Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 April 17 April >

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) 11:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is This My World?[edit]

Is This My World? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable album that has not charted or appeared in significant independent coverage. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Come to that, the band, Jerry's Kids (band), is worth AfDing as well. That they existed is true, but I can't find any significant coverage about the band above and beyond namedrops along the lines of "So here are some of the bands in the early 1980s Boston punk scene ..." And in a 1980s punk scene in Boston article, that'd be one thing, but as a standalone, I don't see the independent notability. Ravenswing 11:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nigerian states by population density[edit]

List of Nigerian states by population density (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entries are either not backed by reliable sources, or the sources provided do not support the content. These concerns were registered on the article's talkpage weeks ago, but the creator ignored it. I think it is safe to assume that this page is a deliberate hoax. Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into List of Nigerian states by population. I wouldn't call it a hoax but it's certainly poorly sourced, full of errors and likely the product of original research. It uses an "estimated" population based on an assumed 3.3% per year growth. No documentation as to where this came from. For me, this just highlights the difficulty of maintaining large, complex, statistical tables in Wikipedia. It's too easy to make a mistake and difficult to identify and correct. Also susceptible to vandalism and very difficult to track and fix.Glendoremus (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:RS, reads like WP:OR. Possibly a hoax. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not even wrong because it violates a basic rule of science: too many assumptions, one on top of another, running around in circles. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Original research with nonfactual information. Better delete it or merge into List of Nigerian states by population density--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3: hoax deletion. As a note, it is not being deleted as G5, because the user was blocked after creating the page, and for non-socking reasons. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrupies[edit]

The Syrupies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy notability guidelines. Google search does not find any mention of this television series, finding mainly "syrupie" as a word (similar to "treaclie"). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wrestling Stars[edit]

New Wrestling Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 22:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This professional wrestling promotion in Puerto Rico seems to have been around for a short period in 2005 to 2006. I find no substantial coverage of it in reliable online sources and consider it fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Fails GNG as is. With the internal links, I assume there might be some external sources out there, but I'm not confident that there absolutely are. South Nashua (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratoz[edit]

Democratoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorially toned article about a band who may have valid potential claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC -- it's hard to definitively sift out from all the promotional bumf -- but is completely failing to properly source the accuracy of said claims: apart from one Q&A interview on a radio program syndicated to a whopping three whole low-power non-commercial community or campus radio stations located barely 50 miles apart from each other, the referencing here is otherwise parked entirely on YouTube videos. This is a pretty clear candidate for the WP:TNT treatment -- even if they can be properly demonstrated to pass NMUSIC criteria, the writing tone and referencing need to be so massively overhauled that rewriting the article from scratch would be preferable to retaining any trace of this version. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Shameless self-promotion by new SPA. Very poorly written, makes a mockery of WP:NPOV. No indication of passing WP:MUSIC and I don't see anything that helps it pass WP:GNG. Very poorly referenced. Overall a prime candidate for deletion, every point nom makes is valid & I fully agree. Rayman60 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawing and leaving as Keep. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Childbirth Trust[edit]

National Childbirth Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence provided of notability. Reads like a commercial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the organization. But when one of the references was a tweet and most of the rest is unreffed spam.
The BBC source is good. Have added it. Agree upon looking further that their is enough for notability it just needs to be added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Waheed - Bodube[edit]

Ibrahim Waheed - Bodube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source coverage to support it. The only notability "claim" here is that he's an as yet non-winning contestant in the still-in-progress season of a singing competition show, and the only "reference" here is the geographic map coordinates of the island he happens to come from, which is not reliable source coverage about him in any way, shape or form. (I've also stripped one other invalid WP:CIRCULAR reference to another Wikipedia article.) As always, musicians do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing; reliable source coverage about the musician must be present to verify that they get over NMUSIC for something, but nothing here meets either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar Dasgupta[edit]

Bhaskar Dasgupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little more than spam. No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know. There may be some adequate citations but I can't work out which belong to who. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The first reference talks about his father but only includes a quote made by Bhaskar about his father. I could not find him cited in the second reference and I was't able to find aditional references with in depth coverage. --Rogerx2 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penrith City Chiefs[edit]

Penrith City Chiefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines;no evidence given of "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" or "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization". My search could not find such sources. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter of this article occurred in the pre-internet age and at a time when American football in Australia was in its infancy. The league has been growing rapidly in recent times and as such, the history of the sport should be preserved. There are numerous contemporary, secondary sources in the form of newspaper articles which are currently being collated and are proposed to be added to this article. The subject matter, whilst appearing to constitute an absence of significant coverage in secondary sources, forms part of the history of Gridiron NSW and is therefore significant. There are two facebook pages dedicated to the Penrith City Chiefs, namely "Penrith City Chiefs - 3x State Champions!" and 1994 Penrith City Chiefs" and it is clear that a large quantity of contemporaneous material exists in support of the article's content. It is respectfully submitted that an opportunity for development of the article should be allowed prior to any premature deletion AUSSportsHistory (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AUSSportsHistory: It's not required that sources be online, just documented, and when I tagged the page, no sources were given. I think a Facebook page would likely not be considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. This youth team seems relatively minor in terms of organization notability. If it was part of a larger league or development of a sport, it could be mentioned as part of that larger subject- perhaps merging this with one of those pages. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability outside of the perplex of sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and therefore is completely non-notable outside of the bounds of Wikipedia which does not constitute notability at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of CSI: Miami characters. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Delko[edit]

Eric Delko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character. All but two of the provided references are references to Wikipedia itself -- and redirects to the list of episodes in per-season consolidation articles. Of the two other references, one is dead and the other is to a self-published recap site. This article described entirely in-universe context, and given no evidence of influencing culture, or literature, or any sort of literary study. No source of viable material is available to substantiate notability.

Pure fan cruft. Mikeblas (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while this article may not have any of it, there is plenty of industry press on the character, per the 'news' link in the above find sources template. Please use WP:BEFORE as a guide to searching for material with which to improve an article before nominating it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 01:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It can be rather difficult to determine whether or not this particular character has received significant out-of-universe coverage from reliable, third-party sources. There is plenty of sources offering plot summaries of the character's appearance in the show and there are plenty of sources giving brief mentions to the character while discussing the actor. Due to this, it would be helpful to point to some of the sources that show a more in-depth coverage of the character that support his notability to the point of having his own page. Just for clarification, I am not disagreeing with you. I just was curious on which sources you have found that may be helpful for other users. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of CSI: Miami characters per nom, and for the very reasons Aoba47 brought up in their above comment. While there are certainly plenty of hits that come up with searches, I'm having difficulty finding any that actually discuss the character in any meaningful way. Pretty much all the results I can find are either plot summaries, announcements that the actor (and thus character) is leaving/returning to the show, and brief mentions of the character in the context of talking about the actor (i.e., saying something along the lines of "Adam Rodríguez, who previously played Eric Delko in CSI: Miami, will be doing such and such"). The article is currently nothing but pure plot information, and I'm finding no sources that would really do anything to rectify this. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of CSI: Miami characters per nom and above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirecting if desired. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PatientPak[edit]

PatientPak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No pubmed indexed sources to support its use. Looks like spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Bělíček[edit]

Pavel Bělíček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a professor who, while prolific, doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements of WP:PROF. Good faith search for independent, reliable sources showing notability are coming up empty -- there are a large number of sources that originate with the subject, but not finding independent ones.

