Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 October	31 October >

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) 06:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garv Television Awards[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Only ref is a single mention on an unreliable source. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I made some improvements to the article and the template, but support deleting the template. Hesitantly I also support deleting the article as in its present level of sourcing it does not meet the GNG. I would look for more references but my Urdu is nonexistent. If good references are added I will change to keep. gidonb (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference only peripherally references the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. South Nashua (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkPoint[edit]

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

Non-notable malware ViperSnake151 Talk 18:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not "how to". W Nowicki (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Description of how a certain computer virus presents, that does not convey the cultural viewpoint of the virus. It is not totally unreferenced, as there is a link in there to bleeping computer, but the information in that source is a "use at your own risk" instruction. Unscintillating (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is essentially an advertisement considering it only lists what there is to say about, yet no actual substance and the history speaks for itself also. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would be an example of substance that would not be advertising? Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Student Organization[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. The official website has been dead since 2011. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Short-lived student group that didn't seem to do much of anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like PROMO; no significant sources; no claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Houlihan[edit]

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

This article has absolutely no reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source, and as an unlimited directory can not be in any way shown to demonstrate that someone is notable. Her film roles are not notable, and being Miss Ohio USA is not enough on its own to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This person had two bit-parts that IMDb stated was a "...regrettably fleeting cinematic career.". She won Miss Ohio USA (1979) and competed in the Miss USA pageant. None of this "is "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"...". A search showed Wikipedia and IMDb, that included the two movies, and nothing else. There is no reference, since IMDb is not acceptable, and certainly not acceptable to support notability. This just leaves Miss Ohio. There is just not enough to support more than four lines of content for a non-notable pseudo-biography. Otr500 (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DICT This "article" is better suited for a biographical dictionary of the cinema. Also the content is unremarkable and is no different than what a million others could write and therefore lacks "fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." If Wikipedia wants to be a dictionary for every human that has ever flirted with fame it's going to be a very busy future. Please delete this article and may this poisonous idea never surface again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability. I suppose if someone can find a redirect target and avoid creating redlink clickbait, that might be worth considering. Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instamojo[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable fintech startup. Significant RS coverage cannot be found, and what comes is either PR driven or insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially an actual G11 considering the literal specifics about the company's numbers and "services activities", this is a blatant advertisement with expected number of several accounts involved, but none of them actually escaping the considerable essence of advertising information; therefore we make no exceptions or compromises for such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No promo problems have been identified in this AfD and none were found in the article. References such as [1] from April 2013 support WP:GNG, but also show that the company was still in a start-up stage using word of mouth advertising. This article, dated October 2013, stated that there was a plan to move the "entire team" of four members to San Francisco by early 2015. As per WP:SUSTAINED, we have little interest in future potential, as we can wait to see if there are results to report. Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Showtek. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skink (record label)[edit]

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

Not notable vanity label that fails WP:MUSIC entirely. Redirect to Spinnin' Records Karst (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and above, label fails WP:ORG and WP:MUSIC and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Showtek, the label's founder. 86.84.247.233 (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment made by blocked sockpuppet. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Showtek. Certainly notable artists have recorded for the label and there have been hits on the label, but that doesn't make the label itself notable, and there is absolutely no indication of its independent notability. Fails WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Richard3120 (talk) 16:06, 4 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payback (Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song by non-notable musical group. According to this source, the song only charted on "bubbling under" charts. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable chart. Karst (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this page is notable because it is about a charting single that was supported by a series of big name DJs and a famous soccer player. The song was also the most-played song by DJs of 2014, according the most accurate track list site, 1001tracklists. Infopage100 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a closer look at the criteria under WP:NSONGS. These are quite stringent criteria. None of the sources currently indicate that it meets those. Did the release feature on an album? Merging it into it would enhance that. Karst (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable song and charting. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have significant media coverage. Charts low on Belgium's Ultratip, but it's a fairly obscure chart. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Spaghetti Western#Zapata Westerns, which covers the same topic. Cavarrone 22:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zapata Western[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect term to Spaghetti Western where a short sub-section on this sub-genre already exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Don Diablo. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagon (record label)[edit]

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

Not notable vanity label that has only released a slew of singles and three compilation albums. Sources are all WP:PRIMARY with the exception of one. Redirect to Spinnin' Records. Karst (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spinnin' Records or Don Diablo. Label is not notable, and of its list of artists (even the bluelinked ones), I believe that only founder Don Diablo and Steve Aoki pass notability... and as far as I know, Aoki has never released a record on Hexagon. Richard3120 (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don Diablo, the label's founder. 86.84.247.233 (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like there isn't enough here to make a call between "not notable" and "could still be improved". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Weapon[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage in reliable sources, fails GNG, and WP:NFSOURCES. No apparent significant impact, fails WP:NFO. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: as the film received a Saturn Award nomination for Rodney Eastman, and had wider DVD releases in languages and titles other than English, I believe we need a deeper look on ways to improve the weak topic first brought to AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 12:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sesan Kareem[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability as an author or otherwise . The refs consist of minor notices or his own publications. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More references have been sourced and added to the article evidencing the notability of the author. I suggest the article should not be deleted.

NORTHCLICK (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called references include two different wikipedia articles, and his book's advertisement on Barnes and Noble, used twice in the article -- carefully sourced to an author called: Noble, Barnes& DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked through the references and found nothing that supports WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to be a bookseller for Barnes & Noble. They list over 100,000 titles on their website, the vast majority of them not bestsellers. None of the other sources are reliable. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future Directed Therapy (FDT)[edit]

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

This is an advertisement for an apparently experimental therapy whose use seems to be is limited to the founder. As it claims to be a cure for a disease, it needs MEDRS-compliant sources, and there are none--onlu two clinical reports DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content on this page provides basic information about a positive psychology intervention that is being used by people who do psychotherapy to help improve well-being. The topic is notable as it is the first full length intervention which focuses on anticipatory thought and reward processes that has been published for use by a psychologist. The page references two research studies which have both been published in peer reviewed journals that show people who were in the studies reported significant decreases in depression, however, the research with this population continues to be on-going and is therefore not conclusive about its effects on depression. All statements regarding the treatment of depression have been removed from the page. A peer-reviewed book which outlines the intervention techniques was published two years ago and both lectures and trainings for this intervention have been provided at major universities and professional organizations for psychologists around the country. The information provided on this page is informative and valid and should remain on the site. EW225 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found that source of local news that may pass as independent coverage. But that is all. If it was deemed enough to keep as a purported therapy, it would need a rewrite per MEDRS compliance. If you want my (OR) opinion, that therapy is probably based on caregiver placebo effect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as original research. General notability requires significant coverage in multiple WP:reliable sources, which appears to be lacking. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Donald Badalamenti II[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has only acted in a few minor bit roles. Natg 19 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill character actor. He sounds like a character out of Waiting for Guffman, having trained for eight years in method acting. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fisher (actor)[edit]

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

This is a biography of a TV and film actor and producer. I can't find any sources that show that he meets the notability criteria for actors. He has had various minor parts in films and TV dramas, and he has produced several short movies and documentaries according to IMDb - but nothing that would make him meet WP:AUTHOR, and there is no significant coverage of him in independent sources.

I also question whether italiaspettacolo.it is a reliable source at all. bonadea contributions talk 09:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 15 October 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, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Gallagher (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - with no top tier fights. Other accomplishments listed were at a low level, Peter Rehse (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 15 October 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, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters or martial artists. As an MMA fighter he has no top tier fights and being a runner-up in some youth blue belt Jiu-Jitsu divisions is not competing at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 11:15, 5 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cimier[edit]

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

Non-notable watch company lacking coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cimier is a luxury Swiss watch manufacturer, founded in 1924. Notable company with reliable independent references in the article now, and more to come.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has references to show notability. --Racklever (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Tebow[edit]

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

This article is not about its subject at all, it is a coatrack to talk about her husband getting mauled by a bear just before their wedding. Being Miss Alaska is not enough on its own to justify notability. Creig Sharp bear mauling may or may not be a worthwhile article, but if it is it needs to be an article under its proper name, and not coatrack onto an article on a non-notable beauty pageant winner. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Winning of a state level pageant is not sufficient to establish notability. The rest (majority) of the article is about her husband. MB 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also agree with nom. The content is a coatrack about her future husband and a bear mauling. This leaves Miss Alaska (not an event of sufficient importance), which falls under WP:BIO1E, so fails WP:GNG --- Otr500 (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. As an aside, I've read Hererro's book that included the story mentioned here, it's quite terrifying. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do you think the coverage in the book would justify an article on the bear mauling itself, or do you think it does not pass the test for Wikipedia articles? I wish I understood how to ping people for further response.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jack: I tried to take a look at the book but the link returned "404. That’s an error" as did the unnamed link. I would think, unless there is more coverage than I could find, that this would still only be a one time deal. Otr500 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Me name is John, it is not Jack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! A friend called as I was typing so I just typed his name in. I guess we know what his name is? Sorry about that. Otr500 (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 90% of the article's prose is about Creig Sharp and his encounter with the bear. Notability is not inherited, and anyway, this is tabloid trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She was not even almost mauled by a grizzly. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't know what's worse, the barely-encyclopedic efforts of those trying to build coverage on the topic of beauty pageants in an incestuous fanboy style or the persistent efforts of the nominator and other regulars to tear it down. Might deserve a mention in WP:LAME, if you ask me. This article was started by a long-gone SPA whose username also gives a strong whiff of COI. Only the usual succession of turd-polishing edits followed for years (once again, so much for "collaboration"). After seven-and-a-half years as a proper biography, it was gutted earlier this year under the guise of BLP and turned into a coatrack, apparently without regard for whether or not the existing source was a dead link (we've at least established that it passes WP:V regardless of that). As the article history is easily accessible, it's rather disingenuous and perhaps somewhat suspicious to ignore all that and judge the article solely on its current form. My problem with the article is that we're using its existence to push the POV that she is "notable" within the context of KIMO (now KYUR), as seen here. Her predecessor as Miss Alaska, Cindy Suryan, and co-anchor John Vallentine played a substantial role in the station's local news ratings success during their respective nearly-decade-long tenures (and the station has never been a ratings contender since their departures), whereas the same can't be said in this case. This is the same POV as trying to claim that Sarah Palin's series of cups of coffee in television news are somehow notable to the context of those stations, while ignoring other folks who were at those stations for decades. If you need an example of Wikipedia as a monument to self-indulgence at the expense of being an information resource, that's it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above statements are not accurate. The paragraph long discussion of Tebow and her coutship as well as the bear mauling of her later husband existed from the very first creation of this article. They seem to have recieved more attention with later revisions, but they existed when the article was first created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Are you trying to play a game of making others waste their time explaning themselves over and over and then hiding behind AGF or anything else you can think of? That's precisely the sort of thing I've seen too much of as of late, a part of why I halved my watchlist the other day and have otherwise drastically cut back my contributions to this website. At the present time, I have neither a full-time connection to the net nor the time in my life to wade through the sight of people who have a lot of time for Wikipedia piddling around and making no real progress towards building an encyclopedia. If you really did misunderstand me, my point is that most of the !votes I'm seeing appear to be based solely on the state of the article for the past seven months as a coatrack, yet another example of making the encyclopedia out to be a reflection of particular sources rather than an information resource. Anyone participating in this discussion can see for themselves, through the appropriate link at the top of the page, that the article did resemble a proper biography for over seven years. Of course, this is hardly the only example of a very active editor using BLP as a gambit to turn an article from a proper biography to a biography in name only. As I said in another recent AFD, are others interpreting the term "biography" differently than I am? If you're still going to play blind and dumb and ignore my point, here's the article as created in October 2008, the contributions of the article's creator and the edit which gutted it earlier this year. When I refer to "disingenuous" in my previous comments, why don't others just admit that "I don't like it" governs their belief about covering the topic of beauty pageants? Whether you like it or not, it's far more notable than a lot of the bottom-feeding, media-worshipping crap I see on here which keeps getting defended to the death over and over. There's also the matter of common sense, as we keep proving what a misnomer the term is by virtue of how rare the application of common sense has become. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator very likely was the subject or a close relative. That these beauty pageant articles so often involve Conflict of Interest is another sign that the subjects are non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as created had two sources, both Miss Alaska, thus primary sources. That in and of itself shows it ought not to have lasted this long. As created the article is if anything even worse, and maybe a clearer sign that the creator is the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform to create autobiogrpahies. Being Miss Alaska itself is not a claim to notability. Thus we need something more. Nothing in the last paragraph as the article was originally created comes close to notability. Wikipedia follows people being noted in reliable sources. Tebow does not pass that test at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 beauty pageant + 1 bear ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:33, 6 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Resley[edit]

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

Non-notable director. Lacks significant coverage in in multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Available sourcing consists of trivial mentions and an interview. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YapStone, Inc.[edit]

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

high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. Website Link does not even work. it is not notable at all. Light2021 (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable subject. Sample copy:

...platform that caters to global marketplaces (HomeAway, VRBO) and large vertical markets with high-volume complex transactions... Etc.

