable it may well fully demonstrate the opposite.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 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 delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Other Tour[edit]

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

It doesn't appear that this event actually exists. I can find no hits for "significant other tour" or "signification tour". Of the two references, one is a setfm wiki and the other is a fan site. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability, and the article title appears to be WP:OR compiled from four separate and differently-named tours. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Nordic Nightfury 10:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should this just be split into three or so articles about each individual tour? Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:36, 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. No consensus to delete, after 1 month at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteenth Step (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable local band. Subject has no secondary reliable sources that I can find in the article or otherwise. All cites seems to be from music cataloging or social media sites. The article has various other issues, like with weight and tone. MTV Unplugged appearance listed in the article doesn't appear on MTV's site, and its audio, with background chatter, doesn't seem authentic. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In case anyone is wondering why I've put up an article I've put some time into for deletion, it's because I like to give new articles a chance to prove themselves. Unfortunately, this one hasn't done that. For all the cites shown in the article, it's really just a baffling array of primary cites. My tag to request secondary sources (along with additional research for this AfD) have proven fruitless. I think it's time to give up on this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Nordic Nightfury 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator puts forward a good case, I don't see any independent coverage of the band even from local sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BAND #4 is "national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". According to the article, they've toured nationally in, not just any country but a particularly large, populous, and rich country (the United States), opening for 17+ bluelinked bands.

WP:BAND #5 is "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", the latter defined as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". I don't know if Dirty Water Records qualifies, but at any rate they look like a legit operation.

And there's a ridiculous number of refs. There are 138 refs. Most band articles have like four. OK most of the sources are not useful. However, primary sources are not forbidden, you know. And it's an OK article. It's too long and there are too many bad refs. It's the opposite of the problem we usually have, articles that are just a stub and can't be expanded. But you can't say there isn't useful ref'd info in the article.

Since it meets WP:BAND (I guess) and is a fully complete article, the burden would be on the editors who want to delete the article despite that. I haven't seen a good argument to that effect. Herostratus (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Can you name just one of these refs that are acceptable for our use? That would help us out here. Sometimes an article writer will use a lot of cites (in this case, none apparently independent or secondary) to protect an article from proper analysis (what I would call "baffling with bullshit"). We have to be prepared to do that analysis. As for WP:BAND, the arguments seem light especially considering that we have nothing to support WP:GNG at this point that I can tell. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:00, 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.

I've tired to fix this page with most of true facts with less words as I could and as a result the page went back to what it was I also tried to make Michael Cash (Musician) was declined and it was much more sourced then this one is and a lot of listed said stuff in this page seems more like it was written to trash the artists name more so than to make public know the band had existed I know Michael Cash saw the page and commented on Juggalo Drama Alert a public YouTube platform that this Wikipedia page was in fact fake and poorly sourced about a underground rock band he went on to say he contacted one of the people listed in the editors process with no luck. - Dainbramaged502 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that what is asserted does not show notability DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Contractor[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. The department he heads does not itself is not notable, so the head of it is not notable. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do now check the edited page.

Thanks

Rusirascal (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please remove this "Page for deletion". Thanks.~~

~~Rusirascal (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking duplicate deletion removal request. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not satisfying WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, and there's still nothing actually suggestive of convincingly better at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain ?

Aashish ContractorDr., has been regarded as a pioneer in Cardiac Rehabilitation in India^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

He was heading the Cardiac Rehabilitation in the team who conducted cardiac surgery on the Dr. Manmohan Singh the Prime Minister of India^[4] ^[5]

Thereby satisfying WP:AUTH

Please remove the deletion. Thanks.

Rusirascal (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please remove the deletion for this page.~~

~~Thanks.~~

~~Rusirascal (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking duplicate deletion removal request. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still appears to be non-notable. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.huffingtonpost.in/bloggers/dr-aashish-contractor/
^ http://www.medimanage.com/my-worries/articles/dr-aashish-contractor-talks-about-hearts-health.aspx
^ http://www.michellekakade.com/the-support-team/
^ http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/PM+discharged+from+AIIMS+after+surgery/1/26949.html
^ http://bombayparsipunchayet.com/readcontent.aspx?contentid=81&categoryid=51

Please do explain why it appears to be non-notable ?

Rusirascal (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more references to Dr. Contractors book "The Heart Truth" which he has authored. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] All from major websites.

Rusirascal (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, among other reasons to keep the article, I have noticed that his book The Heart Truth is referred to quite often in major and credible news sources. He is well known too. Sadly the article here needs work. A good clean up and adding better refs should sort this one out. Karl Twist (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, that would either suggest the book perhaps is notable, but only if there are such news and reviews available, but that itself alone will not save this man's own article, especially since the applicable notability listed above is not being satisfied; also the links offered here have not been convincing. Also, "it needs work and....a good cleanup and adding better refs" all summarizes exactly what these concerns are and thus why it needs deletion. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more link from a major News Paper website

http://www.dnaindia.com/health/report-a-push-for-prevention-the-heart-truth-2272814

Rusirascal (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://scroll.in/pulse/819456/should-you-drink-to-your-health-a-cardiologist-weighs-in-on-how-much-is-too-much
^ http://thewire.in/73692/an-excerpt-from-the-heart-truth/
^ http://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/health-lifestyle/Why-love-rules-the-heart/articleshow/54942664.cms

All of these sources are also clear advertising and triviality, as the article currently shows, all that actually exists about this subject is published and republished advertising, so listing others is actually only confirming the emphasized fact of such blatant advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, lacking coverage of significant depth, and appears to be in existence for main purpose primarily of promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If all creditable sources are going to be termed as "advertisements", on this logic, every 2nd page of living persons on Wikipedia will get deleted.

Keep - Repeating only 3 points on which this page should be retained :-

(1) Dr. Aashish Contractor is considered the pioneer in cardiac rehabilitation in India. India is the country with the largest number of cardiac cases in the world. Hence cardiac rehabilitation saves tens of thousands of lives.

(2) He was part of the Asian Heart Institute team, for the redo bypass surgery of the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, in January 2009. Dr. Contractors role was to lead the post-surgery cardiac rehabilitation.

(3) His book "The Heart Truth" is well received in the media as well as by the Public. If you check the back cover of his book there is a commendation written by Dr. Manmohan Singh the ex Prime Minister of India. ^[1]

References

^ http://www.amazon.in/Heart-Truth-Everything-Prevention-Treatment/dp/9385152432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479896121&sr=8-1&keywords=the+heart+truth

All these points have been thoroughly referenced with very creditable sources.

Rusirascal (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not showing it would actual policy here, especially considering these publications are clear advertising, regardless of what could be said. SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Nordic Nightfury 10:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the citations do not show in depth independent coverage by secondary sources other than adver-news about the book. Also, amazon links should be removed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources indicated almost all seem to have some sort of connection, organizational or commercial, to the subject. The one independent source, the Times of India, only contains a passing mention. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The article clearly needs work, but I think there is coverage about him. Much of his press is about his book, but he has written scientific papers, which have been cited by others, was written about in Science Daily, in several books and Indian papers like Times of India, The Hindu, Daily New & Analysis, Huffington Post India, etc. Part of what tips me from delete to "weak keep" is his role at the The International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (ICCPR). I just wish I could find more about that.

I made some edits, removed the amazon citations, and did some editing. I would be happy to do some more work on the article if it's kept. The only place I am seeing "widely recognized as the pioneer of..." is in his bios for articles or a charity. The best one is a bio for the RF Hospital, but that's not a secondary source and is worded exactly the same in the other bios. I think it needs to be removed until there are secondary sources found that describes his body of body of work and make the statement about him being a pioneer.

For the person who wrote this article, if it is deleted now, try again when there is greater coverage in reliable, secondary sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete marginally notable at best (refs are poor and mostly passing mentions or SPS) and obvious promotional pressure per the very WP:BLUDGEONing of this deletion discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 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 speedy keep. Don't usually close my own AFDs however Oakshade has proved she is notable therefore making the delete !vote moot, Kinda pointless letting this continue so am closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Dela Cruz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress, I originally tagged it under G4 however an editor declined it stating new info had been added .... anyway the sources in the article are extremely poor and I can't find anything substantial on Google, Ofcourse if anyone can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging prev editors [email protected] and SwisterTwister. –Davey2010^Talk 19:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking like a case of WP:CANVASS.--Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I notify anyone outside of this discussion ?, No, Were ST & RMS the only !voters in the last AFD ? Yes, So no this wasn't canvassing - They could've !voted keep all for I cared. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing really notable on Google either, but she does have a few internal links, and does have a role on Minsan Lang Kita Iibigin, a popular Filipino TV show -- she in fact appears on the main page for it ("Special participation", but still). Not sure if this is enough to merit a keep, but it is worth considering. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 19:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She does appear to pass WP:ACTOR. Had a multi-episode co-starring role in Luv U and Maalaala Mo Kaya. A Star Awards winner for her starring role in T2 (2009 film). Is getting a lot of press-coverage too demonstrating passing WP:GNG. [43][44][45][46] Might this be a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Anyway that aside those sources look okay (Source coverage is much different to the UK/USA) so yeah look fine, Unfortunately I can't withdraw as there's a delete !vote present. –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIAS isn't about the intentional discrimination against non-British topics, but more about those in developed English-speaking regions and specifically English Wikipeida editors not being exposed to topics in other languages and in non-English speaking countries that are prevalent and well-known in those places and might not appreciate the significance of those topics. --Oakshade (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade Ah damn I'm so sorry I thought Systemic bias meant something else entirely, I mean it's a hard one but I probably would say there was a Systemic bias here, I mean if an actress has a name in a different language then I would obviously search for that too - I wouldn't just search for English and assume "everything is in English" because it isn't - Like with this BLP if she had a different-language name then I would've searched for that, As a side note I can't recall the exact words but I've had more than one person accuse me of trying to get rid of articles purely on the basis of "they're not an English BLP" so hence why I get extremely defensive over it but anyway I apologise for the above reply which I've removed, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. A long list of roles on national (and notable) TV and film, and several awards won satisfies WP:NACTOR.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:13, 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. Even if one discounts the multiple "it's notable" assertions, there's no consensus about whether to delete the article. Sandstein 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest goals in association football[edit]