Taking to AfD instead of prod or speedy because sources showing notability are probably not in English and I might be missing something here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left an inquiry at the Czech Wikipedia village pump. The same person appears to be responsible for the creation of both pages, so the same resolution is likely needed in both language Wikipedias. bd2412 T 21:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He published lot of books in his publishing company, just few books outside with almost zero feedback. I went through first 100 links in Czech Google but have not found anything like significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Jklamo (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exactly two citations on Scholar, and an h-index of 1. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McCooey[edit]

Chris McCooey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete I can find no reference to support notability here. The refs are his own biography and examples of his writing and a quotation from him regarding his family in Japan after the earthquake. Nothing however that established any notability. He exists, he does what a journalist is paid to do but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McCooey has written articles for major broadsheet newspapers such as the Times, the Financial Times and the Telegraph under his own by-line. He is quoted in a number of biographies of Bill Clinton. He is a published author of travel and local history books and gives talks on these subjects which are reported in the local press. Users will expect to find information about him on Wikipedia. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is clear to me that Rjm at sleepers is in fact Mr McCoooey himself. This makes me especially fervent in recommending the page's deletion as it is a totally self-published article written by an evident master of self-publicity. As much as Mr McCoooey's published articles appear very interesting, I fail to see how either they, (or he for that matter) are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG --92.25.88.28 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Chris McCooey[citation needed]. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having played rugby with Bill Clinton does not make one notable, nor does being a free lance journalist by itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no information and no sources which serve to show his notability. MartinJones (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 02:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote brigading[edit]

Vote brigading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable article. Koala15 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say there isn't currently much of a deletion rationale, or why it's not notable, when a Google News search does show that the term is the subject of a good deal of attention. There's got to be something we can at least redirect or merge to? I l know we're not a dictionary of internet terms, but this kind of vote rigging online seems rather notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like there must be some kind of general-purpose article on the practice of rating things on the internet, to which this could be merged. If there is not such an article, we need one. bd2412 T 20:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant and widespread Internet phenomenon affecting many websites and commonly reported in media. —Lowellian (reply) 23:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I've started this article thinking that it should probably be merged in the future with the as of yet non-existing article about crowdvoting. If anyone wants to start that one I've no objections to a merge, otherwise keep. François Robere (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would object to a merge. Crowdvoting and vote brigading are not the same thing. —Lowellian (reply) 03:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widespread phenomenon that may have began online, but affects the real world in tangible ways like box office sales, public opinion, and so on. Jm3 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above, but try to expand--Kostas20142 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruelle (group)[edit]

Ruelle (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy musical notability. No references. Google search finds only the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I can certainly understand why the article was initially nominated for deletion, given its poor state at that time. Now, I'm not the original creator of the article, but I've greatly expanded it from that state and added references, and I believe in its newer, current, expanded state, the notability of the subject has been established, and that this article is a clear keep. —Lowellian (reply) 23:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was the original creator, and yes the original article I put up was poor and I had planned to go back to it, but it slipped the mind. Good to see the article has been expanded and that the notability has been recognised as it should as Lowellian has mentioned with her work on television shows.— Chriscore (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 18:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edge and Christian. North America1000 02:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge and Christian Show[edit]

The Edge and Christian Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another paywalled WWE Network series. Only available as a web-only program. It features two notable subjects but there's no evidence of significant coverage outside of primary sources. The only reference as of now is a tweet by one of the hosts. Any useful content could be merged to Edge and Christian but I don't think there is any. KaisaL (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 18:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Edge and Christian. If anyone is interested in this aspect of their team, they can find it there. bd2412 T 20:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, there's barely anything to merge. Daß Wölf 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nothing to indicate this show has stand-alone notability, but a redirect seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Papaursa.--Jobas (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hong Kong T20 Blitz. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Island United[edit]

Hong Kong Island United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to have article. GreenCricket (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 03:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nil participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 17:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hong Kong T20 Blitz. All five of the teams participating in this obscure league are linked from the article, implying that articles should be made. However, since none of them have notability extending beyond the notability of the league, it would make more sense to add a paragraph about each in the page on the league, with that paragraph serving as the section redirect target for links from each named team. bd2412 T 20:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

StreetDrone[edit]

StreetDrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable--not actually produced and no way to know if it ever will be. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Fails WP:COMPANY.FITINDIA (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:TOOSOON. Alos, CSD A7 was declined based on recognition over a single available source 'The Drive' but I couldn't find any other credible secondary source; also, not sure why an article from The Express been cited as it does not speak of the subject at all. TopCipher (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 21:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disclosure: I declined the A7: The single independent source is not enough to meet the notability policy for companies. As I discussed with DGG on their talk page, a far-too-soon article that's gotten no further coverage after The Drive. Appable (talk | contributions) 08:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of primary contributor expressing an interest in continuing to work on this article, Draftify. I still stand that it's too soon, but drafting will allow the article to be updated until it's met notability requirements for mainspace publication. It's clear at any rate that since this company is very new, new independent sources will likely be available over time. Appable (talk | contributions) 13:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added in additional citation. Also from their twitter page and website so looks like production is actually happening, so I think this is the right time. JoeOxford (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added in additional citations from other sources. JoeOxford (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeOxford: Please do not cast multiple votes; kindly consider commenting instead. Thanks.TopCipher (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Topcipher: Apologies, I have now added some more relevant citations. JoeOxford (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeOxford: Appreciate you taking the time in expanding your contributions but I'm a bit confused with the recent 2 references that have been added.
1. The Paddock Magazine has mentioned that "CREATING THE PRESTON EV STREETDRONE" on a December 2016 post while the subject was founded in April 2017? - Not quite sure if we're using the right reference here.
2. The Business Magazine post which was released yesterday (18 April, 2017) is a press release which again does not help establish claim of significance (which is required to establish notability).
Might I recommend going through this essay here which states - no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. TopCipher (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 joe deckertalk 17:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STV News and General[edit]

STV News and General (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page adds nothing significant to the STV News and General item in the TV channels section of Shanghai Media Group. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article could meet WP:BROADCAST. "Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." Shanghai is certainly a major market. However the guideline begins: "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors..." There are no reliable sources on this article at present. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the article is about a channel from a TV station. The station itself is definitely notable. But the channel's notability is unclear. None of the reference in the Chinese wiki qualities as in-depth coverage, and I cannot find any independent reliable source that covers the channel in detail from Google.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 03:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Absolutely nil particpation/!vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sourcing is minimal and lacks depth, as is argued convincingly. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Caribe Resort[edit]

Grand Caribe Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. I could not find any significant coverage. Note there is a similarly named Gran Caribe Resort in Cancun. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Belize is *not* Mexico. Never has been. 2 different resorts some 580km apart have nada to do with each other. Belize is a small, 36-year-old country and requires research in local sources. Like other CARICOM countries, its news outlets rarely come up in a google search. This [17] shows that the Grand Caribe Resort ranked 25th in the world on Trip Advisor's 2012 list. This [18], this [19] and this [20] show it is a resort used for regional meetings/conferences. This [21] shows it is involved in the community. This [22] and this [23] describe amenities and special features of the resort. This [24] shows that in 2016 the resort was rated #13 of the 25 best hotels in Central America by Trip Advisor. While the amount of coverage might not be significant from a US or UK perspective, for a developing nation, the hotel has received a significant amount of coverage in the national news. SusunW (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your commment. tripadvisor rankings do not count to establishing notability, nor would I say participating in a beach clean up . all this source confirms was that the resort held the event and nothing about the resort beyond that mention. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
also this looks like a travel guide listing. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was Mexico nor the same resort, just that similarly named hits come up. LibStar (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage is all run of the mill. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:SusunW's analysis, thanks for doing that! Note, the deletion nominator has not notified the article creator of this AFD. Their not doing so in other AFDs has been commented upon by others, and I also think they should. This article was PRODed and notice was given to the article creator, but that was by another editor back in 2010. --doncram 15:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there is no requirement to notify article creators, so you can keeping saying that to the cows come home. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a courtesy and I find it rude. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to San Pedro Town#Tourism. This seems to be an entity that is particularly notable within its locality, but not in the world as a whole. Merging would enable the sliver of information to be discovered by someone wanting to know about the area as a whole, or someone searching for the exact phrase. bd2412 T 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources offered at this AfD are local (WP:AUD) or do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Content is currently strictly WP:PROMO, as in "Hs two pools! Salt water is gentler on the skin!" Etc.
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Failing that, redirect to San Pedro Town#Tourism -- there's nothing to merge as the article does not offer any independent sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising , and suitable for G11, tho Ido not want to do it once it is already here. I always notify people if I take their article is at AFD -- so does almost everyone else, and so does the default in Twinkle. It is necessary to go out of one's way to not do so--either changing the default or doing it manually. (People sometimes did omit it in the early years before we had twinkle & it was an additional manual step; it's different now.) If one brings this here one presumably wants the article deleted. Not notifying the contributor is something which tends to give people a reason to comment adversely on the deletion, because it looks unfair. It's the opposite of helpful. Just as important, the contributor might add enough to fix it--sometimes they do do when it is brought here, but bringing it here is the only way to sufficiently get their attention. Sometimes other people fix it; bringing it here is the effectually practical way to get it noticed. I think we all want articles fixed instead of deleted. Notifying is the way to do it. If it doesn't get fixed then, it's a good sign that it never would be. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 02:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice B. Magee[edit]