Delete with fire. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm hesitant... I want to vote delete because the company doesn't meet general notability requirements however, it does have enough coverage in reliable sources, of which Forbes and Huff Po are included. Meatsgains (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a good source. I'm thinking the HuffPo is probably not a WP:RS as it is from a blogger, not staff. [2] is helpful, but doesn't really tell me if this company is out of the startup phase. There is another article on Forbes that might be written by staff, How A Poker-Game Brainstorm Produced Fintech Startup YapStone, but I haven't been able to see the article. There is a book on WP:BEFORE D1, Strategies for Philanthropy and Giving Back, that talks about ParishPay. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I also meant to comment sooner as there's enough showing deletion is the best option here considering what's listed is both non-substantial and then only existing for advertising the company itself, along with the other listed information, so there's honestly nothing to suggest we should honestly keep this with such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Playner[edit]

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

Artist with no public relevance. Listed exhibitions are either art fairs or organized by her husband who owns a museum and is trying to promote her. Her article in the german wikipedia was already deleted because of these reasons. Petropawlowson (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of her exhibitions with comments based on online research. It shows that her exhibitions were either very small, organized by her husband or she paid for being on display (=art fair/gallery)

2013–2014: Siegfried Marcus Museum (solo)

=> small local oldtimer museum (http://www.siegfried-marcus.at/)

2013: Galerie Artothek / Freistadt, Austria

=> gallery (http://www.artothek-freistadt.at/)

2013: Das Leben ist schön, PAKS Gallery, Austria (solo)

=> owned by her husband (http://www.paks-gallery.com/)

2014: Art Salon Carrousel du Louvre, Paris

=> art fair (http://www.artshopping-expo.com/)

2014: Barcelona International Art Fair, Casa Batllo, Antoni Gaudí Modernist Museum in Barcelona, Spain

=> art fair (http://www.bcnartfair.com/)

2014: Castle Hubertendorf

=> owned by her husband (http://www.paks-gallery.com/, http://www.mamag-museum.com/)

2014: Galerie Henrietta / Austria Vienna / Exhibition "Glamour Pop Art" (solo)

=> gallery (http://www.galerie-henrietta.at/)

2014: Latino Art Museum, California, US

=> no mention of her on the website

2014: MOA Art Museum, Miami, US

=> there is no "MOA art museum" in miami. I guess it should be MOCA (museum of contemporary art north miami http://www.mocanomi.org/). but they don't mention her on the website under "past exhibitions"

2014: Museum St. Florian / Exhibition "High Speed in your life" (solo)

=> this is probably a small local firefighter museum (http://www.feuerwehrmuseum-stflorian.at/). Maybe there were some pictures of her there? they don't mention her on the webpage but also no other art exhibitions are mentioned there.

2014: PAKS Gallery (Solo Exhibition)

=> owned by her husband (http://www.paks-gallery.com/)

2015: Amsterdam International Art Fair, Beurs van Berlage – Amsterdam

=> art fair (http://www.amsterdamartfair.com/)

2015: Art Hamptons, US

=> art fair (http://www.arthamptons.com/)

2015: Artexpo New York

=> art fair (http://artexponewyork.com/)

2015: Austrian Armed Forces International Centre / Project "Art in the service of Peace"

=> couldn't find anything on the internet about it

2015: Contemporary Art Fair Montreux, Montreux, Switzerland[7]

=> art fair (http://www.mag-swiss.com/en/)

2015: Tokyo International Art Fair, Quest Hall Harajuku[8]

=> art fair (http://www.tokyoartfair.com/)

2015: Institute of Hispanic culture of Houston

=> no mention of her on the website. But it might be that she was part of "the mural for the peace" (http://www.ihch.org/home/the-mural-for-the-peace/). togehter with 107 other artists.

2015: International Modern Art Dubai / Parallel to Art Fair Dubai/ Alliance Francaise of Dubai, UAE

=> Probably also "the mural for the peace"

2015: Oxford International Art Fair / Historic Oxford Town Hall & Museum Oxford, England

=> art fair (http://www.oxfordinternationalartfair.com/)

2015: Carrousel du Louvre, Paris France[9]

=> art fair (http://www.artshopping-expo.com/)

2015: PAKS Gallery, Austria (Solo Exhibition)

=> owned by her husband (http://www.paks-gallery.com/)

2016: 1st Central Europe Fine Art Biennale, MAMAG Modern Art Museum, Austria

~~=> art fair~~ => organized by her husband (http://www.mamag-museum.com/)

2016: Artexpo New York, US

=> art fair (http://artexponewyork.com/)

2016: International Fine Art Cannes Biennale, Marriott Hotel, Cannes, Boulevard de la Croisette, France, organised by the MAMAG Modern Art Museum, Austria [10]

=> art fair/organized by her husband (http://www.mamag-museum.com/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petropawlowson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you did online research and found coverage of all of this, you should link to the original websites/articles. We can't really use this kind of references. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I added more references. Petropawlowson (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree yes she gets a little too much help from her husband, but so what? Just because her husband owns the gallery she is doing an exhibition in (which is true for less than 10% of venues listed) doesn't void the fact she did an exhibition in said gallery. If you look her up on google there are pages and pages of stuff on her, I could sit here all day listing them, its a obvious WP:GNG pass. I don't see how you can say this artist is non notable, maybe the list needs a cleanup, but that's the only fault I have here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there is nothing wrong with the fact that the museum is owned by her husband per se. But given the fact that her career is solely based on her husbands promotion it should be considered. I wanted to make clear with the commented list of venues that nearly all of her exhibitions were a.) either organized by her husband or b.) art fairs were anyone can pay to be on display. If you exclude these there is really not much left except a couple very small and local exhibitions which hardly justify a mention in a global encyclopedia.

The same is true for the google results. Most articles about her are hosted on her or her husbands websites (e.g. http://www.paint-art.at, http://www.pop-art-tanja-playner-art.com/, http://www.paks-gallery.com/, www.buy-pop-art-kunst-shop.com, www.about-art-magazine.com, www.modern-art-museum-gallery.com). The only coverage from a known media outlet is this article by VICE which is very critical and discusses her husband's promotion and explicitly not her art. Unfortunately the article is in german but it's already mentioned in the wiki article.

Please also have a look at the discussion page and the comment about conflict of interest of her husbands account (the original author of the article). Just for reference also the very detailed deletion discussion in the german wikipedia here Petropawlowson (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment seems to have press coverage good and bad here, here and here and figures high in artnet's most searched artists- in the top 50 according to artnet sources - can that be manipulated as claimed? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything looks like the artist is trying to hard to appear famous although she is not. It's very weird that her article was deleted in the german wikipedia although she is a german speaking artist. I also think it is safe to assume that the obvious lack of discussion here indicates irrelevance. 84.112.5.152 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more to say, that this article is a fake. Except any paid ads, this person is completley out of any scope in Austria (and the rest of the world). Please delete! --Hubertl (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable artist. Sources are not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG means what? That you can tell us, that you know what GNG means? --Hubertl (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ASAP Mob. Black Kite (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playboi Carti[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, been finding tons of articles by the creator that are questionable in notability (As well as redirects he changed). Here are some to look over: Oliver the 2nd, Asaad, SK La' Flare, Garcia Bros.. (I should add most of these have BLP prods though) Wgolf (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of current Interscope Records artists - There is no claim made about this artist being notable yet. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has millions of plays on his SoundCloud, he is part of a notable hip hop group, and recently signed a deal with Interscope, not to mention a bunch of articles on him here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Xboxmanwar (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ASAP Mob. Not notable as a solo artist yet. Only a handful of singles, does not meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Bow[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a writer, referenced entirely to primary sources and databases with not one piece of reliable source coverage shown -- even the one source here that theoretically should count for something, Publishers Weekly, is a Q&A-style interview in which she's talking about herself, not an article being written about her or her work in the third person. Notability per WP:AUTHOR is definitely possible here, but like all notability guidelines it must be passed on the quality of the sourcing and cannot get a person in the door just because its passage is asserted. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it better than this, but it is not a keepable article in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, expect more than this throwaway line from such an experienced editor. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for letting me know this article was nominated for deletion. I believe Erin Bow is notable per WP:AUTHOR 4c - having won significant critical attention. The most well known award her work has received is the TD Canadian Children's Literature Award; her book that received the award already had its own wikipedia page (Plain Kate; notable per WP:NB 2. for winning that award), though her other novels and poems have received other awards and nominations, as well as generally favorable reviews. I have rearranged the page and added links to establish notability (library of congress, interviews, book reviews (including well known sources such as Kirkus Reviews and the New York Times), announcements of awards, articles about Bow). I'm not sure what else to do to change advertisement-like tone? Perhaps only listing "won" awards and removing nominations/lists? Is there anything else I should change? Scatter89 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing all the Goodreads and press-release and her-own-website and Facebook and blog and YouTube and ISFDB and online-bookstore "sourcing" with reliable sources would help, for starters. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have not removed any references, but have supplemented with more reliable sources. I initially used goodreads, ISFDB, and her website, etc. for the sake of convenience. (It is easier to create a list of books and awards from databases that have already collected them, such as goodreads and authors' websites.) For the list of her books and basic information about them: WP:PROVEIT says that an inline citation must be provided for any material likely to be challenged. It doesn't seem likely that which books she wrote or publishing info would be challenged, but regardless, many of her books have been reviewed as well providing verification (see citations in the article). For the awards, I can see where that information would be challenged. Additionally, for Erin Bow's biography and personal life, WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSELFPUB indicate that self published and questionable sources can be used for sources of information about themselves (the person in the article), and that includes material published on social networking sites. Again, for the awards, I can see where self-published articles would be challenged and would require more reliable sources. I did confirm the receipt of the awards through the award websites listing previous award recipients, announcements of the award, and articles about the awards if available. Multiple citations are now shown for the awards and nominations, and for several best-of lists. The best-of lists could be easily taken out; she has plenty of awards listed as it is, and it can be hard to find the original best-of list, though I have been working on adding references to them. For my response about the author's notability and inclusion of reliable sources that support her notability, please see my other two responses below. Scatter89 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use bad sources for "convenience" pending better sources — you have to use better sources right off the top. Just as an example, barely three weeks ago in the process of starting a new article about a GG-nominated poet, I found that his profile on GoodReads was incorrectly crediting him with a novel written a decade ago by a completely different American writer who merely happened to have the same name. So if I had used GoodReads to source that he was the writer of that novel, we would be wrong — the correct way to use that information was to Google for a reliable source which credited him with that novel, which is exactly how I found out that GoodReads was wrong about it. If you want to use GoodReads as a jumping off point to start researching proper sourcing — e.g. Googling to find a reliable source that credits her with a book listed in her GoodReads profile — then that's fine. But GoodReads cannot be put in the article as the citation for anything, not even as a temporary "convenience" source, because it's a user-generated source which can be and frequently is in error about things. And a person's own self-published website and/or social media profiles also cannot be the source for a notability claim, because then we'd have to keep an article about almost every single person who exists at all — you can only use that kind of sourcing to support basic biographical statements (such as where they went to school, where they live, their outness as LGBT if they're LGBT, etc.) that have no bearing on their notability or lack thereof. Is it easier to use that kind of sourcing than it is to do the work of tracking down reliable sources? Sure. But "easier" doesn't equate to "acceptable". Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every time you comment, I work to improve this article. I wrote it; I accept that it needs improvement. But this discussion could be held in the talk page. Now, Erin Bow is notable. This has been addressed in the article (particularly the current version, as I have added a variety of sources since it was first nominated). It has been addressed in other comments I have made further down in this discussion, and in other comments from others in this discussion. You may have read them. Erin Bow's website is used to support facts about her biography, not about her notability. That is what I meant above; perhaps I was not clear enough. The rest of my argument about her notability can be read below. I'm not going to repeat it here. Scatter89 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, has won the TD Canadian Children's Literature Award. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that award win. People have created articles about writers which falsely claimed winning of or nomination for a literary award that they didn't actually win or get nominated for — so even when true, the claim still doesn't get an exemption from having to be properly sourced. For one thing, the existence of media coverage about a literary award's nominee and winner announcements is the crux of how we determine whether that award is notable enough to make its winners or nominees notable for that fact. (The CBC Literary Award, for example, is the type of award that can't carry a writer's notability all by itself, precisely because it garners no media coverage outside of the CBC's own announcement of its own winners and the occasional passing mention in later coverage of writers who've cleared WP:AUTHOR for other distinctions later on.) So media coverage about her win of the TD award could help change the equation here — but the sources being cited for it in this version of the article don't cut the mustard for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively new to wikipedia (at least to extensive article editing), but here is what I understand of wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." and "...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." In your initial nomination, you stated that notability per WP:Author was definitely possible. Erin Bow is notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO 1. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times," and WP:AUTHOR 4. The person's works (c) have won significant critical attention. An argument for deletion should be based on the person the article is based on, not on the quality of the citations in the article. WP:DEL1 says that articles should be deleted if through attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. However, WP:ATD says that "...if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:ATD-T lists tags, such as the refimprove tag, which could be applied rather than deleting the page. I have now added that tag.

For evidence that the author is notable, her books have been well reviewed in well known, reliable sources including but not limited to The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, Kirkus Reviews, and The Guardian. Many of the facts about her life can be confirmed by a news article in the Omaha World-Herald. Interviews with the author have been featured in (possibly less notable? I'm not familiar with them, but also am not from Canada) sources, including Quill & Quire and CBC Books (Canadian Broadcasting Company). Thus she has received significant critical attention (reviews, interviews, best of lists), received a well known and significant award or honor (TD Canadian Children's Literature Award for her book Plain Kate), and been nominated for one several times (she has been nominated for many awards, including the Sunburst Award twice). Can I ask if you have looked at the most recent version of the article? I have added additional sources and continue to do so.

As for whether the awards are notable, not all of them have to be (per WP:NNC, notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.) Further, it is not the burden of this article to prove that the awards are notable, but rather that it was notable that the author received this award. For instance, is the TD Canadian Children's Literature Award notable? Or for that matter, are the Pat Lowther Award, the Sunburst Award, the Canadian Library Association Book of the Year for Children Award, the Cybils Award, and the Canadian Library Association Young Adult Book Award notable? Those are all awards that Erin Bow has been nominated for or received. They all have wikipedia pages, and I suspect that reliable sources exist that verify their notability. However, it is not the burden of the Erin Bow article to provide sources in order to show that the awards are notable. It is the burden of the other wikipedia articles, per WP:PROVEIT, although as mentioned above, the current content of the articles has no impact on the subject of the article's notability (WP:ARTN).