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

Most of these goals are sourced to Youtube, and how on earth do you even measure goal time to the nearest 1/100th of a second? The numbers therefore are just made up by sources, and there's no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria for which matches are counted by this list. Joseph2302 19:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC) Also, if this were notable, there would be some official record of it, for example FIFA would have a list of fastest goals using some properly defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Joseph2302 21:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sourced reliably and in my opinion is just WP:Listcruft. --SuperJew (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not reliably sourced. Without any sort of official record-keeping by FIFA, this is reduced to pure trivia. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while youtube is usually not a reliable source not all the sources are from there, the article content itself is rather notable in my opinion. Fast goals get a lot of attention in football. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable topic. It's one for trivia, not an encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 18:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listcruft as already mentioned Spiderone 19:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 19 of 67 are Youtube sources; 72% are various sources. The fastest goal is a recognized statistics in many leagues.^[1]^[2] It makes the page encyclopedic rather than trivial. At last, I find it the most interesting page in the Category: Scoring (sport). FIFA is a highly conservative, stagnant organization resembling Soviet Politbureau. Whatever exciting statistics you find, it is from other sources. God save, Wikiedia is created in the image of FIFA.--Maxaxax (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England#Goals_2
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_records_(individual)#Fastest_goals

Linking to other Wikipedia articles about fastest goals doesn't make it notable. Joseph2302 11:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a classic case of an article needing tidying, not deletion. There's plenty of evidence of a broad interest in this topic. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable topic, it just needs cleaning up. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs expanding and tidying up - noteworthy topic. --Jimbo^[online] 21:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article should remain in Wikipedia bcz it is an interesting topic. --Sadsadas^talk 14:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this topic has received widespread coverage from a lot of indepedent sources. I would say it's not LISTCRUFT, obviously of interest to a wide audience, aka anyone interested in soccer, which happens to be quite a lot of people. Icebob99 (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic which has received coverage in numerous sources going beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:LISTCRUFT. The article needs cleaning up, but AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the sport's governing bodies (FIFA and the continental federations AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, Conmebol, OFC and UEFA) are not keeping records of this which tells enough about its notability. As a result it fails WP:LISTN. It's also filled with original research and unreliable sources (e.g. Youtube). To sum up, not an encyclopedic entry.T v x1 18:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can see statements of WP:ILIKEIT here, if the article is to be kept editors should show a willing to do so, rather thaan saying "cleanup needed". Nordic Nightfury 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable topic. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:03, 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 and move to Bulaqs. The content dispute seems to have been resolved, and the current article is about the Bulaq tribe, with some discussion of the theory that the Blacs were the Bulaqs, not the Vlachs. In any case, the Bulaqs are notable, and since the article is now about them I see no reason to delete. Cerebellum (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blacorum[edit]

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

The notability of the article has not been substantiated for more than 3 months. It contains references mostly to books written during WWII and to some primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If, as the article says, the majority of historians identify the people referred to by this name as Vlachs then that article is where they should be covered, rather than a separate article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the article also says that there are scholarly views which say that the Blacs are not identified with the Vlachs and the article lists several historically important references according to which there is a clear difference between Blacs and Vlachs. So deletion of the article would not support a clear scientific discussion about the subject. With that point I agree that the title should be changed to Blaci, but the term Blaci shouldn't redirect to the term Vlachs. Just because many historians identify the Blacs with the Vlachs does not prove anything. Obviously there are different views on the subject but exactly because of that we should keep this article to keep the scientific discussion going. Arpabogar (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on the new revision of the Vlachs which already includes information about the "Blacs". Although they have a specific name, and mostly are related to specific region (Pannonia), as well the Romanian-Hungarian ethno-historical dispute, currently on the criteria of notability and reliable sources don't see the need for a separate article.--Crovata (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that so-called Blacorum could be related to the uncertain Vlachs also known as Shepherds of the Romans, Blakumen, Bolokhoveni.--Crovata (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, since if the article starts as "a historical term used for Eastern Romance-speaking peoples" than already we have a problem. Also like for Blakumen and the other's you mentioned a separate article is proper.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

First of all, this proposal demonstrates a high level of diletantism. For example, I am not a bacteriologist, so I never will propose to delete the title Bacteria from Wikipedia, just because bacteria are not visible by naked eye. So, if you are not a historian, please do not make such unqualified proposals, at all. The second evidence of diletantism is when somebody is claiming just new literature for the topic, and neglects some leading authors from the 19th century. Keeping this view means that no highly regarded authors from the 19th century should be taken into consideration, like the 19th century historian Leopold von Ranke, for example, which would be ridiculous.

Anyway, for your information below are just a few ”books written during the last decades” from some leading turkologists and historians, on the topic of Blac people.

László Rásonyi [a leading turkologist], A magyar eredetkutatás orosz kapcsolatai. Budapest 1962. p. 105.
Gábor Balás [historian], A székelyek nyomában. Budapest, 1984. p. 46.
György Bodor [historian], A székely nemzetségi szervezet. Pallas-Akadémia Kiadó, Csíkszereda, 2002. Part 3, Capter: A krónikáink a székelyekről. [He states that Blacs were people of Turkic culture who were assimilated by the Székelys.]
Imre Baski [turkologist]: CSAGIRCSA. Török és magyar névtani tanulmányok 1981-2006. Karcag, 2007. p. 14. [With etimological examples.]
Klára Sándor [linguist, turcologist]: A székely írás Székelyföldön kívüli használatának kezdetei. In: MAGYAR ŐSTÖRTÉNET. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. Ed. by Balázs Sudár et al. MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Budapest, 2014. pp. 329-342. [With citations on Blac people from the chronicles of Kézai and Thuróczi.]

Comment: as per below ([47]), I doubt that the above list of publications allegedly written by scholars is reliable. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hülye... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szegedi László (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Blacs (blacorum, blachos, blach, blakumen, illacs, olaks, ulaks, iflak, kara-ulagh) are widely known by the ancient authors as well, from West-Europe, and the Carpathian basin’s Hungarian chronicles to Central Asia (Anonymus, Kézai, Thuróczi, Rubruck, Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Roger Bacon, Abulghazi, Rashid-al-Din etc.) Did ever Vlachs lived in Central Asia for example? Logically not. They were Blacs who lived there.