Beatrice B. Magee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNews found zero hits for either "Beatrice Magee" or "BeBe Magee". The only hits I'm getting are for sources already in the draft (and all but one are her own publications) or name drops (donations to charity etc). PROF is not demonstrated, nor is GNG. Primefac (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage in independent reliable sources, which the sources in the article are not. Fails WP:PROF. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been listed in article rescue squadron. Important scientific discovery(s) attributed to subject. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
trying to improve this article by finding more independent sources. Such as Medical Mycology in the United States: A Historical Analysis (1894–1996)
By Ana Victoria Espinell-Ingroff where she is credited for her discoverys. I don't know if it would be appropriate to condense the bibliography section or not. Also there is/was a problem with the subject's name. And other help comments about what would improve this article would be appreiciated-thank youTeeVeeed (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being listed at the ARS is not a reason to keep. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it possible that this would be a stronger article if it was about both BeBe and Paul Magee? They seem to have worked as a team for quite a long time. Her work seems highly cited, also. What do others think? Please ping me, or I'll miss the discussion! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. There are 45 references; but the first does not mention the subject, and the other 44 were all written or co-written by hr. Maproom (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She and her husband and their Institute for Candida Experimentation at the University of Minnesota played an important role in the sequencing of the genome of Candida albicans. There are independent references that talk about their role and their key papers (sometimes I can actually get into jstor, etc). StarryGrandma (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I find a GS h-index of 19? when searching for "B B McGee" which, in a very highly cited field, does not quite pass WP:Prof#C1. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  • Not to get too pedantic, but she's been a researcher since the '60s. The TOOSOON window has probably passed ;) Primefac (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I find a GS h-index of 28 when searching for "B B McGee" which, in a very highly cited field albeit with many coauthors, passes WP:Prof#C1. Full publication list needs to be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    That is an interesting point, given that she was principal author on only 7 articles, and there only about that many (not in the same group) where there are <3 editors. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By Principal author I assume you mean first on the list of authors. There has never been consensus here about author order because it varies greatly between fields of research and institutions. I note that there are no single-author papers. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
You make a good point. The last two fields I worked in went by primary author, but now that I think about it some list alphabetically regardless of project role. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some in reverse alphabetical order, some put the guiding spirit at the end of the list, some, based on a student PhD, put the student's name first regardless of the power of the student's contribution to the project. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: h-index or other indices which indicate citations are not reliable and are per Wikipedia:Prof of limited use and should be "approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted". Studies on their use with women show an underreporting of citations due to author name variants and the fact that male scientists routinely cite other male scientists, while women scientists cite both men and women's work.[25] SusunW (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The citation data are the only thing that make the subject notable, so if you think the data are not reliable you will presumably vote for delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that the subject has written enough articles and done enough significant work in the field that the subject is notable. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nerd1a4i, the job of an academic is to do research and write papers. If they've written 50 papers over their tenure, it just means that they're doing their job. That's why we need secondary sources that write about the subject, and why we have metrics like WP:PROF. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion above. There are well over a thousand sources on the scholar link, although it seems that an editor above does not accept their validity. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:PROF, as shown by the citation record 11 papers with over 100 citations each -- normally just one such paper is enoguh to show notability. h value without further analysis is not sufficient,because one needs to look at the actual distribution h =28 in non-notable if there are 28 papers all with 28 refs each, but when almost half of them are over 100 refs, its another matter entirely. Even for a very highly cited field; even for multiple authorships. Maproom, WP:PROF is not WP:GNG -- it is the papers by the person themselves that show the notability. rimfac, it is the job of a scientist to do research; those that do it notably well are notable. Just like authors: it's their job to write books, or politicians, or athletes , or anyone else. everyone who is notable is notable because they have been notable in their field of life. (the only except are the "celebrities" who can be thought of as "notable for being notable." without havingactually ever done anything significant. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I concur with StarryGrandma over claim of significance and also with Xxanthippe and DGG over notability and adding to all that, a piece of trivia which I believe may have been overlooked per the information provided here which says "She is known nationally and internationally for performing one of the worlds first karyotypes of Candida albicans using pulsed field gel electrophoresis" - just adding to something that has already been justified. TopCipher (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 11 papers with >100 citations each in Google scholar (several as first author) is enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments to delete are significantly more convincing than the arguments to keep. Even if the claims of Handke being "the most successful night fighter radar operator" were true, the arguments for passing WP:SOLDIER might still be dubious. However, with the uncertainty that those claims are even true (per Assayer's argument), the keep arguments crumble. I'd have nothing against merging some of the material from this article into Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer or other relevant articles. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 00:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Handke[edit]

Erich Handke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link; just passing mentions in the context of other crew members. Successful completion of missions ("flew 128 sorties as a radio operator") is not included in SOLDIER. Notability is not inherited from better known pilots.

No de.Wiki article. Per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. Subsequent to the discussion, the article was redirected. In this case, the redirect has been challenged, hence the AfD.

Please also see a recent AfD for an article where a redirect had been likewise challenged:

K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; definitely non-notable. Update: I've considered the new content/refs and don't see being a member of a successful crew as contributing to personal notability.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aghast at the ignorance. The most successful night fighter operator of the war. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I would have voted delete, but for the last comment). I am dubious whether any radio operator should qualify as notable. He was not the pilot, only a member of the crew. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the "keep" vote offers a personal opinion, but does not provide any sources to confirm subject's notability. In any case, "successful completion of missions" is not covered in SOLDIER. The same position was presented at Talk:Erich_Handke#Notability, and I believe that such opinions, not backed up by sources, should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the irony Coffmann. That is easily done. It is a fact, not an opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources on his part in the most successful night fighter team and highlighted the role of a radar operator in the success of the pilot. He supported the highest scoring night fighter pilot in history - Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer. Dapi89 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as notable, given the unique role played; otherwise, would not be notable. Delete. Note/update, per new information provided below: if Friedrich Rumpelhardt, was in fact "the most successful radar operator", with Schnaufer, then I must change my opinion on this stand alone article and state that Handke should be a mention in Schnaufer's article and the appropriate Luftwaffe article, instead. Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone bio; the subject could be briefly mentioned in the Schnauffer article, as that's how he's covered. I don't see sources that establish independent notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claim that Handke was the most successful night fighter operator of the war is unsupported by any sources. Not surprising, because literature has it, that Friedrich Rumpelhardt was the most successful radar operator — in terms of aerial victories claimed — in the Luftwaffe night fighter force. He was Schnaufer's regular crew member. According to Wikipedia's GA-Article Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer#Rumpelhardt_is_absent Schnaufer claimed just five aerial victories with Oberfeldwebel Erich Handke. Although I like the idea of successful teams instead of heroic aces, I do not believe that Schnaufer's notability extends to anybody who flew with him or supported him. --Assayer (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact his actual tally with Schnaufer could be as high as 20 (Mackay) and as the regular operator of Drewes (43) plus Kraft (14). And that he was part of the most successful night fighter team of all time is undisputed. Your opinion about the notability of radar operators is ill-considered. Without them, you have no night fighter aces. Dapi89 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Handke's "actual tally with Schnaufer" is questionable, ranging somewhere between five and 20 (which is a huge margin), how reliable are these statistics after all? The GA on Schnaufer recounts in minute detail with whom he scored how many aerial victories. So that information is unreliable? To my understanding a "night fighter team" (on a Bf 110) means three people: pilot, gunner, radio operator. Militaria literature has it that the most successful "night fighter team" of the Luftwaffe consisted of Schnaufer, Rumpelhardt and Wilhelm Gänsler (gunner). Handke was mainly with Drewes and Georg Petz. Isn't it that you argue that Handke is notable, simply because he flew with Schnaufer a few times?--Assayer (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just took notice that on 10 February 2017 Dapi89 stated about Friedrich Rumpelhardt Most successful radar operator in the Luftwaffe, part of the most successful night-fighting team in air warfare. On 9 April 2017 he stated about Erich Handke The most successful night fighter operator of the war. How many "most successful radar operators of the war" do actually exist? --Assayer (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about side-stepping the issue.
Who says they are questionable? Sources differ, that is the nature of history - particularly in figures. That doesn't make them all unreliable because they conflict. Given it is figures we are talking about, 5 to 20 it is not a huge margin, by any stretch of the imagination.
He was part of the most successful night fighter team: fact. He was arguably the most successful operator of the war, certainly one of two: fact. Drewes (43), Kraft (14) and Schnaufer (5-20) still qualifies him as part of the most successful night fighter team and the reason 62-77 bombers were shot down.
Radio operators were the critical factor in the success of a night fighter pilot: fact. In that regard there is every reason to mention them, particularly this one. Dapi89 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This is not about overclaiming. These numbers are based upon the official numbers given by the Luftwaffe. These do not range "somewhere between five and 20". We are talking about night fighters. Many German night fighter aces did not reach a tally as high as 15. It is more likely that either Schumann or Mackay has made a mistake. Furthermore, Drewes did not score all of his kills with Handke as radio operator. And, no, Handke was not arguably the most successful operator of the war, certainly one of the two. Walter Kubisch, for example, was with Helmut Lent in 80 of Lent's 102 night fighter victories. Noone objects mentioning radio operators. The point is: For whom independent notability can be established. It cannot for Handke.--Assayer (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, what am I talking about? Who mentioned anything about over claiming? And so what if they are official figures? I don't see nearly the same level of vitriol or criticism leveled at Allied aces. And we're not talking about the many, but a select few. Around 20 achieved 50. That is a large number. But what is your point? The context of night fighting from the German perspective, was a long campaign in a target-rich environment. Expert crews were used to death; literally. In many cases, hand-picked for continuous operations. The number of victories claimed to missions flown are remarkably similar. 15 victories isn't that many, and shows a gratuitous lack of understanding of the bigger picture. Drewes claimed "most" of his victories with Handke, in that sense the sources do agree, so we relegate your assertions to opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Night fighter combat claims have been recorded and confirmed by the Luftwaffe and its Abschusskommissionen. Their numbers do not range somewhere between X and Y by a margin of roughly 20%. Otherwise it would not be possible to put together almost complete statistics, e.g. with whom Schnaufer flew for all of his aerial victories claimed.
You started out by calling Handke "the most successful night fighter operator of the war", which, as you already knew very well back then, isn't true; you then declared him "part of the most successful night fighter team of all time", which isn't true either. And you claimed he was "one of two" most successful operators. Which is also not true, even if we choose to ignore, that by definition it is impossible to have two most successful operators. I am not talking about the exingencies of night fighting from the perspective of the Luftwaffe. Neither did I introduce extraordinary claims to establish individual notability. If you feel that radio operators of German night fighter "aces" deserve their own articles, please proceed to seek support for that in the community. --Assayer (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given two of the pilots he flew with have their own articles as aces, I think it's only fair that he also has an article since his role was vital to their victories. This is not like a bomber crew; this is two men in a plane. To only credit the pilot with the victories is unfair to say the least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't believe the above to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion (it's only fair that he also has an article...; it's unfair [to only credit the pilot]), and should be discounted. No sources have been presented; and notability is not inherited from better known pilots. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's called an opinion! See below for further explanation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claims of Handke's uniqueness have been disproved one by one. I fail to see how that can be done more throughly. It is furthermore misleading to suggest that pilots have their own "articles as aces". There is no such provision in any notability guideline, and Wikipedia is not about crediting otherwise unknown radio operators with victories.--Assayer (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a longstanding consensus that aces have their own articles. See Category:German World War II flying aces. Most of them wouldn't have articles if they weren't aces. The same goes for most other aces. In fact, a fair number of AfDs have been defeated for the simple fact that the individual was an ace and therefore deserves an article. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it seems odd to dismiss this individual just because he wasn't a pilot whereas if he was a pilot his article would almost certainly not be deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind linking a few of these AfDs? To my understanding Wikipedia features such articles, because the Knight's Cross was once indiscriminately considered to be the highest military award of Nazi Germany. Since many Nazi German "aces" were also recipients of the Knight's Cross, they thus met one of the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. As has been pointed out by the nominator above, however, that procedure has been discussed and subsequently modified. It is also worth noting, that the number of aerial victories required to officially qualify as an "ace" is usually considered to be five or more, whereas at some point during the war it took 20 up to 30 aerial victories to qualify for a Knight's Cross. If any "ace" would have his own article, the standard would thus be considerably lower for fighter pilots than for any other soldier.--Assayer (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't just mean German aces. See, for instance, Category:British World War I flying aces. Most only have an article because they were aces. A number have been AfDed and kept for this reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The community has recently done away with "Panzer aces" and "submarine aces" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submarine ace). Is it being suggested that "Radar operator aces exist? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has done away with these because they are subjective. However, air aces are not subjective. The total of five kills to qualify as an ace is long established. This is an unusual case as most air aces are pilots. However, in a night fighter the radar operator was just as vital to the victory as the pilot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Air aces" are just as subjective as any other military "aces". The whole concept of "ace" originated with French WW I propaganda and was unknown in Germany during WW I and WW II. I would still be interested in links to those AfDs.--Assayer (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The criterion of "Successful completion of missions" (i.e. sorties completed, enemy airplanes shot down, tank "kills", etc) is not part of WP:SOLDIER. So the assertion that every ace deserves an article does not match MilHist project's own guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not. However, as I've already said, it has long been accepted. As I have also said, I don't necessarily agree with it, but if we're going to keep articles on pilots just because they were aces (and we most certainly have done), why are we deleting articles on other aircrew who also qualify? That seems subjective, weird and discriminatory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have opened an RfC on this issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC on the notability of flying aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Possibly top-scoring Weapon systems officer of all times - 178 kills. WSO with high double digit kill count. Participating in such a kill count meets SOLDIER(4) - and is equivalent to taking out a Aviation Division single-handedly (ok - with WSO - two-handedly) - destorying a division clearly meets SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign;".Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC) realized kill count misstated, but still extremely high.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In the modern jet area WSOs are credited with kills. Most of the us vietnam aces were WSOs, with entries on wiki, with significantly less kills than Handke. In wwii treatment of radio or radar operators was as crew, but postnwar modern treatment isn't as such. Also note night fighter kills were harder to come by, and bombers were valuable multi crew targets, making the kill count here even more significant.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And WWI WSO-like observers with 5 kills have entries, eg Johann Lasi.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Being an ace alone is enough, IMO. And "no German WP page" is a non-starter; there are dozens of U.S. hot rodders deserving of a page here who don't have one, either... And teamwork in NF ops is key; any "RIO" of WW2 who aided in more than a couple of kills is notable, IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the above comment is akin to WP:ILIKEIT and is not based in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Being an "ace" may get you on a list, but if there are insufficient sources to write a balanced biography, such article should be deleted or redirected to a list. In short, the arguments "ace" = Keep should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-notable. I went line by line through WP:SOLDIER, the article does not meet criteria. Ifnord (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 2)#Ika. Material is already contained elsewhere and there is consensus that it isn't standalone notable. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ika Wong[edit]