On the other hand, proving that Erin Bow is notable is necessary for the article to continue to exist. This can be done by proving that she has received critical attention, or by proving that the event of her receiving or being nominated for an award is notable. As an example, proving that Erin Bow receiving the TD Canadian Children's Literature Award is notable is possible. The award was announced by the Canadian Children's Book Centre (in a press release, admittedly), and covered by the Toronto Star and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) news.

Please see my other replies, one above, and one below. Scatter89 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, oh, and meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG, with plenty of other awards and her works have plenty of reviews, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually this afd is pretty disappointing, looking back at the article version at the time of the afd, its obvious that the subject is notable, just need to look at the awards section (and although the references cited aren't the best, a quick search of the award sites would confirm them). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a literary award is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, if your sources for that win are the award's own primary source press release about itself, her own self-published website and/or her user-generated author profile on GoodReads, which is the only kind of sourcing shown here for any of those awards — to confer notability, an award win has to be sourced to reliable source coverage about that award win in media. The problem remains that the sourcing is almost entirely non-reliable garbage, of the type that is not allowed to carry notability in a Wikipedia article. This discussion does not mean that she can never have an article — we have lots of articles where a bad, poorly sourced early version got deleted, but then somebody redid the article better than the first time and thus made the topic keepable — but nobody, regardless of the claim of notability that's being made in the article, ever gets to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." and "...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." The notability of Erin Bow is not dependent on the sources present in the article at any given time, but whether or not those sources exist. Please see my 2 replies above. Scatter89 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source coverage has to be shown to exist, not merely asserted to exist — anybody can claim that RS coverage exists of anything, so if the mere assertion that better sources exist were enough to get an article kept we'd have to keep outright hoaxes just because the existence of coverage had been claimed. Ideally, we prefer the better sources to actually be added to the article itself, although showing hard evidence of the better sources in the AFD discussion is also technically acceptable — but one way or the other, the better sources do still have to be explicitly shown, not just asserted as existing, before ARTN can become a valid counterargument to a notability question. Showing the sources can certainly change the equation — simply claiming that better sources exist somewhere, but not actually showing the hard evidence of that, does not. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have to accept hoaxes if a search for reliable sources about an article failed (WP:DEL1). If reliable sources exist and can be found (as Coolabahapple noted in one of her original comments, a search of the award sites would confirm this author's notability), editing or tagging this article accordingly is the preferred alternative to deletion (WP:ATD) [Edited to add: Or asking me to add better sources via my talk page or the article talk page, since as the article creator the burden is on me to prove that the content is verifiable. Scatter89 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC) ] Regardless, there are reliable sources in the article now. Scatter89 (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, just not reaching notability, at this point. Too much promo fluff and non-RS citing, as well. If kept in the end, needs ce work and better citing. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CE work? Scatter89 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CE = copyedit. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Scatter89 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do, do, do, do, do, - "Not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that award win.(my emphasis)" and "Winning a literary award is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, if your sources for that win are the award's own primary source press release about itself, her own self-published website and/or her user-generated author profile on GoodReads, which is the only kind of sourcing shown here for any of those awards(my emphasis)", article now has these two sources about the TD award (thanks to Scatter89) - "Russian-flavoured historical fantasy Plain Kate has won the $25,000 TD Canadian Children’s Literature Award." Plain Kate wins $25K children's book award from CBC News, and "Plain Kate, a first children’s novel by Erin Bow of Kitchener, won the $25,000 TD Canadian Children’s Literature Award Tuesday evening, after being deemed “best children’s book of the year,” by its judges." Plain Kate a beauty of a book from The Toronto Star, which are reliable, so i suppose a withdrawal of this afd would be in order? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage, e.g. see: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Fixuture (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article could use clean up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is tagged for Copyediting, which should be done before any decision on deletion, per WP:ATD. I will mention this article to the GoCE.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inovenso[edit]

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

Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sourcing. Currently cobbled together from partners, listings and advertising. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - nn, fails gng, and incidently appears to have paid COI - which on its own is not a reason to delete, but which compounds the gngness. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete A poorly sourced stub article, on a company of minor importance. Dimadick (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very Specific sort of new technology field and has to be keeped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.232.20.82 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Inovenso is mentioned as a supplier of electrospinning devices in several books. Google Scholar returns many pages of results where Inovenso machines are mentioned although I don't have access to the articles. Gab4gab (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depends - One of the new technology supplier listed in electrospintech forum, just have 10 another all over the world. Seems serious to me. But experts on this technology will decide better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.90.150 (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely advertising only focusing with what the company itself would want to advertise about itself, there's literally nothing else to suggest considering the history contains nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Setty[edit]

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

This article fails to site any reliable reference source/s. Also I do not see the notability of this article to be on Wikipedia PageImp (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, this article fails to meet notability requirements listed under WP:GNG (It has no references / sources at all) --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Sethi (which appears to be a spelling variant). Just noting that there do exist inclusion criteria for name articles that are relevant in this case. – Uanfala (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Setty and Sethi are not related at all; the former is used in southern India, the latter in northern India. utcursch | talk 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So Setty is used in southern India and Sethi in northern? How about Setti? – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about Setti. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chip in. utcursch | talk 00:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We cannot merge this article to Sethi as they are different and not at all related. Setty is used in south India ie. in parts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana; for which we already have articles present. Unable to get my hands on reliable references... – 182.59.192.77 (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, it's best to discard the content (unless reliable sources are provided), and keep it as a pure WP:SIA listing the two persons that seem to have a variant of that in their names: Suman Setty and Neelam Setti Laxmi. – Uanfala (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bindhu Pamarthi[edit]

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

Pamarthi is only notable for being Miss Washington DC and that is not enough to make one notable. The news coverage is passing, and largely from non-reliable sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The founder of Wikipedia loves the free lunch, making us do all the work for him for free. We need to be aware of how we are being used as pawns by businessmen to promote themselves. We also need to be aware of our staying power in the big chess game of consumerism.2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NMODEL, and the above comment by the IP isn't a valid reason to keep the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Emir of Wikipedia has a personal grudge against me, which can be seen from the history of his "contributions" to Wikipedia on his page. (He has been following me around, and contacting me.) That is not a valid reason to vote to delete an article about a notable person. Anti-Indian sentiment is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable person. Bindhu Pamarthi's platform was call ed "makeup makeover". She campaigned to encourage corporations, consumers, and legislators around the world to elect alternatives to animal testing in the cosmetics industry she stood up for lab animals. This makes her a hero. She is not a misandrist. What does Emir of Wikipedia care for animals being used by the cosmetics industry? He only cares about totally unimportant princes, who owe their social status to their birth - and nothing else! But are they famous? No! No! And no! So why is this Irish clown trying to make them famous?2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) This user has now been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. A vanity page at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search only brings up Miss District of Columbia. The degree of significance is not enough to provide notability for a BLP article, evidenced by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:GNG), in more than a single event (WP:BIO1E). If kept this ultimately means the article would be relegated to a permanent stub pseudo-biography. Otr500 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly normal article, no reason to think this is a hoax or to doubt that multiple reliable sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG have reported on this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the other editors comments I am puzzled as to why there was mention of "no reason to think this is a hoax". I gave my assessment based on the "sources", being referred to above as "multiple reliable sources". The first reference certainly would be considered reliable about Miss D.C. Winner Bindhu Pamarthi. The second, a primary source of "missdc.org", Meet Miss DC 2013. The third is also "missdc.org" states Bindhu Pamarthi crowned Miss DC 2013. The fourth, used in two different places, is a dead link (not found), and is also a primary source. Since primary sources can not be used to advance notability the "multiple reliable sources" dwindle to one. Even if counting all four as "multiple reliable sources" three reference the same Miss DC and one, the dead primary link, is about "2012 Miss Johnston County". This might be alright (if it worked) for content but has two strikes against being used to advance notability, 1)- being a primary source about 2)- a local event. It would not matter if there were 25 references, because it is not the number that counts, so if they all reference Miss DC 2013 there would still be only the one event, which is the case here. Otr500 (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a paperless encyclopedia with no current identified limits on storage capacity, and in fact the technology of storage has increased enormously since Wikipedia was founded. "Not a hoax" is one of the bars for inclusion of topics on Wikipedia. How does deleting this article improve the encyclopedia?

The references in the article must be reliable, but they are not how we define notability, as notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.

Article content does not determine notability

Shortcuts

WP:ARTN
WP:CONTN

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

WP:BEFORE D1 turns up a variety of sources, including those from India, UK, USA Today, Spanish language DC based El Tiempo Latino, Washington Post, New York City, Houston, Oregon, New Jersey, and North Carolina and I could go on. Any implication that this is only a hoax, or that the world at large has not noticed this topic, is without merit. Otherwise, without dismissing that other policies and guidelines might apply, our policy is to protect the work of our peers who are doing the work to create our articles. The nutshell of WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it)." Unscintillating (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO, the first is a guideline and the second is an essay, and neither are deletion arguments...merge and redirect are not deletion arguments as per WP:ATD.
As for your 1Event argument, there are a couple of ways to look at this. One is that it is a stretch to call two pageants in North Carolina, a pageant in DC, the crown jewel of pageants in Atlantic City, and a one-year reign as Miss Washington DC, which includes multiple public appearances, as one event. The other is that the remedy for a 1Event argument is a merge. What would be the merge target? We could get into an abstract discussion about whether this topic should be listed as part of a set of mini-bios, but such would be a content discussion about a merge which as per WP:Deletion policy should be discussed on talk pages or possibly at RfC; whereas AfD stands for "Articles for Deletion" and is a forum for problems that need administrator's tools. Unscintillating (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a BLP1E. I don't see coverage other than the pageant and we have seen at multiple afds that winning a state pageant and participating in Miss America doesn't make a contestant notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it fails BLP1E. It's clearly not a hoax, but as nobody said it was, that's not particularly relevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogu Abaris[edit]

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

Abaris is a visual effects professional. He needs to pass GNG to justify the article. At present we have an IMDb listing and another listing which as far as I can tell is a Turkish language site somewhat similar. Neither are reliable sources, especially not from the standpoint of showing the person is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he's worked on several major films, but it's unclear how important his contribution has been. An expert's input would be helpful. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not the expert called for but I cannot see how he passes WP:BIO as there are literally hundreds of people that work on the films quoted and this does not make them notable in any sense. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safaree Samuels[edit]

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

A recreation of an article that has continued to fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:NOTINHERITED. It also does not pass WP:REFERENCE. His notability is still entirely reliant on his former girlfriend, Nicki Minaj. DBrown SPS (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:MUSIC for "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". He wrote "Did It On'em", "Roman Holiday", "Stupid Hoe" and a few more songs for Nicki Minaj albums. Also he currently appears in Love and Hip Hop: Hollywood. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Reincarnation for characters is an awesome effect in WarCraft, but not on Wikipedia. Prepare the guillotine and lets get this done. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Salt argument has no merit and has been suggested with no policy reasons other then snark. He passes WP:MUSIC for "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". His own mixtapes get reported on in hip-hop media. Nomination rationale is faulty as he is a main cast member on a top reality television production so how can he only be notable via his past relationship? Let's say there was a biographical encyclopedia on the Reality Television phenomenon, this guy would merit a mention. With his relationship, his own music career and now a main cast member on a broadcasted TV show, how does he not pass GNG? Are we really gonna inconvenience the 380,455 who have viewed this article over the last year? GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly passes WP:MUSIC for "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", i don't know why they ignoring this fact. --Eurofan88 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Weak) I'm closing this because its high time it got closed. There's a weak consensus to keep this article; at worst the contents are at least cited to reliable sources even if the subjects notability is still debatable. No prejudice against a 2nd nomination in the future if an editor feels strongly that the sources are insufficient. Sam Walton (talk) 09:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Lincoln[edit]