When Kézai (he makes difference between blackis and vlachis) or Thuróczi are writing about Blacs, they are telling the events within the plot of the Hun story. Were Vlachs Huns? Logically not. The Hungarian chronicles also telling that Szekler script was taken over from the Blacs, which means Blacs and not Vlachs. These two groups should not be confused. Blacs were Turkic people from the East, using the Old Turkic script, while Vlachs were an ethnic group of different people (Slavic, Illiric, [i. e Albanian], Romanian). They mainly were illeterate shepherds. Some of their popes might know only the writing of the Eastern Orthodox Church, at most, in accordance with their orthodox religion. If Blacs and Vlach would be identical, the (catholic) Szeklers could only receive the orthodox writing from the Vlachs, but there is not a single evidence that Szeklers ever used such writing. They were able to take over their runic script only from the Blacs of Central Asian origin, because no runic texts are known from the Vlachs (Romanians) in Transylvania or in Hungary, because they had no such writing, at all. The only remaining relics of Old Hungarian script are known only from the Hungarian ethnicity in Transylvania and Hungary. So, Vlachs have nothing to do with this topic, at all.--Szegedi László (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-sourced article about a relevant historical theory. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever becomes of this article its title certainly shouldn't be a Latin genitive plural. If it must be in Latin let's at least put it in the nominitave case, Blaci (I knew that Latin O level that I passed over forty years ago would come in useful sometime). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article's title itself proves that the whole article is a diletant collection of sentences from old and older books. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly redirect to Vlachs if a redirect from a Latin genitive is at all useful. All the checks I have been able to make show that the mainstream view by the vast majority of historians is that Blaci is simply the Latin name for the Vlachs. As I said above Blacorum is the genitive case of this, usually appearing in phrases such as Blacorum et Bulgarorum ("of the Vlachs and the Bulgars") so it seems that this article is based on a misinterpretation of Latin sources by people who don't even know basic Latin. The distinction between the Vlachs and the Blaci only seems to be a fringe idea by people with the long discredited notion that there is such a thing as racial purity, and don't want to admit that they might share some ancestry with people who they regard as racially inferior. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or delete. If I get it right this page is about a scholarly theory which assumes that the Blacs were not Vlachs but a Turkic people. I think we could simply discuss this matter as a "minor" theory in one of the chapters of the page of Vlachs. However, if more expert editors were able to prove that the theory of "Turkic Blacs" is "fringe" among the current scholarly theories then we would have to delete this article .Fakirbakir (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with fringe ideas not based on any evidence is that mainstream scholars usually ignore them rather than refute them. I did manage to find this source that refutes Rásonyi's (the first author listed above by Szegedi László) characterisation of the Blaci, saying "He identified the Blaci with a Turkic population, but this is not suitable. The Blaci are the Romanians, as other medieval Hungarian chronicles and deeds are clearly showing." The footnote on page 75 of this book, The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical and Analytical Guide by Carlile Aylmer Macartney, is also telling. This whole idea of the Blaci being anything other than Vlachs is simply something made up to support an irredentist claim that Transylvania was not inhabited by ancestors of the Romanians before the Magyars moved in. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with your final conclusion, I do not accept your second argument. If all theories made up for political/irredentitst purposes should be deleted, we should also delete all references to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. It was originally made up to verify the "historical rights" of the Transylvanian Romanians who were regarded as newcommers ("admitted into [Transylvania] for the public good") even in the 18th century, and the same idea was later used to support the irredentist claims of Romania to "all Romanian territories". Consequently I suggest, that the last sentence in the IP's argumentation should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't cover irredentist claims here, but that we can only do so on the basis of reliable secondary sources that write neutrally about those claims, rather than repeating such claims as fact on the basis of what the people making the claims have written. This applies whether the claims are made by Armenians or Azerbaijanis, Greeks or Albanians, Hungarians or Romanians or whoever. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Vlachs. Blacorum is the genitive plural form of Blacus= Vlach (see par example http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18975/1/18975.pdf, where quidam Blacus is translated " a certain Vlach"). I can't find any English-language sources talking about "the Blac people". I only found "the Blacs/Vlachs" in a work by Victor Spinei, where they are not referred as a separate people, but as Vlachs. 123Steller (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you deleting the text of the article shows that you are not open minded about the subject and are completely biased. How can one judge if the article should be kept or not if you delete the main text? Arpabogar (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article to promote scientific discussion about this real, historically important question about the difference between Blacs and Vlachs. There are scholarly views which say that the Blacs are not identified with the Vlachs and the article lists several historically important references according to which there is a clear difference between Blacs and Vlachs. So deletion of the article would not support a clear scientific discussion about the subject. Arpabogar (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the blaci (genitive blacorum) are not the Vlachs, then what is the Latin for "Vlachs"? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Arpabogar, which are the English sources that use the name "Blacs"? 123Steller (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Possible keep~~ or merge (as a new section) to Vlachs. The fact that certain authors are claiming them to have been a separate people means that the content should not disappear completely. The nom has set out the case at length, but in a way that shows there is a controversy. Blac and Vlach are cognate, so that my guess is that they are the same. However, the fact that certain people suggest not (even if they are wrong) is grounds to retain the article or a redirect. If kept, rename, possibly Blacs - a Latin genitive plural is unsatisfactory as an article title. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that exists as a redirect to Vlachs, which is probably appropriate, but that article needs a section on the Blac controversy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is an important issue, Victor Spinei also mentiones about this theory in one of his works also referring to Kézai, however he does not support it. Later the term Vlach restricted strictly on Romanians, but it was not always like so, it had more interpretation also as well the different versions that were mistaken. In Kézai's work the Blackis and Ulahis terms were separated and the Szeklers anyway could not take their special runic writing from Romanians. Later, also many Hungarian authors - such as Károly Szabó translated both version as "oláh" so willfully or not merged the different meanings. J. Chr. Engel 1794: "in medio aevo notam suisse in Asia Valachiam magnam, vixissieque ibi Blacos seu Valachos, in vicinia Baskiriae. Addit his Rubuquisius [1,5 & XVIII,1]: ex hac magna Blachia prodiisse in Europam subditos Asanis coaevi sui, Bulgariae Thracicae principis: it is very unpropable that along with the Bulgarians vulgar-latin speaking people would come from Baskiria... (Commentatio de expedtionibus Traiani as Danubium, et origine valachorum. Vindobonae 1794 289-290: Bulgari a Slavis Volochi dicti).

Further meanings Vlach or Blac:

- Sheperd, nomadic, peasant in Albania (Salvert: Vlach ou vlachi en Albanais signifie pasteurs" - Essai sur les noms d'hommes de peuples et de lieux. Paris. 1824. II. 107.), Schafarik (vlache = pastores, Slav. Alterth. I. 377.)

- peasant, Bulgarian raja during the Ottoman reign (Hilferding Gesch. d. Serb. u. Bulg. II. 6.)

- inhabitant of Volga-Bulgaria by Rubriquis, Baco and Abulghazi "...qu'on apelle Ilac, qui est le meme que Blac, les Tartares ne pouvant prononcer la lettre B." - Rogerius Baco (1214-1292) (Et pres de la terre nommée Paskatur son les Blaciens, ainsi nommés de la grande Blacie")

- Gaul or Celtic people (i.e. Schafarik)

- Turkic-nomad by Pachymeres

- people with Orthodox religion in Croatia (Jirecek)

- Christian Slav in Bosnia (Jirecek)

So there are also other historic sources, whether or not it has to expanded with also non-Hungarian and non-Romanian sources so noone can make an accusation of willfull motivation by any nationalistic aims. However, this Blacorum regarding what we have seen fits the mostly to the Turkic people from Baskiria who came along with Bulgarians, so i don't support merging or deleting.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, if the article describes an important theory, why it has not been verified for more than three months? Could you refer to signifact modern historians who accept it? You may not have realized, but we are now in the year 2016 AD. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka I don't know what goes to three months I noticed this discussion yesterday. I did not recently dig in more the subject. I don't think that only that would have validity that is accepted by modern-historians, historical research or validity is not equal with acceptance that is anyway changing in years, I think then many articles could be deleted with such an argumentation. "You may not have realized, but we are now in the year 2016 AD." -> Borsoka, please at least recpect me just 1/10 as much a I respect you.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

(1) Yes, many articles will be deleted sooner or later. (2) If you want to cite books written in the 19th century, please accept that you have to be reminded that we are in the 21st century. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I see. I don't really understand what is the problem if something is cited from older times, the content and validity should be judged, isn't it? You are professionally aware about this since you are mainly interested in historical research and in countless cases old sources - much more older ones - are referred. Just because recently the subject is not necessarily researched in the mainstream? I.e. how many articles about mathematics could be deleted since very old theories, theorems are not investigated or cited recently by mainstream authors? (2) As I told, it does not have a connection to the current timeline, what to cite if there is not necessarily a newer existing right now?(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - the sole English-language source referred in the article is Rásonyi László, The History of the Blaks or Bulaks, Magyar Múlt, 1982. Does this work really exist? I can't find this book title anywhere online... 123Steller (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it really exists, see i.e. here ^[1] ->

U.I.1825. RÁSONYI László The history of the blaks or bulaks : An ancient Turkic ethnic group in Transylvania : [Magyar nyelvű kivonattal] / Rásonyi László. - Sydney : The Hungarian Historical Society, 1982a. - 71-94, 132p. ; 26cm. = Magyar Múlt, Hungarian Past. Vol. 11. No 2. Ser. No 30.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ http://www.unitar.hu/konyv.htm

Borsoka, to our earlier discussion, I recommend you the "Makkay János HOGYAN LETTEK A BLAKOKBÓL ROMÁNOK - (avagy hogyan támogatják teljes odaadással magyar kutatók a román hipernacionalizmust)" Kiadó Szerző, 1997 ISBN 9636508232, ISBN 9789636508234 Terjedelem 55 oldal" művet is ami habár magyar forrás, de a szerző ismert igényes és hasznos Erdélyyel kapcsolatos munkáiról szerintem számodra is, nagyon jó összeállítás sok nem magyar forrással is.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