Ika Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability. I redirected the article, per WP:ATD, to an appropriate target and it was reverted with a lovely all-caps edit summary of "VANDALISM" from the article creator. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was vandalism. Deletion is up for discussion, you can't just redirect it without a consensus. musicalorange6 (talk} 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you read WP:ATD, you'll see that redirection is appropriate and no consensus is required. It's not vandalism - it's responsible editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Katta[edit]

Family Katta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence in the text or the refs that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (films), basically a plot summary with refs that just confirm its existence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per a simple Google search with only the title. Keep per review 1, review 2, review 3, review 4, and a news article. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did notice that the nominator stated that the websites for the third and fourth review are suspect, but I'm not sure how. I don't see any difference than the usual United States based film sources that are considered reliable. Both websites are not user submitted and have hired critics. Marathi Celebs even has an editor. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – Meets WP:NFP per two full reviews and one short article about the film. See below. North America1000 02:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Paxton-Beesley[edit]

Alex Paxton-Beesley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actress, who has only debatable claims to passing WP:NACTOR and no reliable sources to support it. This is referenced entirely to IMDb and her "staff" profile on the website of the network that airs the show she's in -- and her role in Murdoch Mysteries was much more minor than anything one could call "best known for", as she appeared in just five episodes (the series has produced 150 to date) and not even always as the same character. As always, actresses do not automatically get a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed and primary sourced -- she must be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources for an article to become earned. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when enough RS coverage can be added to get her in the door, but nothing stated or sourced here is enough to get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the subject is not notable. Does not pass the WP:GNG as the subject does not have significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. A WP:BEFORE search found no such sources. Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR as the subject does not seem to have a "cult or large following" and does not seem to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". The only way that this could pass WP:NACTOR is that if the subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but that is not passed as the subject, Alex Paxton-Beesley does not seem to have significant roles in the films mentioned in the article. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 18:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant Pure as a significant role — she plays the protagonist's wife — but definitely not Murdoch Mysteries, and even if we accept Pure it does indeed take multiple significant roles, not just one, if you're going for "notable because she's had roles" rather than "notable because she got nominated for a major acting award for one of them", and it still takes reliable source coverage about her, not just "roles are listed". Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KAP03. 207.102.255.248 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is still not 100% clear to me from the article that her role in Pure is actually significant. However even if it is, there is a reason why the guidelines are multiple significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider. There is no question her role in Pure is significant; she is main cast and the wife of the lead. And she does have multiple significant roles; see my comment below. —Lowellian (reply) 04:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A person does not get a free pass over NACTOR just because you list and claim significance for two roles. An NACTOR pass lives or dies on whether the claim is properly reliably sourced over GNG, and no actor ever gets exempted from having to clear GNG just because roles are listed but not properly sourced in the article. Bearcat (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not disputing that the article needs sourcing, but, for the record, significance was claimed for three roles, not two. —Lowellian (reply) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if significance is claimed for 10,000 roles — if the sourcing isn't there to support it, the article still doesn't get kept just because the claim has been made. Bearcat (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already acknowledged in the comment that you were replying to that the article needs sourcing. —Lowellian (reply) 03:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In both Pure and Copper, she has a central role as the wife of the lead. Furthermore, in The Firm, she is the defendant in the continuing case that forms the story arc of the entire series. That meets WP:NACTOR's criterion of multiple significant roles. —Lowellian (reply) 04:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained above, NACTOR is not passed just because multiple roles are asserted. She has to have been the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage about her — and no number of "significant" roles exempts her from having to be reliably sourced. And exactly zero of the sources here are contributing anything at all toward making her notable enough — the only one that's even a valid source at all is the Toronto Star (#2), and that just glancingly namechecks the fact that she exists while being not even slightly about her otherwise. IMDB is not a reliable source, her own staff profile on the CBC's own website is not an independent source, and Novella is a PR blog and not a real newspaper — so exactly none of them assist a GNG pass at all. Bearcat (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a property inherent to the subject, not a property of the article. AFD is not cleanup: articles about non-notable subjects should always be deleted; however, bad articles about notable subjects should be improved, not deleted. I'm not disputing that the article as it currently stands is poor and inadequately sourced. But the subject is sufficiently notable that the article could be improved to a properly-sourced good article. —Lowellian (reply) 03:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, notability is a property of the subject: as determined by whether the subject has the degree of reliable source coverage necessary to pass the test, because reliable source coverage is the definition of notability and the measurement of whether it's been attained or not. It's not enough to just assert that the article "could" be improved to a properly sourced good article — the onus is on you to show hard evidence that the degree of reliable source coverage necessary to make the subject notable does exist out there, preferably by actually improving the article with good sourcing while this discussion is underway, but at the very least by showing real evidence in this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, right off the bat she's not "best known" for Pure (which is an incredibly recent role). She's been around a while. But she's the kind of journeyman actress that like won't pass WP:BASIC. This is another one that should have been created in Draftspace first and developed there to try to track down sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tinderbox (band)[edit]

Tinderbox (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC. The main author WP:SPA apparently has a WP:COI and the content has a promotional feel. Kleuske (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found a few concert announcements which appeared to repeat press releases, and some coverage from Maverick magazine. Not enough to establish notabilty, but if anyone can find more I would be happy to reconsider. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches complicated by multiple bands using same name, but no apparent notability for this version. Despite claims of producing 7 albums (which would, if verifiable, possibly enough to WP:NMUSIC#5), neither AllMusic nor Discogs confirms. According to their web site, these appear to be all self-released. None of the references included establish more than bare existence and that they are performing at gigs. No significant coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt given the previous deletions Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand national under-14 football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Thailand national under-14 football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined because some of the minutiae of the article are different; the subject however is not. The same notability concerns of failing WP:GNG from three years ago still apply. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think it is great the kids are involved in sports at a young age. But the article lacks reliable sources and notable media coverage.Knox490 (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Youth football teams are not usually notable unless there is something exceptional that means they pass GNG, I see nothing exceptional here Seasider91 (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing anything to suggest notabilty. Simply existing at this level isn't enough. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is poorly sourced and just seems to be an arbitrary list of records, with nothing pass WP:N mentioned. I would really like to expand Wikipedia's coverage of less well known football teams and tournaments, but unfortunately this is not notable enough yet. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT, no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZNetLive[edit]

ZNetLive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:COMPANY. ZNetLive's article looks like an advertisement & promotion of the brand, the company has done lots of PR online and but not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good business from India but not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. Knox490 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not have substantial grounds for Wiki standards. Promotional and directory purpose alone. Light2021 (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ATTENTION: I just checked the history of user User:Vinay089, who merely have any positive contribution to Wikipedia. This account seems to be sock, and created solely with purpose of deleting notable articles. (The account Vinay089 is under sockpupet investigation, Here) He nominates the article for deletion even without informing the creator of page (He doesn't leave notification on talk page). The user merely aware about Wikipedia's policy. One more important thing which should be consider, he nominates the article and copy paste same reason in every in each and every AFD. You may check the list of article he nominated and the given reason.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Elton-Rodrigues, Thanks for mentioning me, I'm a Wikipedia user/editor as any other. If I see any article that is not notable and should not be up (within specific category), then I had/have/will nominate that for investigation as it comes under my rights. I guess you're new here because the article gets deleted/removed by decision of multiple editors. So find some more information about Wikipedia. Just fyi, sock has happened because I was trying to create a new article which was already created, not for adding delete nominations. May I know why it's hurting you so much? Are you an paid editor? Vinay089 (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeldo Mar Baselios Church, Thalachira[edit]