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

Delete: completely and thoroughly non-notable minor actress. No nexus to meet notability threshold. Quis separabit? 01:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her sparse credits don't satisfy NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of enough significant roles to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do the editors here think of sources like Boca Raton News, Lakeland Ledger and Herald Tribune (same news as first)? Lourdes 04:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small city papers are RS. If the subject is a local, they count somewhat less towards notability. Otherwise, these articles are good sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are nationally syndicated columns from columnists like Steven H. Scheuer and Dick Kleiner that are published in many newspapers across the United States including the local newspapers listed here. Cunard (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting so new sources can be reviewed Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editors again for a quick review of the sources I've listed... Lourdes 10:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again requesting editors to give a quick look to the sources I've placed. Lourdes 05:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two articles don't satisfy WP:GNG. I mean, there's not a lot we can glean from them that isn't related to her soap opera role. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Clarityfiend. But GNG is not what I'm referring to. I want views on NACTOR, which mentions that an actor may be notable if the actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows". This full page report on Pamela Lincoln by Ottawa Journal and the reports I've placed above confirm that she has had significant roles in serials like Love of Life and The Doctors etc. What would you say? Lourdes 11:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting editors to provide their comments on whether the subject qualifies on NACTOR (An actor may be notable if the actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows") based on the above news reports which confirm that the actress has had such significant roles. Lourdes 12:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep A minor actress with very minor mentions Here, for example, is a bit that ran in ght New York Times as a correction, "A picture caption in Weekend on Friday with a Critic's Choice article about a tribute to Vincent Price at the Film Forum misidentified a woman shown with Mr. Price in a scene from "The Tingler," because of incorrect information provided by the theater. She was Pamela Lincoln, not Judith Evelyn." NYTimes , 23 August 1994. Here, ('Tingler' Sellout at Pilgrim As Kids Come A-Screaming, Adams, Marjory. Daily Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 02 Sep 1959) in an article form when that film was new, in the genre "What's the matter with Kids Today" she is listed as one of the 5 actors with "leading rolls in The Tingler, which, since it does continue to play art houses and in film retrospectives of the genre, is a notable film. so, she does seem to squeak past WP:NACTOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After multiple requests to editors to comment on whether the source I have added qualify on NACTOR, none of the delete editors have come back with their comments (Clarityfiend did come back on GNG issues. Lourdes 02:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)). I'm going for keep here as the sources I've listed and E.M.Gregory's details take the actress a bit above NACTOR. There is a good possibility of sources being available to later qualify the lady on BASIC or even GNG. We should keep this article with no prejudice against a renomination next year if no further sources can be added in the coming few months. Thanks. Lourdes 08:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect to Darryl Hickman as there's no actual independent notability here and the listed filmography states it all, there's only a few works but nothing substantial enough for an actually better article. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SwisterTwister, do you think the subject qualifies on NACTOR (rather than GNG which you seem to be referring to)? If no, do please enumerate why? Thanks. Lourdes 09:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Scheuer, Steven H. (1977-02-06). "Pamela Lincoln super organized". Boca Raton News. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Pamela Lincoln, the lovely Felicia Flemming Lamont in Love of Life (CBS), is a super-organized person; and, with her schedule, she has to be.
  In addition to her regular role in the popular daytime serial, she runs her Manhattan apartment, sees to the nees of her two sons and is a loving and understanding wife to her busy husband, actor-producer-writer Darryl Hickman. Pamela is a list-maker and believes in following a daily schedule in order to have things run as smoothly as possible.
  Even when Pamela took a hiatus from acting to raise her children (that was from 1962 to 1970), she couldn't simply join the brigade of mothers in Central Park. Pamela went back to college for a few courses, worked part-time as an artistic consultant with a designer and tended to her motherly and wifely chores, as well.
  Incidentally, the actress thinks New York is a great place to raise kids, contrary to some thinking. She says it's easier for children to get around due to the fabulously convenient transparent system and adds there are so many things to do for youngsters growing up in New York. Her two boys, Damien and Justin, are now 16 and 11 respectively and they'd be inclined to agree with Mom.
2. Kleiner, Dick (1976-07-23). "Soap opera presents double problem". El Paso Herald-Post. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  When you're connected with a soap opera, you don't get much time off. When both you and your spouse are connected with the same soap, the problem is doubled. But, somehow, Darryl Hickman and his wife, Pamela Lincoln, managed it. He's the executive producer of CBS' long-running Love of Life, and she's one of the stars of the show. It's a New York-based operation, but they got some time off together to come back to Hollywood, where she was born and he was once a top-ranking child star.
  ...
  Darryl and Pamela have made their home in New York since 1983 and they love it. There is a little nostalgia for Los Angeles, but not much. The Hickmans and their two sons — Damien is 17 and Justin is 10 — are confirmed New Yorkers now.
  ....
  Pamela grew up in Beverly Hills, the daughter of a screenwriter. She says she took the name Lincoln because she believes she's a descendant of Abraham Lincoln — "That's where I get my height," she says.
  She didn't act for about eight years, when her two sons were young and needed her at home. But now she's back in it and is one of the mainstays of the hit soap opera.
  They do a lot of things together in New York, and have plans for more. For several years, they had a little theater in a New York church and worked together in the productions.
  Currently, they have a company together, involved in various TV projects and, again, it is something they work on as a team.
3. Reed, Jon-Michael (1977-06-27). "Dying On Soaps Can Be Fun All The Way To The Grave". Lakeland Ledger. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Dying on a soap opera can be a laughing matter, at least for the performer involved.
  Pamela Lincoln "died" as Felicia Lamont on Love of Life a few weeks ago and it was chaotic fun all the way to the grave.
  ...
  The actress, who is also an off-Broadway producer, will soon be on her way to California where she'll join her husband, Darryl Hickman, who is producing the summer night-time series, A Year at the Top for Norman Lear's production company. But she'll carry fond "LOL" memories with her: "It was a lovely funeral. I departed with the two men in Felicia's life crying over her casket. What more could a corpse want?"
4. Quirk, Lawrence J. (2000). Bob Hope: The Road Well Traveled. New York: Hal Leonard Corporation. pp. 90–91. ISBN 1557834504. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
  The book notes on page 90 and page 91:
  One of those who observed the Hopes' home life first-hand was Pamela Lincoln, now a well-known acting coach who runs an acting school and coaches TV reporters and anchors. She and Linda hope were close friends when they were in their teens and early twenties, and she has recalled the young Linda as "extremely bright, with a wonderful sense of humor — a genuinely kind person." She recalls that Linda gave Pamela's son Damier "a wonderful baby shower." The daughter of actress Verna Hillie and the late Frank Gill, who was a comedy writer for Hope, Pamela Lincoln is a great admirer of Dolores Hope. ...
5. Reed, Jon-Michael (1977-06-06). "Tune in Tomorrow". Republican & Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Pamela Lincoln (Felicia Lamont on Love of Life) is understudying the female lead in the Broadway drama, The Shadow Box. The Pulitzer Prize-winning play deals with a gruop of terminally ill people and how they cope with imminent death. It's a subject Pamela may have to deal with very soon in her serial role.
6. Scheuer, Steven H. (1977-06-09). "Soaps. Death scenes written for characters". Denton Record-Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Also playing her part to the death, Pamela Lincoln just this week departed her role as Felicia Flemming Lamont in Love of Life (CBS). The writers considerately set the expiration date for her character on the show. What necessitated the drastic measure was Pam's desire to return to stage acting on a fulltime basis. She is currently understudying two major roles in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play, Shadow Box.
7. Crosby, Joan (1977-09-29). "Ex-child actor busy in adult behind-camera work". El Paso Herald-Post. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Just about the time Darryl says he was feeling hemmed in by producing the soap, he got a call from Normal Lear (this was last October) saying he wanted him to be a producer of a new series. Darryl resigned his job and moved back to the coast. His wife, actress Pamela Lincoln, who has a role in Love of Life, was allowed to die in the series so she could join him. But in a bit of irony, she was asked to join The Doctors and now she flies back and forth so she can have her job and her husband, too. Their two sons are presently in camp in Maine, so Darryl says he feels uprooted but is glad that he is back in Hollywood, where he and his brother Dwayne, grew up.
8. Articles about her marriage:
  1. "Actress Giving Up Career for Marriage". Sedalia Democrat. Associated Press. 1959-11-30. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
    The article notes:
    
    Actress Pamela Lincoln is giving up her career to concentrate on being Mrs. Darryl Hickman.
    Miss Lincoln, 22, made the announcement after her marriage to the 28-year-old actor in a Hollywood church Saturday. The couple met last year in Los Angeles while both were appearing in a stage show.
    Hickman's younger brother, Dwayne, who is television's Dobie Gillis, was best man.
    The bridgeroom is currently appearing in the TV series, Texas John Slaughter.
    It was the first marriage for both he and his bride.
  2. "Darryl Hickman To Wed Actress". The Times of Northwest Indiana. Associated Press. 1959-09-01. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
    The article notes:
    
    Film and TV actor Darryl Hickman and Actress Pamela Lincoln plan to marry Nov. 28.
    They took out a marriage license Thursday.
    The couple said the wedding will be at the Immaculate Church in Beverly Hills. Hickman's brother, Dwayne, also an actor, will be best man.
    Hickman is 28; Miss Lincoln, 22.
  3. "Medford Mail Tribune article". Mail Tribune. United Press International. 1959-11-30. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
    The article notes:
    
    Actor Darryl Hickman and actress Pamela Lincoln were married Saturday in ceremonies at the Immaculate Heart of Mary church.
  4. "Film Pair to Marry". The Herald-Mail. 1959-11-14. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
    The article note:
    Television and film actor Darryl Hickman, 28, and actress Pamela Lincoln, 22, hold the marriage license they got yesterday in Los Angeles. They met 15 months ago while appearing in a Hollywood little theater group play. They plan a Nov. 28 wedding.
  5. "The Daily News-Texan article". The Daily News-Texan. Grand Prairie, Texas. United Press International. 1959-11-19. Archived from the original on 2016-11-13. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
    The article notes:
    
    Actor Darryl Hickman, 28, and actress Pamela Lincoln, 22, took out a marriage license Thursday and said they would be married Nov. 28.
    The couple said they met and became engaged during the filming of a horror movie, The Tingler.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pamela Lincoln to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literally everything from above is interviewed information such as "Pamela Lincoln....is a super-organized person; and, with her schedule, she has to be", "Pamela says", "Pamela thinks", "Pamela Lincoln is [ended] her career to get married....", and the September 1977 article is literally a 2-time mention for being her husband's spouse, so it's not actual independent or focused coverage, and the ones above those (that also happen to be 1977) are also all trivial; therefore when the best is apparently literally this, it shows the bareness and, as it is, she's not even satisfying the applicable actors notability considering the works in her career were so trivial.

Also, although such trivial information is expected when it comes to such trivial matters and subjects, that's not saying at all that we should literally become a webhost for trivial information, therefore there's enough suggesting, as it is in these sources, to suggest there is in fact no actual substance. As it is, the Delete votes above have emphasized the bareness of not satisfying the actors notability, and that's self-explanatory and sufficient for deletion. Therefore, if we're actually considering this is enough, it's simply cosmetic-filling the actual concerns, not taking care and fixing them. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second sources I listed above from the Boca Raton News and the El Paso Herald-Post provide significant coverage of the subject. I listed the other sources because they contain biographical material that can be used to expand the article. And from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." She also passes WP:NACTOR for her significant roles in The Tingler and Love of Life. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actors notability explicitly states the multiple significant works are needed, in this case the first work was only for 3 years and everything else is simply trivial and not lasting long at all; also, as mentioned above, it never matters who published what as long as the contents themselves were still interviewed quotes about what her hobbies and tasks are at home, and that itself would suggest the literal bareness and no-independence if it's literally only that. :WP:BASIC means nothing if any applicable notability such as Actors Notability is not satisfied, given her works were only 1 major work and trivial. The comments above emphasized this and there's nothing else suggesting they meant anything else. Like with the WP:GNG, it means nothing if the article simply serves as trivia or advertising, something of which is emboldened in Wikipedia policy to not have. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:BASIC, which states in part, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The combined sources listed above meet this threshold. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggestthat it harms the case for notability when articles such as those in point 8 of the references above are used to defend it; they are exactly what is meant by notices, rather than substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I combined all the articles about her marriage in point 8. The sources about her marriage do not by themselves establish notability. If they were all that existed, I would support deletion.
WP:BASIC says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". That her marriage was covered in the Associated Press and United Press International helps establish that she is a public person. The marriage sources when combined with the other sources presented here establish she is notable.
Cunard (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This itself was only coverage for having married an actor, therefore the coverage itself is not substantial since it simply focuses with one thing, therefore it's not significant for notability; also, what is relevant here is actors notability and she's not satisfying it, therefore it's best to delete it since there's nothing suggesting an otherwise better article, and WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are not applicable when WP:NOT applies, which in this case is basically an entertainment gossip "article". Simply compiling a few other sources that happen to mention the marriage and then literally listing her family, which is obviously not independent since she supplied it herself, therefore that is not a basis for notability. with this, as I noted above, not only not satisfying Actors Notability, but the first comments of Keep stated themselves "a minor actress with minor roles" hence not significant. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate comment by Swister, coverage is NOT confined to "having married and actor." I think sources brought by User:Cunard and others suffice to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is understood to require two good sources to confirm that a topic is not a hoax and therefore contributes to the sum of human knowledge. Being reliable is far more important to WP:GNG than audience, which is not even a parameter for WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:GNG means nothing when WP:NOT in fact applies, and the fact this woman is simply known for Darryl and her relationship with him and the sources themselves show this, there's literally nothing to suggest better, especially since she's not actually notable as an actress. Being a hoax or anything else hoax-focused is not applicable here so it's not relevant, and also "contributes to....human knowledge" is also not applicable when she's not a major actress as it is, but in fact the only best known as Darryl's wife (hence her career has not continued after that, and the coverage above itself was when her family life started, not after). SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"She's not a major actress as it is, but in fact the only best known as Darryl's wife (hence her career has not continued after that, and the coverage above itself was when her family life started, not after" Your statement is not supported by the sources. Pamela Lincoln's roles in Love of Life, her advent into the Pulitzer Prize winning play The Shadow Box, her role as an off-Broadway show producer, are all confirmed and covered by reliable sources:

"In addition to her regular role in the popular daytime serial," Ottawa Journal story having a heading "Pam Lincoln Hitting On All Cylinder"
"Pamela Lincoln (Felicia Lamont on Love of Life) is understudying the female lead in the Broadway drama, The Shadow Box. The Pulitzer Prize-winning play deals with a gruop of terminally ill people and how they cope with imminent death. It's a subject Pamela may have to deal with very soon in her serial role." Evening Herald
'Also playing her part to the death, Pamela Lincoln just this week departed her role as Felicia Flemming Lamont in Love of Life (CBS). The writers considerately set the expiration date for her character on the show. What necessitated the drastic measure was Pam's desire to return to stage acting on a fulltime basis. She is currently understudying two major roles in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway play, Shadow Box." Denton Record
"The actress, who is also an off-Broadway producer" Lakeland Ledger.
"Love of Life's Pamela Lincoln (Felicia Flemming Lamong) is also currently co-producing a new play entitled Feel Free at the Gene Franket Theatre in New York City." Classic Soap Opera Digest
"Pamela Lincoln's busy as a bee. Besides (the) show, she's doing lots of writing–and helping husband Darryl Hickman produce his nighttime comedy pilot Side By Side " Afternoon TV Stars magazine
"He's the executive producer of CBS' long-running Love of Life and she's one of the stars of the show." High Point Enterprise newspaper
'The Tingler, starring Pamela Lincoln as Lucy Stevens..." Oscars, Sony Pictures Museum, British Board of Film Classification, Jameson Dublin International Festival, The Columbus Dispatch

Lourdes 09:20, 16 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 per author's request.. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudpay[edit]

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

accidentally created this as a duplicate, already have an entry for CloudPay (not Cloudpay) Db0917 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 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 October 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to edge towards closing this as delete for now -- three French sources of good quality (traditional press) is significant but on the whole the two arguments that it is WP:TOOSOON (the latter after examining the sources) weigh heavier in the balance that the SPA "keep" !vote and NA1000's opinion which he himself flagged as "weak keep".