We can conclude that there is a publication (Rásonyi's work on the subject) which is not cited in a single peer reviewed academic book. And there is an other publication (Makkay's work) which says that the Hungarian historians do not accept the theory about a blak/bulak population in Transylvania (instead, according to the author of the publication, they accept the theory of Romanian nationalists). Do you really think that these two publications prove that this (obviously fringe) theory is notable enough to have a separate article? Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, if I understand correctly, Rásonyi's work is not reliable according to the criteria of Wikipedia? 123Steller (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot decide, because it cannot be read online. All the same, no other scholars have so far thought it notable enough to cite it. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, this is a subtitle about how Hungarian historians support something unintentionally by a considered mistake, it is just a title with a kind of metafora or euphemism. I don't agree that the theory would be fringe, you know very well how some people who simply does not like a theory is persisting to immediately judge something to be considered fringe, so they can remove even any source because of the disliked content, you also met with such cases, mostly when it is about a sensitive topic. However, I certainly know not this is your motivation since you are well-known to stand up against such acts. Anyway regarding the first work, I just answered to 123Steller, the second I have/read the significant chapter of the topic. Regarding the ancient history of Transylvania, I still consider it is a very important issue since in this - you now the best - there are many debates and controversies, to have more approach, sources viewpoints just increase the chance of better evaluation and understanding. On the other hand, not any merging I support regarding and article i.e. Vlachs, since they are designated as Eastern-Romance speaking people, and in the list we see not even the term Vlach meant always like so, to say nothing of Blacs.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, May I ask why some of you delete the historical references? For example the reference to William Rubruck was deleted. He is one of the most important sources about the Blacs. It seems that you are not comfortable with the subject. I understand that it is a controversial subject but I tried all my best to present it in a civil manner. I didn't hide the fact that many historians identify the Blacs with the Vlachs. But I think that in order to have a clear discussion about the subject we should be able to present the other sides opinion as well. There are scholars who do not identify the Blacs with the Vlachs. If you guys always delete the historical references than how can one judge if we should keep the article or not. Basically it is vandalism what you are doing because historical references are what they are. They are not some kind of an opinion only. Of course historical sources can be right or wrong but that is not for you to decide, just by deleting them. Lets keep the discussion going but please do not delete important references especially ones which can not refer to the Vlachs. Arpabogar (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Vasary, a well-known medievalist, Rasonyi's theory is fringe, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365 (2005). I would really like to see evidence that Rasonyi's research is supported by other studies. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I showed at Talk:Blacorum#Review, in the article are used wrong historical references and they are misinterpreted, both by some minor (or outdated) scholars, and Wikipedia editors. William of Rubruck mentioned that the Blacs or Illacs are Vlachs in his fictional chronology of the Vlach origin, and the same story Roger Bacon copied. Simon of Keza mentioned that the Slavs, Bulgars and Vlachs lived in Pannonia before the Hungarians, and until now no one confirmed other Simon's statements. That's it. We have two historical references, with doubtful accuracy, but they clearly mentioned the Romance-speaking Vlachs and not some Turkic-speaking "Blacs".
- István Vásáry's source (pg. 29); "It is in connection with the Blaci of Transylvania that L. Rásonyi put forward a strange theory. He tried to prove that the Blaci of Transylvania had nothing to do with the Vlakhs, but were a Turkic people named Bulaq, and that the Vlakhs and Bulaqs were later confused in the sources (61; ...the fundamental thesis about the Bulaqs is an abortive attempt that cannot be proved). Unfortunately, this theory cannot be corroborated by an sound evidence, and every historical argument speaks against it. While I do no regard it as my task to prove here that his idea cannot be sustained, I would simply remark that it was again nationalism that lay behind this theory; Hungarian nationalism has tried to minimise the Romanian presence in history, while Romanian nationalism has tried to expropriate the Hungarian and Bulgarian past. In the case of the term Blaci, we cannot but conclude that it was used to designate the Vlakhs".
- The article is fringe and minor theory, a misinterpretation, a natio-ideological conflict about the Vlachs. By no criteria the theory should have a stand-alone article. However, it can be (if needed)e mentioned in the notes of some specific and related article. Delete.--Crovata (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crovata, without repeating my points, I wish only to add that I have to reject that any "Hungarian nationalism" would behind of anything. Romanian presence is dubious/unproved/questionable in some timelines, moreover The runic writing is also a cutting edge. Anyway also non-Hungarians perceived something is different regarding the Blacks/Vlach question, I think more sources, approach, addition would improve the theory, why not to present all of them?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    - KIENGIR, you cannot reject Vásáry's own words because you're not Vásáry. You have a nationalistic bias toward the article because of which you ignore Wikipedia policy like WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE, historical facts and even other scholars. Romanian presence sometime is dubious, but not in this case. You constantly mention the runes, but until now didn't cite a single word from the fringe sources. More sources can improve the understanding of the theory, but the theory has no notable value, do you understand?--Crovata (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Crovata, I did not say anything about Vásáry. I don't have any nationalistic bias, I do not ignore any Wikipedia policy, I am supporting NPOV as always, I do not even ignore but heavily support historical facts. So this accusation list has nothing to do with any good faith, it is useless to do such because you don't agree with me. I cited you I told you already the content, anyway. Notability will be decided according to the rukes, it is not true that I would ignore it.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
        KIENGIR, actions speak louder than words, you said that Hungarian nationalism wouldn't be behind anything (wrong), you didn't say anything about Vásáry i.e. continue to argue in support of the theory, which doesn't have heavily supported historical facts. It's OK. What others have to say?--Crovata (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Crovata, please don't decide instead of me what "I am doing", you are totally wrong, I just answered to your because many things you have stated are not true or I disagree. No Hungarian nationalism behind me or any author regarding this theory and I did not necessarily argue for something, I just reacted. Historical facts are the Szekler's use runic script and also other athors attested us about the Blac people that beucase of other circumstances seem different people like Vlachs. That's all. Support or acceptance does not change this, I consider still it has to be investigated. Please finish accusing or attacking personally me, simply accept not everybody is agreeing with you, with peace. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