Yeldo Mar Baselios Church, Thalachira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the article has a claim to notability as "the first church dedicated to Baselios Yeldo, I couldn't find any coverage about this church at all. Places of worship aren't inherently notable, and while the article has a claim that, if proven true, could make it notable, I just can't find anything that verifies that statement. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lack of coverage on the church. Knox490 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- No categories; no referneces; and a typically NN local church. Mar means I think saint. It might possibly be worth adding one sentence to Baselios Yeldo. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability. Apparently related to Baselios Yeldo which is a single source article. When a search result returns YouTube, facebook, blogspot, and a template that includes an "Own this business?" question, there is not much to go on. Facebook shows it exists, and would be considered "official" for an "External link" but not as a reference or to advance notability. I also did not find any sources to reference the claim "the first church dedicated to Baselios Yeldo". A language rewrite would not be feasible without references. The article consisted of 833 bytes, before I added the tag. Looking back at this deletion discussion there is already far more content here than the article contains (just counting mine) and the discussion just started. If we just took out "Worlds First Church in the name of Saint Yeldo Mar Baselios Bava." there would be about 66 bytes less or an 8% reduction.
No original research (OR) is a policy. The foundation for preventing this is contained in the Wikipedia fundamental principles known as "Five Pillars". Among those are Verifiability and without this we have OR. Otr500 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion does not indicate what the criteria it invokes are and what the consensus for them is.  Sandstein  07:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banana island (diet)[edit]

Banana island (diet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a health-focused topic, so much so that it would seem impossible to write an article about it without mentioning the diet's claimed health effects. However, per WP:MEDRS, we may only do so using recent scientific review articles. I looked through Google Scholar and PubMed and was unable to find any suitable sources, except possibly one article mentioning Dr. George Harrup's skim-milk-and-banana diet from 1934, which was never referred to as the "banana island" diet as far as I can tell. FourViolas (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - At present, this seems to be a phantom topic. Some sources refer to it as the "banana island diet", others say someone is "on Banana Island". Some present it as the latest short term weight-loss miracle, others as a long-term miracle change to your diet that will make you live forever. Some discuss eating nothing but bananas as a way of somehow and for some reason replacing the body's own detoxification system, others as vital sources of nutrients that apparently humans evolved to need without having access to. In short, this is one term being applied to a potpourri of diet/nutrition fads without quite settling on whether this is the grapefruit diet or the idea that you must drink eight 8 ounce glasses of cold water every day. The closest we have a MEDRS source here is livescience giving nutritional info on bananas, with no apparent reference to the topic (i.e., its inclusion in this article is synthesis). Without reliable mainstream sources discussing the fringe medical claims, we are left with a hodgepodge of newspaper articles and beauty magazines talking about people eating more bananas to various degrees for various lengths of time for various reasons. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without reputable WP:MEDRS, which are not yet available, the article is based on tabloid-style editing, in one or two cases from publications which ought to have known better, and they all essentially repeat the same nothing, i.e. that the diet includes a lot of bananas. Without reliable facts about the (ill-)effects, this is basically just gossip. Delete as WP:TOOSOON if not WP:NOTNEWS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are those criteria? I could well be overlookinga previous consensus, but if not that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. In any case, grapefruit diet has a RS saying its weight loss claims have "no support from a biochemical standpoint", and cabbage soup diet is mentioned in several RS [26][27][28][29]. FourViolas (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, well said. A !vote based on a call to criteria which do not exist is not well-founded, and should be considered void. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 02:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Hastings[edit]

Melissa Hastings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character which does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Michigan Avenue, Entertainment Tonight, EW, and Wetpaint to demonstrate ongoing coverage from this week. Never seen a single ep, never heard of the character before the AfD, and yet I can find all these sources trivially. Isn't that what WP:BEFORE is for? Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A fictional character that does pass WP:GNG. I agree with Jclemens. What is up with AfD nominators not searching first? It wouldn't waste other editor's time. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 02:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese mythology[edit]

Vietnamese mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vietnam, or specifically as mentioned here, its ethnic majority, the Kinh people, do not have well-documented mythology. All the sources used in this article only demonstrate what should fall under the category of "legend" and "folklore" - inherited stories that may or may not be true, or involve fantasy elements. The Vietnamese lack any well-established pantheon and they worship no gods, such as the sun god (Helios, Apollo, Ra, Amaterasu, etc.), the moon god (Diana, Tsukuyomi, etc.). There's no known credible creation myth that describes how the world or the country was created. Mythology in Vietnam is only established among ethnic minorities (the Rade people for example), and if this article can't provide any information concerning that, it should not be kept. The Vietnamese corresponding article is not a helpful and confident source either as it's extremely poorly sourced. Various accounts have also been established, for example this one, but those are highly dubious, poorly described, not based on any citable extensive research, and riddled with elements imported from Chinese myths which begs the question about their legitimacy Fumiko Take (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment none of that sounds like a reason to delete the article. Legends and folklore can obviously be covered in a mythology article. That there is no systematic system of mythology is not reason to not cover the existing mythology of Vietnam. That there is no such systematic system seems to make the case that it is even more important to have a general overview article, instead of less so, since there would not be a systematic system article to refer to (unlike say an article on Shintoism, instead of Japanese mythology in general). Indeed, it is the nature of people that there would not be a systematic system of mythology, since such a system is unnatural as mythology develops locally, while religion is what systematizes local myths. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has clear scholarly relevance (see e.g. the explicit references to Vietnamese mythology [30],[31],[32] and [33]). I prefer not to comment on the nomination's arguments and overall tone. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with above comments, and dictionary has both legends and folklore listed as synonyms for mythology. Seraphim System (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. Godwulf is clearly mentioned but not discussed independently by primary sources. There is simply not enough in-depth discussion of him as a person to have a stand-alone article. A redirect to the genealogies is a sensible solution as it preserves his name as a search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godwulf[edit]

Godwulf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a name that appears in a pedigree, not a historical individual, and without any associated biographical detail other than being son of the previous person and father of the next. He does not appear in any of the other heroic sources, such as Beowulf or Widsith, so his entire historic tradition is that he was father of Finn and son of Geat, just a name between two other names.

As to scholarship, only one passing reference from the 19th century has been found that specifically addresses him as an individual, and all it says of him is ". . . and his son Godwulf too, confounded by some with Fulcwalda, looks mythical." All other discussion simply relates to the different versions of the pedigree in which he appears and attempts to explain the one pedigree in which his name has been replaced. This is not notability.

Effectively we have already had this discussion, as we previously had a duplicate page addressing the same subject. There were other issues involved there as well, but the decision made was that this individual was not notable, and the page was made into a redirect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godulf Geoting I am not aware of any scholarship since that time that would make this name more notable now than 5 years ago. It should either be deleted or, as with that page, redirected to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, which discusses the genealogies in context, rather than as isolated individuals about which nothing can be said other than that they appear in the genealogies.