Czar's suggestion to first build a frwiki article (fr:BitcoinBandit) is a very good one, and at a later point when more sources exist a new enwiki (maybe partly translated from the frwiki one) could very well meet our criteria for inclusion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BitcoinBandit[edit]

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

Game released very recently, unlikely to be notable, as confirmed by a search on Google.
WP:NGAME requires significant coverage by multiple published sources, which I can't find.
The game is also a ripoff of JetPack joyride btw, or at least the text is- JetPack Joyride's description reads "The game uses a simple, one-touch system to control the jetpack; when the player presses anywhere on the touchscreen, the jetpack fires and Barry rises. When the player lets go, the jetpack turns off, and Barry falls. Because he is continually in motion, the player does not control his speed, simply his movement along the vertical axis" whilst the description of this game in the article reads "The game uses a simple, one-touch system to control the jetpack; when the player presses anywhere on the touchscreen, the character's jetpack rises. When the player lets go, the jetpack turns off, and Bandit falls. Because he is continually in motion, the player does not control his speed, simply his movement along the vertical axis." Note how merely the character's name has been changed.
Also created by SPA account. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and is possibly WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two Swiss major newspapers that cover its release. Le Temps https://www.letemps.ch/economie/2016/08/30/un-jeu-video-genevois-va-remunerer-utilisateurs-bitcoins (40'000 readers) and Le Matin (Switzerland) https://www.pressreader.com/switzerland/le-matin/20160825/281784218513288 (400'000 readers) — 178.197.225.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
JetPack joyride is clearly not the first jetpack game. There are dozens of them and the description fits perfectly the gameplay of any of them. The addition of a "Jetpack (games)" article which describe their common characteristics would be wiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.225.233 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a major French newspaper that covered its release La Dépêche du Midi (755'000 readers) http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2016/08/25/2406297-faire-gagner-tous-les-joueurs-guillaume-ose-le-pari.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.225.233 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:GNG per source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Un jeu vidéo genevois va rémunérer ses utilisateurs en bitcoins". Le Temps. (in French)
"Les romands vous paient pour jouer". Le Matin. (in French)
~~"Bitcoin Bandit, When Gaming Goes “Paid-To-Play”. Worldcrunch.~~
"Guillaume lance Bitcoin Bandit, un jeu sur application mobile". La Dépêche du Midi. (in French)

Comment: The Worldcrunch "source" is merely a translation of the Le Temps one. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please examine the sources introduced after the nom + initial "delete" argument. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. It's on track but the three articles do not go into enough depth as reviews to give us enough information to write a full treatment of the subject. If one of the editors pushing this is involved with the project, first please do read our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines and second, I highly suggest building a good French article for someone to translate (since all of the sources are in French). It'll make it easier to bring the article to English if/when more sources appear. czar 05:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minh Quân Phan[edit]

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

Extensive PROD driveby-removed by the one IP focusing only with this one article and, although the IP is from Brooklyn, New York, the contributions suggests there's certainly some COI in either the subject himself or other people connected, the other account involved with this also suggests something else than meets the eye; none of this suggests any actual independent notability and substance and there have been absolutely no comments or explanations to at least show understanding of these concerns. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm one of Minh's fan, also I have met him several times for his concert. Sometimes, I did discuss with him and also some of people who are agree to developing this article. I put my work hard to find any details about his music, life also try to find some reliable sources in the Internet. I know how Wikipedia work and how to create an article for a "living person" also what sources that meet Wikipedia requirement. In additional, I don't know what happen with the IP that you are talking about if I live in the same country, city with the artist. If people live in Germany, and edit or create an article of Beethoven, is doesn't mean they are Beethoven; family?. Plus, the artist do have his internet sources but in Vietnamese magazines, news, but is not in English language. That why I don't put into the article; like I said, we are still developing this article with more reliable sources as much as possible. Thank you! 47.17.226.94 (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all Wikipedians. First of all, I wish you have a wonderful day. I'm the one who create this page "Minh Quân Phan", thanks to everyone who edited this page and help my work. Not same as the "user IP", I'm a new folk in Wikipedia but before I created this page, I have already "search" and "find" Wikipedia's policies. I do understand that I will make many mistakes in this article and another too, but I'm still learning and improve my skill and make Wikipedia is a great place to everyone. About my opinion on this subject, "Minh Quân Phan" is a young musician and also a little notability and just have only few sources in the Internet but rather than not. I maybe agree with the folks who has disagree that Minh should have not his Wikipedia page at this time. But same idea with the "IP user", I'm still develop in article. In conclusion, there are already 2 articles (sources) in English that wrote about the subject, but if the Wikipedia admin and mod do want remove this article anyway, there is no problem for me. But I do want the admin will reconsideration give me and Minh's fans to develop his page. P/s: Sorry about my English, this is not my first language. One again, I really thanks to everybody who here and help my work as well as making the Wikipedia is a beautiful place for everyone. Hiepmusic (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pianist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable pianist, the article have sources. Using keywords "Minh Quan Phan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.187.218 (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above IP also tried to remove the AfD template from the article. --Finngall ^talk 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. 65.51.187.218 (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Comment This applies to maintenance tags in general, but an AfD template must remain in place until the discussion has been closed. --Finngall ^talk 14:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets central criteria of WP:Music 184.75.31.190 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if there are some decent Vietnamese sources available, but as the article stands now the provided sources are not reliable and I found nothing better found in English to offer improvements. Article creator and all IPs who have edited either the article or this discussion have few or no other edits outside of this topic and none have provided a policy-based reason for their keep !votes. --Finngall ^talk 15:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, article author also created a similar article with similar sources on vi.wiki, which has also received several edits from 47.17.226.94. It's not up for deletion there yet, but based on a machine translation of that article's talk page, it doesn't sound like they're impressed with the sourcing over there, either. --Finngall ^talk 20:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close this Afd as such. I am generally particular not to stereotype IP comments or !votes while closing Afds, but this here is pure drive-by !voting not based on our N guidelines or V policies. Lourdes 03:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just adding three independent reliable sources on this page. ^[1]

^[2] ^[3] 47.17.226.94 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All three are press releases. And who in heavens is "Lisa-Q" mentioned in two of the press releases? One quick query from MBisanz. Why was this Afd re-listed? Thanks. Lourdes 05:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Girlsmagpk The Real Reason Lisa Is Having Better Days,girlsmagpk.com.
^ Celebsfans Is “Claire De Lune” On Your Playlist?,celebsfans.com.
^ Epressrelease Minh Quan Phan Young Vietnamese and top Asian Classical Pianist,epressrelease.org.

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#G4. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nichapat Suphap[edit]

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

Non-notable. Google only turns up social media and some online articles written by her. Thereppy (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know, this article is identical to the one that was deleted at Afd just four days ago. I've tagged it for speedy deletion on those grounds, and we'll see if it is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lito Velasco[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with advertorial résumé overtones, of an actor, producer and musician with no strong claim of notability for any of those endeavours per WP:CREATIVE. The referencing here is parked entirely on blogs and podcasts and press releases and the self-published websites of companies or people with whom he's directly affiliated, with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. As always, people in any field of endeavour are not entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; RS coverage, supporting a claim of notability that passes CREATIVE, must be present for an article to become earned. This is also a possible WP:COI, as the creator's username is "Veljr79". Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fedde le Grand. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo Recordings[edit]

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

Not notable vanity label associated with the DJ Fedde le Grand. The sources are all WP:PRIMARY and it fails the criteria for WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPANY. Notability not inherited - Redirect to the artist. Initially prodded, CoI editor removed it with the comment 'wrong information'. Karst (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fedde le Grand. Per nomination. 86.84.247.233 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fedde le Grand as an appropriate target. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Helicopter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well as supporting the proposers reasons, the article is an unsourced piece that currently reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article XyzSpaniel Talk Page 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. No claim to notability. WP is not a business directory. MB 01:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above--Petebutt (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sport in Malaysia#Combat sports. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoi[edit]

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

The main point to be taken from this article is that Tomoi is a local northern Malaysian name for the sport that is otherwise known as Muay Thai. The article even explicitly states that the two are identical. Thereby this article in my eyes is fundamentally a content fork, duplicating in large parts informations from the Muay Thai article. Whether information about Muay Thai in Malaysia would be worth mentioning on its own can not be definitely said from reading this article alone. If so, it may just as well be included under the main article (Muay Thai) or under Sport in Malaysia#Combat sports. D-M (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Muay Thai) or under Sport in Malaysia#Combat sports (the later is probably preferable). It is clear this is a run away contact fork.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sport in Malaysia#Combat sports There's no reason for a separate article on this and it's already mentioned in the redirect target. Papaursa (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 08:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persana[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Persana isn't even mentioned in List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. PK T(alk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities (where he is mentioned, PKT). BOZ (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources. This is promoting a commercial product-line based only on its own materials, so merge ruthlessly, if at all. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PKT's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities, where the character is already listed. A very minor god in the D&D universe with very few sources, all of which are primary D&D sourcebooks. There is no reason to merge as, like I mentioned, the character is already present on the target list, and already has as much information there as such a minor, unsoruced fictional character needs.64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per BOZ and 64.183.45.226. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remnis[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is single entry in a relatively obscure product accessory with no documented internal follow-up and no documented outside commentary at all. It was published years ago, so there has been plenty of time, but nothing. This is barely even verifiable, much less notable, so perfunctory votes aside, why should this be kept? Regardless of intention, this is giving a lot of attention to AD&D® based only on its own materials, which makes this highly promotional. So how is Wikipedia benefited by including this? How does that benefit offset the spamminess inherent in such content? 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Grayfell (talk)
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. This is an extremely minor god in the D&D multiverse, that has only a couple of primary sources talking about it. The god is already present on the current redirect target, and the information there is about as much information that is sufficient for such an incredibly minor fictional character, so a merge in unnecessary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Feel It Records[edit]

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

Not notable local record label, part suspected CoI editing. Fails the criteria for both WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPANY - notability is not inherited. Karst (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. I'm not even sure what notability has been inherited, as I don't believe a single one of the label's releases has been a hit (I'm willing to be corrected). Richard3120 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this only advertises the general information there is to know about this company, nothing else and thus there's nothing suggesting literally better for notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus for salting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power2SME[edit]

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

highest degree of promotions. Written by company influenced individual. Does not provide an ounce of notability for Encyclopedia material. Few media sources are not enough to make anything encyclopedia material. where such companies are known by their customers or relative people. There are no nation or international notability is established. One of the thousands companies in India. It is not a Bloomberg directory. Light2021 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as not only by an apparent advertising-only account who is now naturally not active, but this was in fact deleted 2 years ago for both G11 and G12, therefore it shows concerns they were so eager for an article, they started one again within that next year; from the article literally simply having advertising sources, that's not saying a lot, especially the fact this is was an advertisement twice, and from this current one's beginning. We have not and never shall make compromises to keep and tolerate such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt as corporate spam that would not go away. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time, and yes, the article reads promotional. I however, see no reason to salt the title; last it was deleted in 2014. I agree we would not lose anything, but that's not a very good reason. Delete for failing notability. Anup [Talk] 18:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walkover Technologies[edit]

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

highest degree of promotions. Written by company influenced individual. Does not provide an ounce of notability for Encyclopedia material. Few media sources are not enough to make anything encyclopedia material. where such companies are known by their customers or relative people. There are no nation or international notability is established. One of the thousands companies in India. It is not a Bloomberg directory. Light2021 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this in fact is quite speedy material, with it never caring to go beyond advertising its company and services, and that's not surprising because it's been damned like it since starting last year; with such blatancy, this should've been nominated sooner and I know I would've had I found it sooner; listed contents are entirely trivial as is to be expected with such advertising, therefore there's nothing else to honestly say. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Wikipedia is not a client prospectus / product brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on most counts, non notable, promotional etc. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Company official requested for reconsideration. Clear case of violating COI. As mentioned there and being clear that this article is written by none other than company itself. Second Point to be noted as Company is promoting themselves with Red-Herring Award. It is listed Spam and Blocked by Wikipedia for such achievements. Light2021 (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021:Can you please clarify?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ARUNEEK: Please see for example this message: Deletion of Walkover Technologies on my Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It simply fails WP:NCORP. There is not even a single independent reliable source about this company. Anup [Talk] 23:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP.No independent reliable source that covers this company.Further,WIKIPEDIA is not a sort of brochure for a company!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:12, 3 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Gadia[edit]