My only concern is that Rasonyi was a noted Turkologist, historian, linguist, member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and visiting professor at the University of Ankara. Beside Rasonyi's study, I only found ?self-published? works about "Turkic Blaks" by Tibor E. Barath and Ervin Laczay ([48][49]) and they seem to be unreliable sources IMO. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon that reliable and noted scholars sometime supported minor or fringe theories. That doesn't diminish the credibility and value of his other work, rather than as a scientist he saw something, tried to research, "connect the dots", made a theory, and in conclusion it was not endorsed by the scholarship.--Crovata (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article starts like this: "The Blacs or Blaks..." Is there any English-language source that says that "Blacs" are the same people with the "Blaks"? 123Steller (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Blaks" people never existed, it is a very minor fringe theory and as such should be deleted. This discussion, as well on the talk page, is basically over as we already know the real issue. --Crovata (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not this was Steller's question, he asked something about English sources. The rest is your personal opinion, that of course has to be respected, as opinions of other's as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- There appears to be no English language source that mentions either the Blacs or the Blaks as distinct people from the Vlachs. Of course mediaeval primary sources in any language use different spellings, because spelling wasn't standardised then in any language. That's one of the many reasons why Wikipedia articles should be based on modern secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Rasonyi's study is the only reliable source for the subject then the article will have to be deleted because the theory could hardly be classified as a "minority view". Please try to find more RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES. Studies in Hungarian would be fine too. It's not a problem if the study is old as long as it's cited in modern scholarly works. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User Szegedi László states that Imre Baski (Eotvos Lorand University, Department of Turkic Studies) makes a possible connection between Blaks and Turkic peoples. (Imre Baski [turkologist]: CSAGIRCSA. Török és magyar névtani tanulmányok 1981-2006. Karcag, 2007. p. 14.) I don't have access to Baski's book. Borsoka, What do you think it is a reliable source? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to checkout Szegedi László's list (above). Imre Baski's work may be a reliable source. Gyorgy Bodor was not a historian but a lawyer....Gabor Balas was a lawyer too though he was familiar with legal history. Klara Sandor's study might be a reliable source too, but somebody needs to check it because I don't have access to her book either. (Klára Sándor [linguist, turcologist]: A székely írás Székelyföldön kívüli használatának kezdetei. In: MAGYAR ŐSTÖRTÉNET. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. Ed. by Balázs Sudár et al. MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Budapest, 2014. pp. 329-342.) Fakirbakir (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have acces to Baski's work either, but I am not convinced that he published a study under the above mentioned title. His own list of his own works does not refer to the allegedly cited work ([50]). I have access to a book written by Klára Sándor (A székely írás nyomában, Typotex, 2014, ISBN 978-963-279-387-0). It is obviously a high quality reliable source. However, she does not identify the Blacs as a Turkic people in that work. She only refers to this theory. I must assume that the above list of alleged sources is not reliable. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I have found Baski's study, here:[51]. I couldn't find a word about "Blaks" in the book. There is nothing on page 14 ..... Ergo, none of the cited books support the theory of Turkic Blaks... Fakirbakir (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we can conclude, that Rásonyi's theory is marginal and its notability cannot be verified. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka what do you mean by Klara Sandor "only" refering to this theory? Does she accept it, or how does she refer to it? Is the source online by any chance?Arpabogar (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what the words mean: she mentions that such a theory exists. This article does not support, either, that she accepts the theory: [52]. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found another source which argues for the case of Blaks being a Turkic people: by Istvan Ferenczi (prominent archeologist from Romania): A SZÉKELYEK SZÁRMAZÁSÁRÓL, Székely Útkereső, 1994 Arpabogar (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this study, here: [53] Ferenczi says that we have to distinguish between Vlach/Valachus and Ivlach/B(u)lak and also refers to Lajos Tardy's study (p. 10). He states that it is possible that Mark Kalti the author of the Chronicon Pictum didn't make a mistake when he identified the "Olaci, Volaci, Valaci" people with the Turkic B(u)laks. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should simply KEEP and RENAME the article to "Blaks" or "Bulaqs". The main topic should be the history of a Turkic tribe in Eastern Europe and NOT the controversial identification of the Transylvanian "Blachi" with "Bulaqs". Fakirbakir (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Ferenczi is an archaeologist, are his interpretations about medieval documents reliable? 123Steller (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his interpretation was published in a reliable source. However, he does not state that the identification is a fact. He only says, it is a possibility. I agree with Fakirbakir's proposal that an article/this article should be dedicated to the Bulaqs, and this fringe theory could be mentioned in two or three sentences in that article. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Bulaqs, as according to the source by Peter Benjamin Golden, because article gets notability when is about a specific Karluks tribe which was misunderstood by some scholars during the clarifying of few vague and erroneous European medieval sources. However, user Fakirbakir still ignores, doesn't understand and twists the fact about the Turkic tribe.--Crovata (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge, whether or not this includes fringe theories is another matter, but regardless of that, there are enough reliable sources in the article to justify adding the content to the main Vlachs article. Icebob99 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Redirect, I think I agree with Fakirbakir that an article based on Ferenczi would be notable, and parts of this article are that. I think an important part of notability when it is contested is whether or not the source is edited by experts, not simply if the author of the source is an expert. With that in mind, what/who is the editor of Rásonyi, 1982? Is it "Magyar Múlt"? What is that, is it a reputable publisher? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a bit of a content dispute discussion here, along with no definitive answer as what to do with the article. Relisting. Note content disputes should bee addressed on article's talk page. Nordic Nightfury 09:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 09:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fakirbakir that we should KEEP and RENAME the article to "Blaks", "Bulaqs" or "Bulaks".Arpabogar (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blaks is not the correct name, while Bulaks is the less used version compared to Bulaqs.--Crovata (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hungarian literature Bulak and Blak is more prevalent; Rasonyi writes about them in all three versions in English: Blaks, Bulaks and Bulaqs. In Rubruck's writings the term is translated to English as Blacs.Arpabogar (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those Hungarian sources are old. In most of the sources, especially latest and English it is used Bulaqs. Blak or Blacs, especially in the Rubruck's work, have nothing to do with the Bulaqs. Blak/Blacs are not Bulaqs, Blak/Blacs are not the name for the Bulaqs, and the article is not about the theoretical Blak/Blacs, but real Bulaqs.--Crovata (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still hold to my opinion for deletion. The article that we have here now, as edited, still has most of its content about a discredited fringe view of one or two people. This should be deleted and, if sources are available, an article should be created containing accepted knowledge about the Bulaqs rather than most of it being about this nonsense. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability and Merge. It has taken some effort to try to understand the issues at play here. Both aspects of the article - the Bulaqs description and confusion with Vlachs section - have a feeling of non-native English and are in need of adjustment for clarity and cohesiveness. I'm not clear that the sources in the History section all definitely refer to the same group without WP:SYNTH. For the name "Bulaqs" Google returns precious few results. DIY Editor (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with what? There are no non-fringe reliable sources here, so what is there to merge with anything? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or RENAME -> as more editors updated or reinforced their decision, I update with this, if the rename is demanded, rename to Bulaqs or Bulaks or anything else that would reach consensus, this ethnic group deserves an article on the other hand their history and confusions regarding the naming is well demonstrated as well because of this what other theories emerged with proper reasoning.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Why should an article written about the genitive plural of the Latin name for the Vlachs be kept or renamed as an article about a completely different enthnic group? If we are to have an article about the Bulaqs or Bulaks or whatever spelling people want to use then it should be started from scratch, not developed by hijacking an article about a totally different topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, similar names and they different forms are debated an not in all case is clear which ethnic group they are really referred, regardless how the wished to be accepted by some views. I am amazed that you ask why it should be renamed, although more editors also explained why it would be necessary, especially your first question could have also implied it. The article does not ignore the scratch and it can be developed further, there is not any hijacking with a totally different topic, since the confusion and controversy of this people has a history so it is an important and interesting information regarding their evaluation.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The whole point is that all we have is confusion, and nothing supported by reliable sources. That's the very reason why this article should be deleted. If any article about a similarly named ethnic group can be created on the basis of reliable sources it should be created from scratch, rather than this confusing nonsense be incorporated into it. The article that this discussion is about was, at the time of nomination, about an ethic group already covered in a pre-existing article, the Vlachs, and simply had a title in the wrong language and in the wrong case. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just your opinion, reliable sources are present, as also speaking continously about "nonsense". Turkic people cannot be considered as Eastern Romance speaking people, as both of them shared similar or identical etymology, with more versions, that is the main reason for confusion. Yes, you expressed more times your wish for deletion together with such nonsense and bad faith arguments like The distinction between the Vlachs and the Blaci only seems to be a fringe idea by people with the long discredited notion that there is such a thing as racial purity, and don't want to admit that they might share some ancestry with people who they regard as racially inferior. This suggest an other motivation behind.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

László Makkai wrote: "There has been some speculation that Anonymus' Blaks were the Turkic people who are mentioned in medieval sources as bearing the same name and living east of the Carpathians, but this hypothesis does not bear the test of scholarly scrutiny." - http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/59.html 123Steller (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You presented one opinion, so what? This is just one brick, what are discussed here are much broader.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

One opinion among several with the same conclusion.--Crovata (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As also there are other's with different conclusion.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Stop literally abusing and twisting WP:NPOV. Their conclusion was found wrong and thus their conclusion can't have the same WP:WEIGHT, quantitatively and qualitatively. One more such comment and I will report you on the noticeboard for intentional disruptive behavior.--Crovata (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not twist or abuse anything, you should give up on this aggressive mentality of threats and uncivility, I don't have any "intentional disruptive behavior", you accuse everyone with everything who does not immediately share your POV, this is not a fair behavior in Wikipedia, to say nothing about edit warring. Calm down and be civil and polite!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you constantly twist the facts and principles. There is fine line between civility and stubborn irritancy. I did not immediately accuse anyone, only after many discussions some people can't waste their time and energy to write and explain for 1000th time the same thing. The three of you intentionally don't want to understand and accept that the hypothesis is irrelevant, fringe and refuted, as well not notable enough according to the Wikipedia's principle. It has nothing to do with my personal POV.--Crovata (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when we would get the standard POV-pusher's argument that anyone pointing out the lack of neutrality must be pushing the opposite POV. I have no connection with Romania or Hungary and have no opinion about any of the ethnic disagreements in the region, other than being able to see the basic failure of logic that applies to any irredentism anywhere, and have no motivation other than to keep Wikipedia in conformance to its basic content policies. I do however have a pretty sensitive, and usually accurate, bullshit detector. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Crovata, I did not twist any fact or principles, also I am not a performer of any irritacy, you are overreacting something also regarding others in a very harsh way and your accusations came early to more persons, on the other hand not mine or other's motivation is to repeat something all the time. Like now, "intentionally", "refuted", "Wikipedia principle", it is useless to react on these again, read back if necessary why not this is the situation. Dear IP, than your "detector" should have immediately eliminate this remark of yours: The distinction between the Vlachs and the Blaci only seems to be a fringe idea by people with the long discredited notion that there is such a thing as racial purity, and don't want to admit that they might share some ancestry with people who they regard as racially inferior.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - I can't find any other sources relating to this topic. If we have more sources for this then I would reconsider. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 12:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. There are more than half a dozen scholars in the article. Do you suggest that we should delete an article because non-English sources are in majority? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

It seems that there are several different issues at play:

Whether this article is or should be about the Turkic group "Bulaqs" —DIY Editor (talk)
- From now it should be primarily about the Turkic people called Bulaqs. The hypothesis is related to them and thus is worthy of mention.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the right name for the article and why does it have the current name —DIY Editor (talk)
- Bulaqs, the current name was a mistake which was not corrected.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article about Bulaqs should cover possible confusion with Vlachs —DIY Editor (talk)
- According to WP:WEIGHT "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia", thus it should not. The hypothesis has not enough notability for a separate article, not even for such an extensive mention. It is barely mentioned by other scholars, and all of them have the same conclusion - it is a minor refuted hypothesis not worthy of attention. Such an extensive mention gives wrong weight to it. I think it should be mentioned, but the real issue is how much?--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not a refuted hypothesis, some scholars does not support the theory, while other's support, there is not any general refute on this basis. However, it is already indicated that "minority of scholars" and "generally accepted Vlachs" so your complain is a real overreaction.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    - No. From now on I will not, and call the others as well, consider your opinion anymore on the topic because we cannot continue a discussion if one editor and the main opposition intentionally continues to ignore the reality of the topic. You constantly twist the facts about the issue, and give undue WP:WEIGHT and make WP:FALSEBALANCE. You don't understand WP:NPOV and as you intentionally don't want accept the NPOV principles the Wikipedia is edited, and as the Wikipedia principles are over any editor, and your personal opinion is ridiculously wrong, we can simply ignore it.--Crovata (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - But yes, I don't have to call anyone, you failed to grasp some Wiki rules that you cannot exclude or ignore any opinion. I did not "intentionally ignore" anything, you repeat the same invalid phrases like "twist", "NPOV", "Wikipedia principles" that you don't keep, you focus on me although editors also share the same opinion on the contrary, I do not push any personal opinion, contrary to you. Everything is else were already discussed above, no need to repeat.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
        "invalid phrases like "twist", "NPOV", "Wikipedia principles"", that's enough.--Crovata (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, I've told the same a long ago.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
        Incredible, you admited that from the very beginning the Wikipedia and NPOV principles were nothing but invalid phrases for you.--Crovata (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I just reflected that your repeat of invalid accusations are useless.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
        Oh my God, you still don't get it - those are not invalid accusations. Now you made a literal confirmation that you intentionally don't understand and accept the Wikipedia principles like NPOV, WEIGHT, FALSEBALANCE.--Crovata (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This behavior is seriously disruptive and dangerous, WP:NOTHERE is suspected. You invent something and put something in my mouth that I did not, you sank down a very deep level. I confirmed as I said, that your continous listing of false accusations are useless, and you are repeating the same nonsense since I don't harm those rules. Details everywhere. With such "oh my god type remarks" you just qualifying yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
        You are a typical example of WP:DISRUPT behavior.--Crovata (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        For your misfortune, I am not, I did not harm any rule, unlike you. N+1 accusation won't help your situation.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
        Yes, for my misfortune because I wasted my time on someone who WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Crovata (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you use your time for an unnecessary overreaction. I am very sorry you ended up like so.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Whether Vlachs should cover possible confusion with Bulaqs —DIY Editor (talk)
- No.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, of course. We don't do censorship. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there are reliable sources regarding Bulaqs and variations on that spelling and a way to tie those sources together without WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE —DIY Editor (talk)
- Yes, see references from the "Etymology" and "History" section, as well Spinei, Vasary...--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there are reliable sources regarding confusion between Bulaqs (by which spelling and by whom) and Vlachs without WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE —DIY Editor (talk)
- Yes, and they are already cited. Basically, the article does not have the SYNTH issue like before, however it still does have the UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE issues about the hypothesis' information.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rasonyi, Ferenczi, Makkay, Pais and Tardy eliminate the "Undue" issue. No censorship pls. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - They don't eliminate UNDUE, and it has nothing to do with any kind of censorship. You don't understand and accept the UNDUE principle.--Crovata (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there is any material worth salvaging from article —DIY Editor (talk)
- Yes, mainly the "Etymology" and "History".--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are overlapping matters and it makes for a confused discussion. It might help to narrow the focus of the debate. —DIY Editor (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should not forget that we are dealing with two different issues here. We do know that the Bulaqs were an existing people in medieval times. I hope you all recognize this. I don't even know why we are still discussing this nomination. It would be a big mistake not to keep an article about the Bulaq people. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Crovata is blocked for two months for edits on this article so that may put some of the dispute to rest. I think the article's title is part of what has prolonged the debate on keeping it - the title and article as originally created seem to refer to Vlachs, while the current content is about Bulaqs. As to the notability of Bulaqs, if we are to assume that any foreign language sources are accurately cited then the topic of Bulaqs would appear to merit an article. However, given the seemingly contentious nature of the article I'm personally not ~~entirely~~ comfortable assuming that is so. There is next to nothing available in English to check some of the basic facts. —DIY Editor (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content dispute can be settled elsewhere. We don't delete articles because of such disputes. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a content dispute. Neither the title of this article (the Latin genitive of Vlachs) nor the content when it was nominated had any relationship to the so-called Bulaqs described here now. It's like someone starting a new article about Donald Trump with the title "Donald Trump's" and then, during its deletion discussion, rewriting it to be about Forrest Gump and claiming it should be kept because the new subject is notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Khatri[edit]

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

I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. The subject is/was in news only due to his relations with bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez and Sushmita Sen and I even can't find what kind of buisness he do. The article fails to meet WP:BASIC. GSS (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-Was in WP:RS only because of his affairs with two bollywood actresses.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A case of WP:INVALIDBIO, coverage is because of association with notable people. Subject is not notable on their own. Pratyush (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does have some coverage (the fact it's because of connexions changes nothing; he is still in third-party sources), but it's mostly trivial mentions. Obviously, we cannot redirect to both Sushmita Sen and Jacqueline Fernandez. Adam9007 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Islamic College[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Isn't this just some sort of a Muslim-run diploma mill? It may however, barely satisfy WP:GNG for other reasons than for academic importance. Ceosad (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete:Is there some valid reason why a college is not notable? A quick Google search has found mention of it here in a Breitbart article.^[1] It's also mentioned in this Telegraph article^[2]. Also mentioned on the BBC.^[3] So, what was the reason this was flagged?16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)NicholasJB (talk)

References

^ http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/28/140-year-history-ends-cambridge-methodist-church-bought-islamic-college/ 140-Year History Ends: Cambridge Methodist Church Bought By Islamic College.
^ http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/koran-carla-power/ What the Koran really says about women
^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-33751522 Plans for 'first' women-led mosque discussed

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on failing WP:GNG. The mentioned sources give nothing but passing mentions (and Breitbart is not exactly the most reliable/neutral of sources); nothing substantial to develop it beyond a permastub. But of course the dreaded WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay will be brought up, which for some obscure reason overrides the General Notability Guideline. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is an article about the college's founder, Mohammad Akram Nadwi. In time, the college may be notable, but in the less than two years since its founding it has seemingly only received passing and routine coverage. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:04, 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 due to lack of participation of anyone other than the editor who initiated the discussion. Joyous! | Talk 15:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IamMbai[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC with no supporting secondary sources. The mention of BBC writing a story about him joining forces with a medical organisation is unsupported, and a search of the BBC's sites returns no results for "Alfred Mbai" or "IamMbai". The africanexponent.com article is about an Alfred Mombo and makes no connection between this person and the Instagram fashion blogger called "IamMbai" who is this article's subject. McGeddon (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since been rewritten to name the subject as "Alfred Mombo Mbai", but there are still no secondary sources linking "Alfred Mombo" to the Instagram/Twitter user, and I can't find any evidence of the BBC having ever reported on an Alfred Mombo either. --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 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 merge to Chowdhury. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamma Chowdary[edit]

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

Propose to delete and, if appropriate, merge with Chowdhury. Brianga (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge - There is no notability to this list. The entries can go in Chowdhury. They may also be added to List of Kammas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge- Per Kautilya.There is no notability to this list. The entries can go in Chowdhury.They may also be added to List of Kammas.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divided We Fall (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG with only primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging our resident Dutch-speaking editors, in case they can find more in Dutch sources: @Soetermans and Maplestrip czar 21:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
XGN and Eurogamer are good signs. Both Thegg.net and MMOHuts look very unprofessional, but I otherwise don't know anything about them. Same with MMOGames, though at least that website lists the experience of the staff. I don't like using these websites... I'll ask my brother-in-law whether this game was mentioned in the Dutch Gameplay magazine, and I may look through some magazines for articles on this game when I pass by a kiosk. No strong opinions yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the game is notable. ~Mable (chat) 10:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a short, one-paragraph piece on Divided We Fall in the October issue of the Dutch Gameplay magazine. Not a full article, mind you, but it does announce that the game came out of early access, describes the background of the game, and describes the gameplay in short. I don't really have access to other gaming magazines from that month. I tried the website of Power Unlimited, but there's nothing on there on this game. To move on to a purely online source: Gamer.nl has never mentioned the game according to their search function. Seeing the low amount of coverage by even Dutch gaming sources, I'd deem this video game not notable. We've searched for sources and found only three that are definitely worth something. It's pretty much on the edge of notability, though. ~Mable (chat) 18:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In light of no major reviews from a game released in 2016, the news announcements don't cut it. I'd be fine with moving this to draftspace for the author to continue work, but the primary sources need to be axed and much more secondary source material needs to be added. (Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?)) czar 16:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 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 List of Regular Show episodes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeinated Concert Tickets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Creating discussion page on behalf of MB who encountered an unusual Twinkle error when attempting to nominate this article himself. He will need to fill in a deletion rationale. I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator): A summary of an un-notable episode of a cartoon show. Was Redirected per 2012 AFD nomination and recreated in 2015, after which it was nominated for AFD again and that time closed as No Consensus due to lack of participation. Another episode was recently deleted for the same reason (not notable), see WP:Articles for deletion/The Unicorns Have Got to Go. This episode is similarly un-notable. MB 00:45, 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 08:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Regular Show episodes. Nothing independently notable here. Deli nk (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus, ; it was in addition written by a banned sockpuppet of a promotional editor( just before they were banner--so it isn't a speedy) DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProspectsPLUS![edit]