Taking to AfD because page history shows two different editors, one in 2012, one (me as an IP) in 2016, trying to convert this page to redirect, only to be reverted by the same editor. Agricolae (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
we have lots of articles on given names, I see no reason to delete. If necessary merge. --dab (𒁳) 19:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an article on a given name. It is an article on a supposed individual about whom nothing is known other than his given name and those of his supposed father and son in an entirely made-up pedigree. Agricolae (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies or similar article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to an appropriate article on the genealogy in which he appears. This is a person about whom we know NOTHING apart from being stated to be son of another such person and father of a third. As other versions of the genealogy do not name him at all. Protect the redirect against being reverted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, do not merge, do not redirect. Merging this artcile and those related to it creates unnecessary confusion and discourages additions. Secondary sources discuss this particular figure from time to time. I see no reason to haphazardly toss it into a general geneaology article. I see no reason why this would benefit anyone at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of significant coverage in . . . secondary sources as required by Wikipedia:Notability (people) was pointed out in November, and you replied, "You're welcome to go digging and see what you find beyond Grimm." When it was pointed out the one source given was insufficient, you responded, "Well, I'm not exactly making an evening of it. I'm sure there's plenty more out there to dig up. Why not see what you can find." No source has been added to the article since, but now you say secondary sources discuss him from time to time. What are these sources, and exactly how much do they 'discuss' him - it would have to be much more than Grimm's passing mention to qualify as significant. Agricolae (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by that comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stand, sit, whatever, but that's three times a request for sources has been deflected rather than answered. A likely conclusion can be drawn from that. Agricolae (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I offer mine: do your own footwork. Thanks. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except you don't offer anything but a completely unsupported claim. 'There is lots of evidence that he is notable but I am not going to tell you what it is' is rather unpersuasive, as arguments go. Agricolae (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like 'I'm a busy guy and I'm not here to jump on command'. Now, I see you dug something up per my recommendation, so good for you. Unfortunately, the wording isn't neutral, so we'll need to take that on later. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Still have no references. Don't strain your busy self patting yourself on the back for getting me to dig something up - I didn't have to. I actually know what the sources say (and what they don't), because I have read them multiple times. The goal is to accurately represent the scholarly consensus, and when they agree the whole pedigree is a medieval invention, that is what we say. Note though that all of the references on the entire page are talking about the pedigree as a whole and not about Godwulf in particular, except the dated Grimm's passing reference. Agricolae (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, do not merge, do not redirect It is true that Godwulf is a minor character in Norse mythology. Agreed. He probably never existed. But minor Godwulf was, I see no reason to delete him, when a few unique things can be said about him dino (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you do realize that book you cited is just a printed mirror of selected Wikipedia pages, right? It is untrue that he is a character from Norse mythology, minor or otherwise. The only reason he appears in this category is that you wrote this when you created the page. Precisely two unique things can be said about him - first, that he is shown as son of Geat in the Anglo-Saxon pedigree tradition, and second, that he shown as father of Finn in most versions of the Anglo-Saxon pedigree tradition, but not in Anglo-Saxon heroic tradition. But those Icelanders, they were good at spinning yarns, so what do they say about Godwulf when in the 13th century they copied the Anglo-Saxon pedigree and spliced it onto their royal line? They said that he was son of Geat and father of Finn. That is the sum total of everything that the primary record says about him. However, this does not prove lack of notability, because there are names that appear in ancient sources only once that have killed many a tree to provide for all of the scholarly analysis. What does the secondary record add about Godwulf? sod all. There are occasional passing reference to his name appearing in the pedigree, or to the name being replaced by a different name in Historia Brittonum, or like Grimm's long-superseded 19th-century analysis, including him in broader speculation that all the names in the pedigree being those of gods, and that's it. Absolutely nothing about him as an individual. How does this possibly fulfill WP:Notability (people)? Agricolae (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, what is your point? Clearly, the article is badly written. It's not the only one on Wikipedia, and you are welcome to fix it. But you did not suggest cleanup, you suggested deletion. The article cites perfectly fine references, it just manages to make a complete mess of them, apparently to the point where you are no longer able to figure out what is being said. I do not blame you. Please fix the article, but please do not use the deletion process for this kind of discussion. --dab (𒁳) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that Godwulf fails the WP:GNG and WP:Notability (person), abysmally. A person, in this case really just a name in a pedigree, who is known only as father and son of two other names in the same pedigree, is not notable, and doesn't merit a page. Not a single biographical fact about him has ever been written in the scholarly record, while the pedigree containing the name has, ever since Sisam, been dismissed as a fabrication - there never was a Godwulf to have biographical details. The article has a lot of references, but they are about the pedigree, and in reproducing the pedigree they include the name Godwulf along with dozens of other names, usually as a simple list of the names: they are not about Godwulf and they do nothing but name him in this context, literally the only detail about him being that the name appears in this made up pedigree as son of Geat and father of Finn. The article can't be fixed because there is nothing to say. There is just no way this constitutes the significant detailed coverage that is supposed to underlie notability. We already agreed that Godwulf was non-notable when a duplicate page using a different spelling was deleted for lack of notability, and no scholarly work detailing Godwulf has appeared since. This is precisely the purpose of the deletion process. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In case it is not clear what I am saying about the references not really being about Godwulf and not establishing notability, here is the entirety of what our references say specifically about Godwulf on the cited pages:
  • Mommsen, p. 171: nothing at all (primary source)
  • Giles, p. 396, ". . . Frithuwulf [was son] of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat, . . ." (primary source)
  • Chambers: p. 203, ". . . Frealaf Finn Godvlfi Eat Beaf . . ."
  • Bruce: p. 58, ". . . Eatus Godulf Finn Frealaf . . ."
  • Fawlkes 1995: p. 3, ". . . his son Biaf, whom we call Biar, his son Iat, his son Gudolf, his son Finn, . . . " (primary source)
  • Faulkes 2005: p. 117: ". . . Beaf Eat Godulf Finn Frealaf
  • Grimm: p. 368, ". . . and his son Godwulf too, confounded by some with Fulcwalda, looks mythical."
  • Sisam has several mentions in his paper that I will just summarize: in pedigree from ASC, in pedigree from AC, in pedigree from Asser, Historia Brittonum has Folcwald instead of Godwulf, "Friþuwald, Frealaf, Friþuwulf and Godwulf are known only from genealogies."
So, that is the sum total of the mentions of Godwulf on all of the cited pages. Except for Grimm, they are all being cited either as primary sources or for what they say about the pedigree, not what they say about Godwulf. That is not notability, and as Srnec points out, if we want to talk about the pedigree, we already have a page for that. Agricolae (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies, same solution as for Godulf Geoting. The key point Agricolae is making is that there is nothing to say about Godwulf. Only about the medieval genealogies that mention him. We have an article on those. Srnec (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG I found several articles in JSTOR and from what I can understand he seems to play a significant enough role in scholarly analysis of those genealogies to merit his own page. That would be like saying, we should not have a page for Philippa Plantagenet because we already have a page for House of Plantagenet. Unwraveling these genealogies can be both rewarding and challenging for scholars, and I think we should have more pages, not fewer - to make the relationships and significance clearer to researchers. Reader attention span and information saturation are legitimate concerns here WP:AS - There are a lot of pages like this for members of notable families where we know little more then their role in a genealogy, like Margaret, Countess of Pembroke so I see no reason to delete. The "father of, son of" is what makes them notable in this area of study, isn't it? Seraphim System (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the JSTOR matches, I get 21, but only 7 are relevant, six of which I can see at least snippets. I find more of the same repetition of the pedigree as a block, and not the detailed coverage of Godwulf as called for by GNG:
  • Van Hamel, p. 171: ". . . Frelaf, Fin, Godwulf, Geat. A Similar pedigree was furnished to Nenius . . . But here Godwulf is replaced by Folepald."
  • Henning, p. 168: ". . . Friþuwulf, Finn, Godwulf, Geat, Tætwa . . ."
  • Newell, p. 657, ". . . Frithiwulf, Fin, Godwulf (the last two names by textual error united in one), Geata,"
  • Poly, p. 390, (I am translating this) "The Anglo-Saxon genealogies have clumsily attached to the lineage of Alfred of Wessex the genealogical fragment preserved for the Jutes of Wight :Geata (the Jute/Géant), Godwulf (= ) Finn (understood as a name) Folcwalda, Frithuwulf, Frealaf"
  • Karkov, p. 68, ". . . Friþuwulf Finning, Fin Godwulfing, Godwulf Geating, Geat Tetwaing . . . "
  • McCarthy, "' ' ' which runs: Godwulf, the son of Geat, the son of Tetwa, the son of Beo . . . "
The father of, son of does not make them notable, because the whole genealogy is treated as a block, Godwulf is almost never treated independently, and then only in passing. Your comparison to Phillipa is misleading, because Phillipa existed as a real individual, a member of a noble family who was born, married, died, lived a life that can be described (and has by numerous historians). None of this is true of Godwulf. He was only ever a name in a pedigree, with no biography. While there are some names in these pedigrees that have independent existence in the heroic or mythological tradition and merit a page of their own (Finn, Wig and Ingvi are examples), there is no purpose to be served in having a bunch of articles about non-people about whom the only thing that can be said is 'the Anglo Saxon royal pedigrees include the name Y between the names X and Z'. Agricolae (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, don't you think your time might be better spent building articles? There are plenty of related articles needing work. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think my time management is relevant to the notability of the subject of this page. Agricolae (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk or flagellating a deceased equid, the Keep votes keep saying that he is notable, but the evidence does not bear that out. We now have 9 references that only include his name as part of a listing of names in the pedigree, one that includes his name among a list of names that are not known from outside the pedigree, two that indicate his name has been replaced in some other versions of the pedigree by a different name, and one (dated) source that says his name, like the others, may be that of a god mythical. That may be significant detailed coverage of the pedigree but it is not significant detailed coverage of Godwulf, that is not notability. Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Agricolae's original proposal. Sources establishing independent notability do not seem to exist. It is of course true that, as with any character mentioned in old myths and genealogies some desperate graduate student may at any moment discover sources to write a paper or two on him, or he may be dredged up by a novelist writing faux-medieval sagas, or even turn up in the deeply tanned flesh at a dig in a Danish bog. If any of that happens, we can, of course, entertain an article about him. But, alas, poor Godwulf remains insufficiently sourced and must suffer redirection.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  07:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NANOO folding bike[edit]