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

Seems like the author himself made a page or someone made it for him. clear no sign on notability for being a encyclopedia material or even writing a biography for such individual on Wikipedia. insignificant person, I doubt even from the same industry anyone would know him by the name. Highest degree of blatant promotions. Light2021 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means and I have speedied the company's article as it was overly blatant with advertising, the history is quite obvious with there only being contributions by that one advertising-only account, therefore it emphasizes the genuinely advertising motivations of that one user, and how the article in fact never changed and went beyond that. It's quite unfortunate this was in fact accepted in 2014, but then again, advertisements were still being kept, started and accepted at that time, so we can at least say it's finally deletion time. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP non-notable person. The author is the person himself it seems like that.
-Gary J. Connor (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MUST BE DELETED AS SOON AS PEOPLE.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashi123123 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 3 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 deleted as A7, G11 (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 16:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impetus Technologies[edit]

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

highest degree of promotions. Written by company influenced individual. Does not provide an ounce of notability for Encyclopedia material. Few media sources are not enough to make anything encyclopedia material. where such companies are known by their customers or relative people. There are no nation or international notability is established. One of the thousands companies in India. It is not a Bloomberg directory. Light2021 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_White_(freelance_writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ben White (freelance writer)

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

The page has had over a year, with a notability notice, and no responses. The subject of the article is a non-notable freelance write, who has not been published by any mainstream publisher and who has not received any coverage in any mainstream or notable sources - beyond having submitted articles himself Avaya1 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the previous AFD was for a hockey player named Ben White.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is a writer who has been published by mainstream publishers such as Al Jazeera and has been profiled (albeit negatively) by the Jerusalem Post. I think there is sufficient sources to suggest his notability meets the WP:GNG even if one doesn't really approve of his writing stance or his journalistic integrity. JMWt (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, some of the references provided are persuasive towards his notabilibity, although at least one is a dead link. PK T(alk) 22:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "profile" linked by JMWt is not a profile in the usual sense (with details about his background, education, accomplishments, career,) but merely an article about a minor brouhaha over whether it was appropriate for an NGO to invite White to speak on the grounds that some consider his views to be extreme.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete freelance writers are rarely notable. Not many working journalists are, for that matter, but I see no evidence that White has been regularly employed as a journalist. He appears to be more of a political activist who writes partisan essays. There are no profiles of him; no evidence that he has ever written anything significant. Here [8], The Guardian, which has published some of his essays, describes him as "a freelance journalist, writer, and human rights activist, specialising in Palestine/Israel."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC) But it does not count for sourcing/notability since it is the writer's bio note for an op-ed merely.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete White is an activist, not by any definition a "freelance journalist". We would need to have demonstration that people take notice of his work, as opposed to just occasionally publishing it to air a view on an issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't seem like a notable personality based on the sources. Minor media personalities (writers, spokespeople, etc. and even activists) tend to have many media mentions, but I have not found significant third-party coverage. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note these old comments on the article's talk page from 2015, under subhead "sourcing problem":

"Of the 33 sources currently in the article, 22 were written by White himself. 4 are by groups he's involved in... showcase for the subject's opinions which weren't noted by anyone else... See WP:BLPSELFPUB. The whole "Political views and activities" section is sourced only to him, for example...
"Interesting to find the above comment. I just removed large chunks of self-sourced text. And tagged the page for notability. A writer's views are notable only if they are discussed in secondary sources. I have doubts about whether this writer/political activist is notable..."
"The sum total of White's notability appears to boil down to a pair of very minor spats with Zionists over his coverage of Israel in CounterPunch, itself not a particularly notable journal." E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only is there nothing satisfying, it's particularly coming from both unconvincing information and sources, there's literally nothing else aside from that, therefore it's deadlocked as delete with no otherwise substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pradipta Kr. Roy[edit]

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

Re-creation of Pradipta Kumar Roy which was deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradipta Kumar Roy. Speedy delete G4 tag removed by an IP editor with no explanation. PamD 17:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that this should be a speedy delete.--Rpclod (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Constant recreation of variations of an AfD deleted articles. Non-notable and I suspect there is a close connection (autobio) with the poster.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as was previously determined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pradipta Kumar Roy - Arjayay (talk) 16:33, 5 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) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wonut[edit]

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

Ephemeral trivia. Anmccaff (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Too Soon. Only time will tell if the wonut is as notable as other unique pastry crossovers, like the cronut. Too soon to tell. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources seem to indicate WP:GNG is met, plus remember WP:NTEMP -that it was mostly discussed between April and May 2014 does not mean it stops being notable in 2016. Also, that a source discusses it, albeit briefly, in 2016, indicates some evidence of ongoing notability. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources. Although they might have been ephemeral, the amount of attention devoted to this seems to be enough.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with coverage in reliable sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], Donut Nation, pp. 158–159, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, although some of the article references may be deemed unsuitable for notability and/or be "local", it has enough to get over the notability line and with above sources listed by Northamerica1000 easily exceeds it. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Joyce[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a stage entertainer, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. There's just no particularly strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE being made here -- he could potentially still have an article on pure WP:GNG grounds if the article were sourced properly, but he's not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists if the only sources present in the article are his own website and somebody's self-published video clip on YouTube. There's just not enough meat, or enough sourcing, here. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article relies on sources connected with the subject or created by them and does not demonstrate widespread notice or following.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pairs in Test and first-class cricket[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:VERIFY, is not being fully maintained, provides insufficient context and adds little or no value. It verges on WP:TRIVIA. Waste of space. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep - pairs happen irregularly in first class cricket so this is more than just trivia - and there are also relevant secondary sources pointing to this as a notable thing within cricketing circles. That said, it doesn't feel like a particularly important part of the game of cricket so may indeed be little more than trivia. For me it just passes the threshold of notability for keep. JMWt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The "pair" in cricket is a notable concept. This article need not be a comprehensive list, but there is significant information worth retaining. There is no corresponding Pair (cricket) article, only a an entry in Glossary of cricket terms, so this article/list should cover the history of the concept. St Anselm (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list part of the article might be superfluous (certainly for first-class cricket), but an article explaining the concept of a pair and giving some notable examples has a place on the site, I feel. Harrias ^talk 11:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the list part of the article needs to be done away with in the main (if not entirely). The interesting sections are the ones on notable pairs where prose is actually used. These can be extended, the key paris summarised and then a bunch of (possibly) incomplete lists can go away. It's not as if a pair is as rare a feat as being given out handled the ball is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, maybe change to only be about test matches. The sourced prose is encyclopedic, and a pair is a notable cricket term. Joseph2302 23:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of One Day International cricket tournaments[edit]

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

Delete. Long-term multiple issues have not been addressed and it fails WP:VERIFY. It is also out-of-date so is not being maintained. Waste of space. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see the purpose of it as a navigation aid, but I don't think it helps the reader (who would want to look at this, for example?) It's not been maintained and is out of date to boot. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't serve any real purpose in this format and state. Harrias ^talk 11:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a prose summary of major tournaments could be useful in an article about international one day cricket certainly, but this is not a helpful list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zimbabwe Test cricket records[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. Has limited value and is out-of-date. If not being maintained, it is pointless it being here. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OUTDATED seems to be a poor policy argument for deletion. JMWt (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Not at all, though it is a secondary point here. Note that the main reson is WP:NOTSTATS. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - part of a series of articles of country cricket records - e.g. List of Australia Test cricket records. St Anselm (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - records of a Test playing nation are notable. All batting and bowling records were up to date at time of nomination. Article certainly needs to be more comprehensive but that can be improved over time (the article has only been in existence for a year). Jevansen (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series, as StAnselm noted, and merging back to the main Zimbabwe national cricket team article would make that article too big. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn by nom. Action taken by StAnselm to correct categorisation errors. I agree that in in the context of its appropriate category, the result should be keep. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a subset of the article List of Test cricket records focusing on one of the ten Test nations. The main article is a featured list, and with a lot of work, this could one day get there too. 09:06, 31 October 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of International cricket families[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:VERIFY as no citations have been provided since the refimprove template was added in 2010. It is therefore an unreliable article. It is verging on WP:TRIVIA and may not be up-to-date. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These aren't policy reasons to delete either. That the page isn't verified does not mean it is impossible to verify it. The question is whether the subject is notable, and like it or not, there is an argument to be made from independent secondary sources that the topic of families/dynasties in cricket is a notable topic. JMWt (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If it is possible to verify, then why hasn't it been verified? The refimprove tag has been there since 2010 and some of the people named are subject to WP:BLP so verification is imperative by policy. The lack of citations in six years means that it fails WP:VERIFY and must be removed as it potentially breaches WP:BLP, inter alia. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Sorry, we're judging the notability of the topic, not how the page is currently written. JMWt (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, with your 2,000 edits in 18 months you are an expert on AfD. There is much more to it than notability. I suggest you read WP:AFD and its sub-pages and associated pages to get the full picture. Failing WP:VERIFY is a major issue in any article especially one in which WP:BLP is relevant. And I just looked at your talk page which does not impress me, given your rudeness to one of the most senior editors here who was trying to help you. Any rudeness in the AfD pages and it will be taken further. Okay? Jack | ^{talk page} 15:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think whatever you like, the fact is that notability is about the topic not the current state of the page. Also WP:NOTBATTLE. JMWt (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are MANY reasons why an article may be deleted. WP:Notability is certainly significant but so are WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and others. I suggest you study Category:Wikipedia content policies and its sub-cats to increase your knowledge and understanding of AfD and content policies. Please stop trying to assert that AfD is only about notability. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So to be absolutely clear, your policy reason for delete is that the topic is impossible to verify. It is impossible to verify that there are families which contain several cricketers. That's just wrong on a pretty much base level. I'm not getting into a personal fight with you, I am clearly trying to discuss policy reasons for or against the AfD. For me, your policy reasons for delete are weak. It doesn't persuade you, but meh, this isn't about you. JMWt (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable topic, and paralleled by several other lists on Wikipedia - e.g. List of family relations in American football. St Anselm (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the topic is notable, and supported by the other associated family lists on Wikipedia. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have been several books written on cricket families, so this is definitely a notable topic. I'm sure sources can be found. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn by nom. WP:CONSENSUS is clearly going to be keep (perhaps unanimously so). Jack | ^{talk page} 07:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of County cricket coaches and captains[edit]

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

Delete. No citations; is not being updated and is out of date; fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:UNCLETOMCOBLEYANDALL. Waste of space. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these are not policy reasons to delete. We're trying to assess whether the subject is notable independent of the current state of the page - and it would seem to me to be fairly obvious that most of the information on this page is able to be cited. JMWt (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. WP:NOSTATS is a strong reason to delete any article. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists of current captains and coaches can be found at the appropriate season articles, e.g., 2016 County Championship#Teams. No need to have duplicate information. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IA. This seems to be a good idea when it was created, but essentially has become a stale draft. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content is much better kept at the season articles and/or the team articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - I PRODed this last year, and I'm still of the opinion it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria, as stated above PinchHittingLeggy (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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Glamorgan first-class cricket records[edit]

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

Delete after comparison with the club records section in Glamorgan County Cricket Club. This list is a subset of information already held to better advantage in the club article and, by itself, it fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant JMWt (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was evidently found trawling through Category:Cricket-related lists, but it was in the wrong category - it should have been in Category:Lists of English cricket records and statistics. And a quick perusal of that category indicates that many counties have lists of records - e.g. List of Hampshire CCC first-class cricket records. St Anselm (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and I will request withdrawal of the AfD. Thanks for spotting and correcting the categorisation error. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom per StAnselm's actions above. Article should be keep. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it's to be kept then the section on the County page needs to have a main template on it and redirect with a prose section to this article. I'll get on to that later if no one else has done it already - that will avoid the redundancy issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chauriyasi Mewada Brahmin[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:31, 1 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ander Bardají[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on the argument that other stuff exists. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that this page should be kept - the player has been given a squad number which means he is in the 25-man list of professional players for the season. He is a goalkeeper, only 1 is allowed to play at a time and it is a critical role, so a promising young player is less likely to be given a chance; similarly a substitute appearance is also very rare in the position. It is quite unusual for a player in the squad of an elite football club to NOT have a page, although to look at his playing stats would suggest it is quite a weak case for a notable subject. Crowsus (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that only covers footballers who have played in a match for in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. Players who have not made their debut for either are not included. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet to debut; can be recreated if this debut ever does happen Spiderone 15:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic WP:CBALL, can always be created in the future if necessary. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
can't argue with the guidelines, although I do think it doesn't look great to have a red/black player on the squad list for a club in the #1 ranked league Crowsus (talk) 23:17, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest to reach multiples of 1000 runs in ODI cricket[edit]

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

Delete. A list like this will not be maintained long-term and is already out of date. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Adds no value at all and if we had a WP:SOWHAT? it would fail that too. Waste of space. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same except for the different forms of cricket:

Same reasons apply. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all important milestones are often kept in various sports on wikipedia such as 3,000 hit club, List of men's association football players with 500 or more goals, List of NHL players with 1000 assists etc. It seems rough to suggest that cricket shouldn't also be able to mark milestones, and the above rationale for delete is not a good policy reason as per WP:OUTDATED. JMWt (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These aren't particularly important milestones, and Wikipedia doesn't need to be a mirror of Cricinfo and CricketArchive. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on balance - there needs to be a line drawn somewhere regarding purely statistical articles. Per the policies cited by others I don't think this reaches the line. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are particularly celebrated achievements in cricket. Leave it to the specialist sites, not an encyclopedia. Delete. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of cricket[edit]

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

Delete or redirect to Cricket. This is apparently trying to be a summarised version of Cricket but it is hopelessly incomplete and will realistically remain so. A waste of space. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Cricket JohnTombs48 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
Delete as redundant JMWt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the base Cricket article is well-developed, I am unsure what value merge would provide, but perhaps an editor could select some portions.--Rpclod (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. I don't think there's any information worth merging to the main article. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a poor copy of the main Cricket article Spike 'em (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cricket - with the scope to recreate if the cricket article ever gets brought up to scratch. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Tyler J. Skluzacek[edit]