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

Literally nothing of genuine substance for independent notability and there's literally nothing to genuinely mistake it as otherwise, everything listed is simply published and republished advertising for and by the company itself, searches unsurprisingly found this, and this author, as it is, was involved in a multi-account advertising campaign. Normally, I would've simply PRODed but given the blatancy of restarting advertisements, I wouldn't be surprised if we'll need G4 later. Thus, together with this, WP:NOT clearly applies when what will equally apply is WP:BASIC or WP:GNG as those are not policy, unlike WP:NOT which is. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by a blocked sockpuppet on a firm which produces mailshot material. Neither inclusion in a list of largest revenue firms in its local area nor as number 3,348 in an Inc5000 list of fastest-growing companies is indicative in itself of encyclopaedic notability. Nor is the coverage referenced into the article or found by search showing evidence that this is more than a firm going about its business routine. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 07:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:57, 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) 09:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West of Ayala[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. This is an unsourced article about a standard residential building that is not notable because it does not pass the requirements of WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage found via source searches consists of routine coverage, such as a fire that occurred there ([54]) and a death that occurred there ([55]), but not finding significant coverage about the structure itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 29 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 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per North America.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above ^{Babymissfortune} 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EricSerge (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faith and Friends Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station. Although it is on iHeartRadio, the article lacks non-trivial support or in-depth reporting about the station. reddogsix (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [56], [57]]). Does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 29 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 07:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While an internet radio station can qualify for a Wikipedia article if it can be sourced over WP:GNG, it does not get an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA just for existing. But there's no RS coverage shown here at all, and none out there with which this can be salvaged. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 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. Consensus is clear that this should be deleted, especially with the BLP issues —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nityananda sex scandal[edit]

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

As it stands, the article is an attack page that does not mention that the video in question was fake. There is an alternative longer version which is heavily based on unreliable sources and effectively is a propaganda piece for the Swami. While the incident did create a lot of news coverage at that time, all available versions of the Wikipedia page are WP:BLP violations. If Wikipedia should have content about this incident, the articles on Sun TV (India) and Swami Nithyananda would be the proper places; this article and its content are unsalvageable. Huon (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See for example here for a source confirming the video was fake. I should have given the source for that statement right away. Huon (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being non-notable tabloid, but that source does not claim the video was a hoax. The article has been gutted so many times that it's not really an article anymore. Jergling (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Forensic tests later found the video to be morphed." So at the very least it was manipulated. This news report explicitly calls it "fake". Huon (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article and renamed it (i messed the page up while renaming btw, would be nice if someone can fix it) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashaanktulsyan_moved_page_Nityananda_sex_scandal_to_Aarti_Rao_Sun_TV_Extortion_Scandal:_The_title_is_misleading_and_the_entire_article_is_based_on_tabloid_material._See_talk_page_for_details Please see if this page can be kept in wikipedia. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shashaanktulsyan:, please don't move the page any further until this deletion discussion is over. Potentially controversial renames must be discussed. See WP:RM#CM. clpo13_(talk) 19:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - a total and unfixable wreck of a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Modify and retain - Please see the current version Nityananda sex scandal. The title may be changed and the article may be edited to meet WP:BLP and WP:NPOV etc. If we delete the article there is no source unbiased information on this topic on the internet. Sun TV (India), Aaj Tak, NDTV and several news channels have broadcast and uploaded a total of more than 10,000 hrs (search youtube for 'Nithyananda scandal') of false news and a total of more than 2,100 false news articles (search google and take a total count of news articles on scandal by Indian media houses). For example, in Youtube alone, a single false news clip by Aaj Tak on this topic has been viewed more than 20,000,000 times. There has been zero coverage by any media house when the case was squashed by the court, or when the "rape" victim was fined 1/2 million dollar for false statement. The reason why media houses have not shared the true news is because they are involved in extortion and many cases filed by Nithyananda against them are pending in various courts. Obviously nobody will write against his own channel. If Wikipedia doesn't retain a neutral version, naturally people will continue to refer to the false news which has been around the internet since 7 years. Please refer to the article for all sources/references/citations on the above points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashaanktulsyan (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 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 07:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the allegations are agreed to be false, and this is an unacceptable BLP attack article. There's already a mention on Nithyananda which is sufficient, so there's nothing to merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to be at the point where WP:GNG and WP:BLP intersect. Apparent WP:RS coverage of a completely false/hoax attack is admittedly now A Thing (for example, the Pizzagate nonsense). That said, even in those cases where it does rise to such coverage, BLP should take precedence and mention of the false event on the subject's page is probably enough. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modify and retain There is an excellent point brought up. The only publicly circulating content on Google/YouTube/News companies that creates the scandal are explicitly false and viewed hundreds of millions on times. Wikipedia has the opportunity to be the lone source of the truth for an extremely highly cited scandal. Very important to keep. Rurban23 (talk) 23:04, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Room On Call[edit]

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

Delete and Salt, overblatant advertising deleted only a few months ago by Deb and there's still nothing at all to suggest this is not paid advertising since it in fact is, the fact it's all only what the company would publish about itself at their own website, my own searches are finding the same; Not only was there one advertising-account but now there's a second one involved with this, showing they are quite aware this article exists and are using to their enjoyment of advertising, WP:NOT explicitly states otherwise and hence we use it to remove this. About the salting, 2 deletions is excessive now as it is especially given the circumstances, thus this should easily only be AfC-reviewed if at all, to save ourselves important time and efforts. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this company has been making progress towards notability, I don't see it meeting WP:COMPANY at this time. All the hits I see on Google are either passing mentions of funding or clearly promotional or self-generated. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would speedy this as blatant advertising if you hadn't already nominated it. Deb (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - per nom; I agree that it is a possible candidate for speedy deletion Spiderone 10:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Per nom.Should have been speedied.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:42, 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 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ELJay Kenn[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSBIO. The only reference on the article is to soundcloud and I could not find any mention in reliable sources. Sjrct (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete – Per several source searches, using both the subject's nickname and actual name, finding no coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. Fails WP:BASIC and finding no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 29 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 06:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 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 withdraw as concerns were successfully addressed. (non-admin closure) Jean Stair (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M Cream[edit]

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

Regards its subject only with superlatives. Needs fundamental rewrite. Was PRODed before. Jean Stair (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I contested the WP:PROD deletion, a fundamental rewrite doesn't require an admin to hit the "delete" button first. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to see the alternative being carried out over this talk. Best, Jean Stair (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already removed the promotional material from this article. The references are all legitimate and well referenced. Please let me know what 'superlatives' you are objecting to :@Jean Stair:? As far as I can tell, the article is written objectively and cites the accomplishments of the film. The article should be retained. I have further improved the Development section by removing some 'promotional language' albeit a very minor example as I can find no other promotional language in the article. Have checked all sections and rephrased where needed. Best, FilmForum61 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have improved the reception section by adding mixed reviews and opposing sentiments to bring greater balance to the page. Please check :@Jean Stair: - I think the AfD prop can be removed if you think the updates are satisfactory. Best, FilmForum61 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, FilmForum61 for editing the page and not just engaging in rambling like some guardians of certain articles tend to do. It looks neutral now. Thanks, Jean Stair (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Stair, you seem to be under the impression that there is some kind of "edit on demand" service at Wikipedia. Articles are written by volunteers, so the only way that you can be sure of getting an article rewritten is to do it yourself. This venue is for deciding whether it would be possible to write a policy-compliant article about a subject, not for demanding that someone else does so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to put this out for you, but your opening statement and this last one contradict each other. Jean Stair (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against userfying or draftifying if requested by a user in good standing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre, Club and Arena Tour[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "Upcoming. Not notable yet. Fails WP:NMUSIC." It was deprodded by User:HurluGumene (creator, just blocked) with no rationale. Well, here we go then. An upcoming tour referenced to primary sources fails WP:GNG. At best, I can suggest this is userfied to be moved back once there is coverage of that in independent media (presumably once it starts happening). Until then, this is promotional fancruft. PS. Ping User:Jennica who thanked me for this prod :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is too soon, but it likely to be recreated next year when the tour starts. Perhaps move it to a draft space? Karst (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC. Possibly may yet pass it at some point, but not yet. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur and we have the past several AfDs closed as delete with these subjecs to show for it, not all of these are automatically inherited notability and there's nothing convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roni Marsalis[edit]

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

No indication of passing GNG or qualifying for WP:NACTOR. Autobiography. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:38, 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 Speedy delete: G11. Vanamonde (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dicochea Jr.[edit]

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

Autobiography, obviously promotional in nature, no references, No indication of passing GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this and solely based this article on that of others with articles similar to mine, like Elon Musk. If I have frayed from them in any dishonest way whatsoever, please let me know. I am just going off of what I read and know as of right now. I am going to bed right now, but will check in tomorrow for a follow up. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Dicochea (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Daniel Dicochea (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dicochea (talk) 05:52, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st Farnsfield Scout Group[edit]

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

don't know why it twice ate my textNon-notable Scout group, per Scouting WikiProject, we don't support unit articles unless they are extremely notable, like the first unit in a country or some other superlative. Sure they have a great program and I wish them the best, but there is nothing notable and nothing to merge anywhere. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo, I stuck your edit summary in. Also, delete per nom--there's nothing here to make this notable. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies thanks, don't know why it twice ate my text.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was tasty. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clear delete, as above, but it could be moved to the Scout Wiki. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete Scout troops, like local churches, are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of nightclubs in Port Harcourt[edit]