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

Non-notable, reads like personal advertisement. Article didn't qualify for creation. Seola (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the subject of this wikipedia article. I didn't write it, and would like to see it deleted. ADDITIONALLY---there are factual inaccuracies in this article that are grounds for deletion. tskluzac —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Expanded discussion. The creation reason was "He's a pretty major figure in Minnesota right now.". It fails WP:N guidelines among others. Spends more time on verified information giving his background and school over the actual reason he's allegedly famous. As of now, the main notability is a failed app/failed Kickstarter and there are no recent reliable sources (including the app pages themselves) that detail any information on a realistic release, since it has gone radio silent and isn't even on the market. It fails initial notability, it fails current notability and gives no promise to future notability. Seola (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An argument might be made that the articles support the app as notable, but even that is weak. References are insufficient to support notability for the individual.--Rpclod (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not attained yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence from sources that topic meets WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 04:50, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twenty20 International cricket matches[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same problems arise:

Delete. A hopelessly BAD idea because a list like this will not be maintained. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anyone wanting to see a list of these matches is better referred to one of the two main specialist sites that publish cricket statistics. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - above is not policy reason for deletion as the matches are clearly notable. And there is precedent for recording results of international matches over long periods eg England national football team results – 2000s JMWt (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, although the topic is notable, it does seem problematic to lay out the page like this, particularly if the match results themselves are listed per year in other pages. I'm not sure what value there is in knowing how many matches there were per year and it is hard to see how to do it any differently given the volume of stats. So unsure now JMWt (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WHAT is the bad thing you can see here. If you check you can see many other worst articles in the Wikipedia. This is not such a thing. Some one said that we can search matches from cricket areas. If it is correct, all the other cricket stats also can watch from those sites, also about cricketers as well. But, who is going to delete those cricketers pages. No..no one will do that, they will say they are important. But as they are important, these articles are also important. They are clearly marked and categorized. Those who cannot reach cricket articles can read them here. And I much say this, Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA... So, those who wants to delete these pages should know what is the meaning of encyclopedia. I regret their idea completely. These pages are needed and important for all cricket articles. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. Anyone looking for a list of these matches will already be aware of CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo. Both those websites are updated in real-time by people who are paid to do so; Wikipedia is not, and there is no reason for us to maintain a poor-quality mirror of their lists. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Poor-quality mirror" neatly summarises the problems. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the NOTMIRROR argument. Note that if the parent lists get deleted, then there are lots of child lists, such as Test cricket matches results (2010–14), Test cricket matches results (1975–79), One Day International matches results (1980–84), Twenty20 International matches results (2005–09), etc (I'm not going to list them all, but you can see them from the template footer on each one). Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor quality mirror summarises my feelings entirely. Absolutely no need and a waste of bytes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 4 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 3452[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. The article itself says that during the runway excursion the aircraft had minimal damage (i.e. no hull loss) and no one was injured (let alone died), so this sets the inclusion bar for accidents quite low. Brandmeister^talk 11:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This accident , aside from involving a Vice Presidential candidate during a campaign, is actually significant because nothing happened, as the engineered materials arrestor system prevented the aircraft from sliding completely off the runway in a manner similar to Southwest Airlines Flight 1248, which could have had untold effects to the Donald Trump Campaign. Furthermore, ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332, another runway overshoot this year was listed as notable, despite no injuries to the crew and limited aircraft damage. Additionally, passenger injuries (and even death), as well as damage or destruction of an aircraft are not good markers for inclusion of notability, as the crash last year of a Hawker-Siddley Business Jet in Akron Ohio killed 8 people, yet was not deemed notable enough to stay in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zadeh (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a single news event that is not notable within the larger campaign. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Rpclod (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This incident is significant as it could play a role in the outcome of a Presidential Campaign. True Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but how many insignificant articles that don't involve a potential Vice President are on Wikipedia. And even if he, and his running mate should lose the election, he is still the sitting Governor of Indiana, which is also significant.--Subman758 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The presence of other insignificant articles that should probably be deleted is not justification for keeping another non-notable article. Sario528 (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what about that time Pence was about to cross a street and a car drove past, just missing him; if things had been different something might have happened that could play a role in the outcome of a Presidential Campaign. But, nothing did happen. This might be worth a one-sentence mention somewhere, but an entire article? No, does not meet the general notability guidelines. YSSYguy (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- As previously mentioned, the successful use of engineered materials arrestor system alone makes this a notable incident. Causalities/Hull loss is NOT a deciding factor in aircraft incidents, as seen with Northwest Airlines Flight 253, but rather the individual significance of such events. Secondly, the fact that this incident involved a well established airline carrying an important political figure in a large metropolitan area (again, similar to Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 and especially Southwest Airlines Flight 1455) is enough to make this incident notable. Lastly, it would be too hasty to remove this article purely because we do not know what kind of effect this may have on the operator, Eastern Air Lines (2015), or the EMAS system development. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it is a very important database of many incidents, no matter how small they may subjectively seem. In the end, I recommend we wait out for the results of the investigation. However, I feel the article needs more relevant photos and more information, this alone would help immensely. MilesSilvagni (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Engineered_materials_arrestor_system#Incidents lists at least nine such incidents with EMAS where it seems nobody died. None of them has an article and I doubt this one will be more prominent in the long run. At best this could be succinctly mentioned in 2016 in aviation and Eastern Air Lines. Brandmeister^talk 16:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom - single event, probably no lasting news coverage. A mention on the engineered materials arrestor system seems warranted (it's there), but nowhere else,not even Eastern's page. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article itself says No one on board the airplane was injured, and damage to the airplane was minimal so doesnt meet normal criteria for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As mentioned above, not all notable aviation incidents involve damage to the aircraft or harm to passengers, such as Northwest Airlines Flight 253 or EgyptAir Flight 181, and some crashes that involved the total destruction of the aircraft and the deaths of all onboard, such as the crash of a Hawker business jet in Akron Ohio have been deleted from Wikipedia for not being noteworthy. Joseph Zadeh
  - Northwest Airlines Flight 253 involved the real threat of explosives and EgyptAir Flight 181 was a real hijacking. Here it's just EMAS at work when virtually nothing happened. Brandmeister^talk 12:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment- "Virtually nothing happened" and "real threat". You refer to EgyptAir 181, where the hijacker created what was essentially an unplanned detour using a belt full of old cell phones (which posed no threat), yet believe an airliner carrying a major political figure in the 2016 election almost careening into NYC traffic, only being stopped by a device only used in emergencies to be less dangerous and not even noteworthy? Yes, there was danger and yes, there will be consequences down the line. Frankly, I do not understand why this was put up for deletion, unless we have an EAL executive lurking on this website.MilesSilvagni (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unfounded accusations about lurking EAL executives are not helpful, and can be taken as a personal attack on other editors. I realize you're new to the AFD process, but please avoid such in the future, and Assume Good Faith. Most of the editors supporting the article's deletion have been on WP for a long time, and have participated in many AFD discussions involving aircraft accidents and incidents. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE to the Trump 2016 campaign article, as it is an incident during the campaign, and the airplane in question was carrying TRUMP 2016 election livery. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's too insignificant an event to merge, especially into that large article that already has already had so many things cut from it to keep the size manageable. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It dominated a news cycle, so could easily deserve few sentences or a paragraph. Thus a merge can be done. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS — JFG ^talk 08:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It was a story in its immediacy that has received no followup coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - By that logic, the crashes of American Airlines Flight 383,FedEx Express Flight 910, ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332, and several other aviation accidents/incidents would be eligible for deletion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Zadeh (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't try to !vote multiple times. And, "other stuff exists" is never a valid argument for notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding "other stuff exists", it's not never a valid argument (as the linked essay states in the first paragraph: These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.), but in this case, the three articles have not been extensively discussed. They might very well be eligible for deletion as well, so we should not justify this article with the existence of those articles. ASL Airlines Hungary Flight 7332 even had an an AfD that resulted in no consensus, meaning its notability isn't clear either. Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NEVENTS, Wikipedia should only cover events with lasting significance or persistent coverage. There were no fatalities, no hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft, and there is no indication that this incident is really impactful for the aviation industry. Perhaps this would be suitable for a newspaper story, but not an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW it's not an aviation story, it's a political story. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps at most I could see this getting a sentence or two at an article about the Trump campaign. It's inappropriate as a topic for a standalone encyclopedia article. Mz7 (talk) 13:26, 4 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Yeravdekar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is not an academic. The post of "principle director" of Symbiosis Society doesn't seem to be an academic post. I looked closely and it seems this society was started by her father and she joined it later. I do not see any way the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The coverage about the subject is mostly inherited coverage of the form "Symbiosis principal director, Vidya Yeravdekar, said...", there is hardly any significant coverage focusing on her. In any case, this seems to be a BLP1E. Finally, the entire article is a copyvio. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, and there isn't anything else to suggest notability in another capacity. SwisterTwister talk 18:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable executive; notability is not inherited from institutions that the subject works for, nor from more notable relatives. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. What about WP:GNG? Sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], more. (I'm not interested in doing a rewrite as of this moment.). For India-related topics, please use google custom search instead (see WP:INDAFD). Anup [Talk] 22:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny cites on GS. Undoubtedly a worthy person but fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

Bruce Wilson (Democratic booster)[edit]

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

Prominent local figure, multiple mentions in same local paper, but I didn't think it was enough to meet WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. County level activist, insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and no other claim to notability expressed in article. Only coverage is in local newspaper (Columbia, MO), a city of around 100k. MB 01:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local political fundraisers need better sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable politica insider, nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 5 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Champ[edit]

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

I couldn't establish its notability. Possibly worth a redirect to Visco Corporation if found non-notable. Has been tagged for notability for over 8 years - hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable SGPolter (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable video game. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 5 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put 'Em Up (B.A.P EP)[edit]

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

Unremarkable album by a Korean boy band. No indication of notability. KDS4444 (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of media coverage, hasn't charted. Fails WP:NALBUM. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:24, 6 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayako[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article adds no Encyclopedia Value. It is not a bloomberg business profile or directory for business promotions. There is nothing significant about this company. Light2021 (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly WP:PROMO content on an unremarkable minor tech company. Copy includes advertising, such as:

In August 2009, Kayako announced the availability of cost-free full licenses for charities and open-source software projects.

No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. WP:Corp applies; promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our policies and guidelines are designed so that notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, not by Wikipedia editors. We are here to build an encyclopedia that is the sum of human knowledge. The article here has a list of good references that satisfy WP:GNG. Obviously a company in both India and UK satisfies WP:AUD. If there were any problem with advertising or promotion, this would show as a lack of NPOV, which does not appear to be a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a company merely existing in two countries is not at all a convincing sign of notability and there has never been a case of AfD of solely keeping by that basis alone, and nor should we because that would mean literally damning ourselves by accepting the by far trivial things ("It exists so it's acceptable"), and the article itself is only existing to advertise the company and the several different accounts show this. Worse, the fact the usernames themselves show they were actually company employees so that's not something we compromise nor should we, therefore there's simply nothing for an actual article here, unless we want to accept such a blatant advertisement.

This was PRODed in February 2014 with the basis of an advertisement and this should have been deleted then or sooner, because no amount of any published and republished sources were going to suggest better and we should not mistake it as otherwise. The two accounts that heavily focused with this one article were apparently the same person as they thinly had the same name so considering this was an advertisement, that's also nothing we compromise with, at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 7 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. Not salting as the previous two deletions are almost a decade ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robosoft Technologies[edit]

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

Adds no value to wikipedia. Only promotions and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt given the past 2 deletions for exactly G11, both happened before this article was once again restarted with the same damning advertising, and the history showing advertising-only accounts emphasize and confirm this, therefore we make no compromises or second thoughts about such blatancy, lest we damn ourselves a PR-publishing website. Please see also User:RobosoftTech which was literally used to advertise this article itself, along with the other clear advertising-only accounts since they only ever actually added advertising. Therefore we have enough with the sole basis of advertising, along with the basis of no notability, to delete. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam, and not even dressed up with some sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing anything that would help company reach the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Anup [Talk] 21:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kreata Global[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant promotions only. This page or company has nothing to write about. Non-Notable for Encyclopedia material. only for publicity. 2 time deletion happen. Light2021 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is the third deletion nomination for this article; the first may be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreataGlobal. The second is listed in the AFD box at top right. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant advertisment clear fluffpuff materials considering the only actual serious claims here are its associations with Facebook which actually means nothing, especially when considering the entire article is still an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KreataGlobal participants: Lakun.patra (talk · contribs), Dialectric (talk · contribs), ThaddeusB (talk · contribs), and Everymorning (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreata Global participants: DGG (talk · contribs), BeenAroundAWhile (talk · contribs), and Anupmehra (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current aticle sows so little evidence for importance that it could have been A7. Looking at the ghits, which were asserted at the previous afd to be a reason for keep, they are the model of reprinted press releases, mixed in with a few incidental mentions. The Economic Times article is relatively substantial, but it's about another company entirely, the only connection is that they hired someone who had previous worked at Kreata. Times of India, as usual, just quotes the ceo. I would however not have nominated the article for promotionalism, but a violation of NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT DIRECTORY.. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 4DOS. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JP Software[edit]

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

Better to be deleted. nothing really to write about. It was proposed delete. Speedy delete. Light2021 (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 4DOS, the company's best known product, which appears to be a notable piece of software based on the numerous articles about it that can be found in a GBooks search [23][24][25][26] etc. See WP:RFD#KEEP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4DOS for now; there's no reason to have multiple articles on these closely related topics. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any 3rd party sources, so I recommend a redirect, and anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Gray Routes[edit]

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

There is nothing here to write about this one. Only promotional purposes such article even created. No notability. Light2021 (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and several things to note: 1 is that we can never confide in Indian news media, especially the questionable ones, because we have in fact established there's blatant "pay-for" methods of publishing articles, including of which is simply republished company advertising, complete with finance specifics and customer-counting, but also the fact there's no set establishment of accepting genuine news.

Another, is the fact it's a newly started company and the only account involved here has been the one advertising-only account, see here who has literally only focused with this one advertisement; another is the sheer fact this blatant advertisement was specifically formattted to make it seem as if "information and sources" were enough alone, when we all know it is not. When we start making compromises and unconvincing "but republished advertising means something!", we're damned as an encyclopedia, because it would show we can't even handle the simplest of advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "minor tech startup" spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks kind of coverage Wikipedia seeks for a company article. Anup [Talk] 21:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. After quick work by Llammakey, there are now 3 blue links to different ships named HMCS Thunder. That editor appears to have been in the process of populating a new Canadian ship set index article when nominated. Also the nominator may have made the same mistake as I did in assuming this was a disambiguation page: under the rules for set indices, multiple redlinks are permitted anyway.(non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Thunder[edit]

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

Only one link exists under the page. Abbottonian (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Standard ship index page. Also, there are now two links with another on the way. You really need to do your homework before nominating things for deletion. Llammakey (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ariel Pierre Calonne[edit]

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

Autobiography of an appointed former city attorney in two small cities. This started out as a mostly-unreferenced resume. Having trimmed it down now (with a lot of pushback from the article's subject), there's little here to show how he's notable enough for WP:POLITICIAN. News coverage in WP:Reliable sources is limited to short local press articles announcing his appointment and resignation. The only thing he's been elected to so far is the city attorney's department of a notable organisation, and the only award he's won so far is from an organisation of unknown notability. Can't find anything else about him online to show how he meets WP:BIO. Wikishovel (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a promotional autobiography of a non-notable appointed public servant. I am sure that this man is competent in his job but, in my opinion, it was unwise of him to try to write an encyclopedia article about himself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete City attorneys are very rarely notable for such. Nothing here is more than run of the mill. The recognitions mentioned are handed out far too often to be good for including an article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 3 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. Michig (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Barefoot[edit]

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

This person has not nearly achieved notability. The company in the article Capulet Communications does not have an article itself as it is not notable either. The article seems to be written like a news release, it lists things which he was part of, none of the which are notable. A Google search of his books hasn't brought up anything. It is also worth noting that the subject of the article has made edits to the page and its talk page. NikolaiHo^☎️ 05:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as I was consulted about this article and whether it was deletion material and it in fact is, none of this actually establishes any independent notability or substance and there's nothing there's the capacity of notability in anything else. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. The nominator writes above: It is also worth noting that the subject of the article has made edits to the page and its talk page. Having noted this, I went to take a look. I notice a single edit to the article itself, made nine years ago; and a number of polite and tentative suggestions made on the talk page. That one edit hardly seems promotional; since that time, the biographee has I think been a model of what a biographee should be. Am I missing something, Nikolaiho? -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, I just wanted to let people know about the fact that the person had been involved in the page (WP:COINOTBIAS). Technically, he did edit the page which is a WP:COISELF and I found another case of this with an edit by User:Leelefever [here] who seems to be his friend according to [this]. This may be irrelevant and is not the reason for why I am nominating this page for deletion but I think that people should be aware of this. NikolaiHo^☎️ 00:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. And thank you for the response. But let's be careful not even to appear to denigrate biographee-contributors where possible. We can't expect biographees to start off fully (or even vaguely) aware of Wikipedia's set of rules and guidelines (after all, very many contributors who aren't biographees start off under serious misapprehensions, yet some go on to become fine contributors); and after that one direct edit/addition (which I find constructive), the biographee's stance and talk page contributions have been admirable. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing suggests that WP:ANYBIO or other notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I don't see an apparent COI problem, but the subject is not notable just yet per encyclopedia standards. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This radio station is not available in your country[edit]

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

Do we really need a page for a "message" played by "Radio"? Abbottonian (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's really no good place for this. There's no need for an article like this and the message itself wouldn't fit into the article Sign-on and sign-off since it's not a sign off itself. It's more along the lines of HTTP 404, but it doesn't fit there either since the page does exist per se - it's just not available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With geoblocking. Thanks, JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge wth geoblocking. Trivialist (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject has no evidence of being notable. And wikipedia is not a dictionary. JMWt (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, essentially a dictionary entry. Also, fails GNG. James (^talk/_contribs) 15:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If anything can be merged to Geo-blocking, that is fine, but I doubt it. Completely uncyclopedic and not notable. --T*U (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Anything useful to geoblocking. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources included. Naturally if there was verifiable content, it could be added to Geoblocking or if there was enough: Geoblocking of internet radio stations. But I a not seeing such content in this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:33, 3 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narek Aslanyan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that the Armenian Premier League is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus established that the Armenian league isn't fully pro Spiderone 09:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Two of the sources in the article were dead but later replaced with working unreliable sources, and the other two are still the same unreliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 14:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deleting pages with armenian,georgian footballers and many other leagues means vandalism.and you people a doing this by voting.professional football is not only in England and Germany.Armenia top league is fully proffesionall league and somehow surprising ,but the second division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_Armenian_First_League is also fully proffesional.this is the documents from Arm federation http://www.ffa.am/uploaded/2015/Kanonakarg16-17.pdf .the guy who creates this article,if you an armenian,and i believe yes,please find out there to read exactly ,regarding Arm league being professional.Kolya77 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.armsport.am/ru/news/2016/02/10/Артур-Азарян/682565 this is ref.right on the end,it's in russian.Турнир будет иметь профессиональный статус до тех пор, пока футболисты связаны с клубами трудовыми договорами. Это касается и Первой лиги Армении, которая имеет профессиональный статус. And i'm pretty sure that on the official documents by FFA this can be found also.but first of all, someone who understood armenian language have to respond.and help with translation.and point where exactly to look.cause google translate does not really helpKolya77 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also i would like to add this ref regarding Azerbaijan - http://www.pfl.az . It says clearly in english - The official website for Azerbaijan PROFESSIONAL football league.what other proofs needed ? the professional league is running from 2008. So actually Armenia,Azerbaijan,Georgia at least, discriminated on wikiKolya77 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you need to understandthat there is a difference between a league being professional per the sources above and being "fully professional per WP:NFOOTY. Secondly, Iwould ask you to review the quote above. It does not confirm full professionalism or in fact any level of professionalism, it merely states that the competitions will be considered professional if players have employment contracts. If anything this confirmsthat there is no obligation for any club to be professional. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down,probably google translate does not translate correctly.he said that both competition have professional status.but previously he commented the rumorous that armenian teams will not be allowed to play in eurocups because the league has only 7 teams,after Ulisses withdrew.he said(the licening director) that everything is fine ,both 2 leagues are fully professional ... this is why i'am asking somebody who understands armenian to help with translation.because i'm 100 % sure on the documents from FFA above,is writing that the league is professionall or semi professional or whatever.but is PROF:)

Many users here on wikipedia thinking that in eastern europe people are living in jungle,are playing football between the trees.but the reality is completely different.At least 3 leagues from East(Azeri,Armenia and Georgia), and i belive Latvija to (but not sure) are fully professional like english premierliga or spanish bundesliga.Kolya77 (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In stating that the competition can be considered professional if the players are contracted to their respective clubs, the source does not specify a size of contract. The notion of full professionalism requires sources to indicate that the level of remuneration is sufficient that players need have no other source of employment. this indicates that there is a reasonable level of money involved in the competition and it is this assumption about the level of cash that is used as a proxy to determine the level of likely interest and therefore coverage of a specific competition. If you look at something like the attendences provided by Soccerway, you will see that no team attracts a crowd on average of more than a thousand, the highest average is 850 and the lowest just 300. There is simply no way that a club with this level of support could afford to maintain a fully professional squad. This also means then that the first division cannot as it is composed of the reserve teams of these clubs. I do not doubt that there is a degree of professionalism, and perhaps all players receive some compensation, but there is no way this league is in any way comparable to the Premier League, La Liga or Bundesliga in terms of professionalism. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment.we talked in different ways.i see no reason to continue,cause you gyus ,Fenix and others, know only to delete articles and make yourself proud by voting and also adding on every wiki article that transfermarket is not reliable.this 2 thinks you are executing perfect, day by day.congratulations. Regarding attendences.the average you wrote above.this makes me smile.this actually has nothing to do with professionall status. In Moldova,the country i live we have 50-100 spectators on every match,somethimes even less.but the top league is fully professionall,players are training every day,sometimes twice a day,have professional contracts.but in real ,the way they play is AMATEUR to be honest ,and 90% of players earned in the league maximum 200 Euros Monthly.in many cases they don't get paid because some our prof clubs are out of money.and all moldovan football players probably dreams every day to play let say in Azerbaijan league,which is actually full of money(oil).and only 8 clubs.and then i read that Azerbaijan Top League is considered by wiki guys not fully professional it makes me smile.ok.i'm happy at least that Albanian 2 tier league have prof status on wiki:))have a nice day everyone.Kolya77 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the guidelines for inclusion of footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Khlaif Gharaibeh[edit]

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

Subject fails notability criteria per WP:ACADEMIC. Fjmustak (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No impact on field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as by far nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, quite noticeably shown by these contents. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McLaughlan[edit]

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

Delete: I don't know -- maybe it's me but isn't this article about a failed (serially) political candidate? Fan club article about Twitter personality, IMHO. I am ready for the brickbats. Quis separabit? 02:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate who lost. No other plausible claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very young political activist (b. 1996) who attracted some attention by filming a minor documentary (sources for this are primary, a listing at a film festival) and by running for Parliament (headline: "Teenagers Running for Parliament") I wish him a long life and success, but it's WP:TOOSOON for an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 7 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arashi Tadataka[edit]

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

The only proof this artist worked on this manga is a user-generated site, which is the only site that has information on this artist in English: [27]. I can find no sites mentioning this person in Japanese. This may be eligible for speedy deletion as a hoax, but in the least this person fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this person satisfies the basic notability requirements of WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 01:11, 1 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Entry Mein Entry[edit]

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

Film that keeps on getting reverted back-it falls under way too soon and has no notability to be found. (Personally I like to know how a film has a run time when it isn't coming out for at least another year) Wgolf (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to this article in India Business Times, this film has been shelved indefinitely. That is why we should not have articles about future films unless reliable sources report that principal photography has begun. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vapor project that never satisfied WP:NFF. And to Wgolf's point about the runtime, yes, and how do we know who the cast is and what their roles are? In this edit the IP adds Prem Khan to the cast. This was a guy who was spamming himself across the project a few months back. Article was previously redirected to No Entry#Sequel which might be a valid alternative to deletion provided the IP doesn't restore it again. However I lean toward deleting as it is unlikely to become anything. I think he's brought other articles out of redirects recently. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see evidence that it started filming. The above source that it was shelved means that we're going to need some kind of reliable sourcing for this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- A project that never satisfied WP:NFF- "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." As an interesting question, how did the editors of the article managed to gather the info about the starcast and even the running duration?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. Even the cast of film has not been finalised yet. Redirecting it to parent article is an option but we would need to semi-protect the title. Anup [Talk] 22:18, 2 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judwaa 2[edit]

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

Okay found this one on accident looking at a IP edits-seems to have a messy history and page was started in 2010 for a film that is apparently not even in production yet! I can't find any notability for this yet. Wgolf (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to our notability guideline for films:

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."

This applies perfectly to Judwaa 2, which has been delayed by casting issues. There is no female lead actress yet, and principal photography has not yet begun. Too soon for an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Another problem article restored by 98.169.246.130. Fails WP:NFF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judwaa#sequel where a possible/planned/announced sequel can be spoken of and sourced[28] even when not meriting a separate article. If or when it meets WP:NF the thing can always be properly resurrected. Wgolf? Cullen328? Cyphoidbomb? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, MichaelQSchmidt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll yield, though I do worry that this IP user will find it an attractive target for future un-redirects. His edits have been problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, redirect but also semi-protect the title (Special:Diff/744866263). Anup [Talk] 22:22, 2 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. Michig (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Siegel (producer)[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability—the article's sources are unreliable and/or mention the subject only in passing. Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person exists, but I have been unable to find any significant coverage of him in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability generally and BLP specifically. As noted by the nom, there are three sources in the stub, two of which are unreliable and one that has less than significant coverage of the subject. A quick online search shows that there have been zero news articles about this person. As I've noted at AfD before, producers are so common as to be run of the mill, and most have no creative input into films or music, but are rather just non-banking financiers or fiduciaries. There is no evidence that the subject here has done anything beyond signing some contracts to allow films be made from the decedent's works of fiction. Since this is such a clear case of abuse of our charitable standing, I'm invoking WP:SNOW and WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the article has been repeatedly recreated, I see no need to salt it. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:31, 1 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. despite limited participation, because it's clear that there is no notability DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panigrahi Labs[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. Coverage consists of a single Crunchbase article and some startup coverage. Otherwise I can only find LinkedIn and social media stuff. Article is more promotional than informative. Jbh ^Talk 18:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Finding no significant coverage in reliable sources; does not meet WP:N at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Girlsmagpk The Real Reason Lisa Is Having Better Days,girlsmagpk.com.

[2] Celebsfans Is “Claire De Lune” On Your Playlist?,celebsfans.com.

[3] Epressrelease Minh Quan Phan Young Vietnamese and top Asian Classical Pianist,epressrelease.org.

[1]

[2]

[3]