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTYELLOW. Wikipedia is not a directory for tourism Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and because none of the night clubs are actually notable Spiderone 17:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:10, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACME Secret Agent[edit]

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

Font with no claim in article of being notable. Good faith Gsearch isn't turning up sources showing notability. Was deleted through prod and recreated, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found on Gsearch and no claims of notability. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for calling a typeface a font. Grrrrr… But seriously, no, the subject is not notable. No sources, and none to be found. 100% OR. Mduvekot (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. Blythwood (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO (see #2). (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 04:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bigflo[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability, and a signal citation to a dead source. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a particularly successful group, but definitely notable. Three top 30 albums (one which peaked at number ten) on South Korea's national Gaon Album Chart and two top 20 singles on Japan's national Oricon Singles Chart. I haven't delved into the Korean articles yet, but a cursory search suggests Bigflo has been subject to sufficient coverage in reliable sources, particularly in these two extensive interviews. — ξ ^xplicit 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have added some career information and citations that I hope will help. The JoongAng Ilbo article references a "Rookie of the Year" award, but my translation does not say which one.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:59, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin George Atkins[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office, and sourced only to a single (deadlinked) table of raw election results with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, non-winning political candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just because they exist; either they have to win the seat or you have to source them over WP:GNG, but neither of those things have happened here. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. This bio is detailed but is published by his political party. Most other mentions of him are one-liners. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was that link published by his political party, as you point out, but what it says about him is literally a copy-paste of our article. Do even they really know that little about him that they can't pad it out with some extended detail? Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support the article's content, where relevant, being incorporated into a general article concerning party candidates. There is no justification for a separate article for an unsuccessful candidate, unless he or she is a perennial like John Turmel. I myself have run federally seven times, and Baird Judson eight times, and I don't thing we need articles.GBC (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, while it's true that some old "candidate list" articles are still following a "merged collection of minibios" format, they aren't actually allowed to follow that format anymore — the rules for what such an article is actually allowed to contain have been tightened up considerably, and some of the old articles that predated the current rules just haven't been getting cleaned up. Due to WP:BLP rules, the candidate lists are now restricted to a format like Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, in which the allowable personal information is extremely limited, and aren't allowed to contain biographical sketches anymore. So there's really not much here, besides his name, that can be incorporated anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable defeated candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 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. MER-C 05:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Vournas[edit]

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

Seems to be a page created by subject or someone close to them, for strictly promotional/advertising purposes. Page creator has posted spam links to external pages about subject that contain contact info (REF #1) for subject, leading to conclusion that this is promotional only. RSTech1 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk)
Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe DiBenedetto[edit]

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

The most reliable source- The New York Times -, doesn't discuss the subject in-depth. And my search results include unrelated individuals with matching names Marvellous Spider-Man 01:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I respect Joe DiBenedetto and his legal cereer but is not a notable lawyer.User:Lucifero4
Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 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 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three Empires Tower[edit]

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

Cannot find any proof that this building was even approved for construction. Rogermx (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any proof either. It has apparently been "proposed" since at least 2005. It also fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:50, 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 including a technical one since the user was not in good standing, and thus no consensus for deletion currently (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NAPT (DJs)[edit]

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

Sources cited don't seem reliable or legitimate. Lacks notability. - ReZawler (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give it one more chance to attract some comments MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the charting requirement for WP:NMUSIC. Source is dead, but Archive.org got it. Official Charts is listed as a good chart at WP:Record Charts. Also made this Australia chart, here. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Nominator is a banned sockpuppet. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Telecommunications[edit]

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

Non-notable. The best I could find is this. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA unreferenced article on a firm. The interview mentioned in the nomination is pretty much a buzzword broth ("in transition ... define the management structure going forward ... established a strong team ... speaking with our customers"): far more like a placement than a challenging assessment. Although the company acts as a background provider, I expected to find some coverage around their work with metro networks but found only minimal coverage: Highbeam returns a couple of press releases regarding their deployments with BTI Systems, The Guardian has a passing mention of their London office). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material if I ever saw one. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 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) 09:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatmata Tatah Mansaray[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in any news databases, searched five newspapers from Sierra Leone with zero hits, could not find any notability in Google searches. While I somewhat appreciate the pure celebration of non-notability in the article's content, this is a clear delete. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not even win the beauty pageant she was in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per several source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 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. czar 02:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Kumar (business executive)[edit]

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

Overblown advertisement with not only advertising information but accompanied by literally published and republished advertising both for and by the man himself, the article literally contains nothing that can be taken as entirely non-advert, substantial or significant, therefore this shouldn't have been accepted with such blatancy still existing in this article. As it is, these publications are largely notorious for publishing such advertising, therefore that was another thing to consider, instead of accepting it when it's clear the user was also an advertising-only account. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable business leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was not transcluded to the daily log correctly. I've added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 30. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-Wikipedia is a repository of sourceable articles; not of Curriculum Vitae-s!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost pure WP:PROMO Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Demon Headmaster (TV series). Don't usually close my own AFDs however it seems kinda pointless dragging this on for another week and I don't think this will gain any new !votes so am BOLDLY closing and redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Bruce[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Found 2 reviews inre to a play she was in [58][59] but other than that there's absolutely nothing, Her most notable role would've been in The Demon Headmaster (TV series) so it could be redirected there, ofcourse if anyone can find anything on or offline then I'd be more than happy to withdraw, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to The Demon Headmaster (TV series); seems a reasonable solution. Quis separabit? 23:23, 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 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:48, 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. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 04:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Leycester Hotel[edit]

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

This article does not in any way make clear how the hotel is notable. Improvement tags have been on it for over a year and no action has been taken. I am unable to find any notability elsewhere online and so I do not feel this hotel meets the notability requirements. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 16:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are many sources, but none are reliable. Most are from travel reviews and social networks. Pika chu RP25 16:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It sounds quite notable, having stopped an ancient fire. It is a historic site, a Grade II listed building. Shouldn't there be official documents relating to its listing, available as sources, although likely not online. (And if it were not a historic building, then merging to List of hotels or a subpage, or to some other suitable target, would be superior to deleting it.) We should look for alternatives to deletion, and not just tear stuff down. --do ncr am 16:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More documentation, online and off-line, may be available for this under its alternate and previous names. Try:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

Yeah, those start to turn up sources like this one, covering history of Three Tuns Inn. --do ncr am 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The building will outlast us all. It still is a reliable firebreak.68.40.122.133 (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GEOFEAT, heritage-listed buildings are notable. In this case, there are two listed buildings: [60][61]. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is probably indeed NN as a hotel, but is nevertheless notable as a building and hisotricallly, even though only grade II. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 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. especially given the copy-paste job that makes this a possible hoax (secondary consideration) in addition to notability criteria not being met. —SpacemanSpiff 04:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guru dharshan[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. Not a notable player. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like a partial copy of Naveen Raja Jacob. Possible hoax. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of existence let alone notability; the article appears to have been created by Guru himself. I would support a speedy delete as a hoax. Spiderone 18:07, 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 as an unsourced BLP. One can't "contest" a BLP PROD without actually adding sources, and it has expired now. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reja Rahish[edit]

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

Contested BLP PROD, no citations in the article, and not a notable singer. It also fails WP:NPOV. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think there is such a thing as a contested BLP Prod? Either a biography has references or - as in this case - it doesn't. I have replaced the BLP Prod tag as remaining relevant, though its duration will now be running in parallel with this AfD. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think more contestable would be that the article is on a living person, but no one disputes that, and so we should delete unless we have multiple sources so the article might pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.in/bloggers/dr-aashish-contractor/

[2] ttp://www.medimanage.com/my-worries/articles/dr-aashish-contractor-talks-about-hearts-health.aspx

[3] ttp://www.michellekakade.com/the-support-team/

[4] ttp://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/PM+discharged+from+AIIMS+after+surgery/1/26949.html

[5] ttp://bombayparsipunchayet.com/readcontent.aspx?contentid=81&categoryid=51

[6] ttp://scroll.in/pulse/819456/should-you-drink-to-your-health-a-cardiologist-weighs-in-on-how-much-is-too-much

[7] ttp://thewire.in/73692/an-excerpt-from-the-heart-truth/

[8] ttp://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/health-lifestyle/Why-love-rules-the-heart/articleshow/54942664.cms

[9] ttp://www.amazon.in/Heart-Truth-Everything-Prevention-Treatment/dp/9385152432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479896121&sr=8-1&keywords=the+heart+truth

[10] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England#Goals_2

[11] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_records_(individual)#Fastest_goals

[12] ttp://www.unitar.hu/konyv.htm

[13] ttp://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/28/140-year-history-ends-cambridge-methodist-church-bought-islamic-college/ 140-Year History Ends: Cambridge Methodist Church Bought By Islamic College.

[14] ttp://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/koran-carla-power/ What the Koran really says about women

[15] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-33751522 Plans for 'first' women-led mosque discussed

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]