NANOO folding bike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bike. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting. Article looks like an advertisement & promotion of the brand, the company has done lots of PR online and but not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Vinay089 (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Little support for the merge suggestion, but that option (as well as improvements to the Train station article, etc.) can still be discussed elsewhere. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over-track train station[edit]

Over-track train station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"train station where station building is over the platform" is a valid description of many train stations, but is that classification on its own independently notable? – Train2104 (t • c) 03:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an architectural design topic, and it could be the location of a list of examples. A list-article of train stations which are verifiably of this type would not be questioned. The article was created originally as a translation from a Japanese wikipedia article apparently. The article can be kept to cover this type of train station and be linked from all examples of its type. Or it may be transformed into a more general article about railway station design covering other options as well, and/or continuing about other types of over-track structures in urban areas where the air rights over tracks are valuable. Either way, it is a notable design option. From quick searching, sources relevant include:
--doncram 07:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find that the Railway station article begins to describe design options, with "main" link to a general article on the topic, however that article was deleted as outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railway station layout. That AFD outcome was a bad decision, where the consensus (expressed in the closure) was that the topic is notable. Some of the (bad) arguments were wp:TNT. Essay wp:TNTTNT (which i wrote) covers numerous problems with TNT. Anyhow, it was the general article to which this more specialized topic might possibly have been merged. So about this article, we should Keep it, although allow it to be moved to the more general topic. --doncram 07:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article was deleted because it did not discuss station layout; it was just a collection of oddities which was forked off the main article because it was overwhelming it. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Doncram. I can think of several examples off the top of my head: Finsbury Park station in London, and the Times Square, Canal Street, and the Woodside station (connecting the 7 train and LIRR) in New York City. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to railway station The presenting problem in both this and the article mentioned by doncram is that the main station article doesn't discuss the matter of station layout much: there's a (too long) section on terminal stations and very little else. When we have such a section (which would include discussion of this arrangement, because it's very common) we can talk about splitting it back out again as a unit. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VIPCO (Video Instant Picture Company)[edit]

VIPCO (Video Instant Picture Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Two sources (1, 2) are passing mentions in local newspapers. Kleuske (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG issues with lack of independent and reliable sources. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect is not appropriate as he does have other work, so it would be confusing for any searchers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Rizzo (filmmaker)[edit]

Anthony Rizzo (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete IMDb is not a reliable source. Beyond this it adds nothing to notability, since it intends to be a total directory. Wikipedia has never decided to be a broad directory for any profession (the one place it might be a broad directory is as a gazeteer, but that is another issue), and so we need sources that show the subject is noted by someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not keep? This lil stub was started back in 05 by the much honored and loved Wikipedian Shauri. She was working to get the article on Duck and Cover (film) up to feature status and made it to avoid a red link in the director's name. Knowing Shauri, she most likely intended to expand it later, but she left in early 06 and never returned. I know all this because I was helping her with Duck and Cover...believe it or not we actually used to help one another back in those days. Now that you know this I have one question- How will deleting it make Wikipedia better? Surely you can find other things on here far more worthy of a burnin. If the criteria above on the IMDB not being a reliable source were applied evenly, then most of the film related articles would be deleted, downsized or down graded. There is a fuckton of info on these that is simply copy pasted from the IMDB. Besides that, Wikipedia declaring any source to be unreliable is a major instance of pot meet kettle and glass house meet rock! R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your argument seems to be 'it was made by a Wikipedian I liked and who contributed well' (not relevant) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (also not relevant). DO you think he meets WP:NOTABILITY? Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment And your argument is based on your own narrow and rigid interpretation of policies, which you cherry pick and cite as if they were some sort of Deletionist holy gospel. Policies should be used as guidelines, not weapons to bludgeon others or to further agendas. Although what your agenda here could be in deleting this lil stub which has sat harmlessly for over a decade, I cannot fathom. Again, I ask you-how will deleting this make Wikipedia better? R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion on why this encyclopaedia doesn't have articles on non-notable people; the consensus of the community is that it shouldn't. Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly show me where this "consensus" was reached. Was it an open, general discussion or just a few jobsworths in some back water area of the the Pedia deciding this is how it shall ever be? If the latter was the case, then it hardly reflects the views of the whole "community". And which "community" are we talking about? This place has many...most notably the community of writers who create, improve and expand articles, and the community of Deletionists, who simply delete stuff, because tis easier, because they can, because not notable and because "consensus". R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


That is a reasonable compromise, thank you for the constructive suggestion. So, redirect and merge, can we agree on that? I can:) R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, I think a merge/redirect would be confusing and unnecessary. If there is the occasional person looking Rizzo up on here (he is linked in a couple of other articles), being redirected to Duck and Cover would be confusing. It would also give undue prominence to his involvement; being a director is important, o course, but for a merge and redirect, I would expect him to be the creator/writer, which he wasn't, and the sole one at that. There is also nothing worth merging: an unsourced sentence on his dates of birth and death (may or may not be accurate) and that he was best known for the film (not worth merging). Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see how merging and redirecting a stub into a larger article on the subject's best known (pretty much only known) work would be confusing to the average reader. True, some are easily confused, but I think you are not giving our average reader due credit, nor poor Anthony Rizzo. What did he ever do to you? R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RDH, your comments are assuming bad faith and comes across just as a huge chip on your shoulder. A section on the director within an article on a film would not make much sense, and readers would wonder why it was there. Please stop attacking other editors and concentrate on answering the issue of notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And your comments, madame(?), come off as rigid and inflexible. A reasonable compromise has been proposed, and you flatly reject it for, frankly, stupid reasons. It wouldn't require and entire new section to merge this into Duck and Cover, just incorporate its puny couplet into an existing section at an appropriate spot (or maybe in the intro?) then direct the redirect there. Simple. I'm tempted to be BOLD and do it myself. But right now I'd rather read about dinosaurs and obscure, but fascinating, events of military history. Maybe you could do it? You know, actually edit an article...go on it's easy and can even be fun:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This man is not notable, unfortunately. I agree that a redirect is not appropriate. MartinJones (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go On Then - Kris T Reeder[edit]

Go On Then - Kris T Reeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC - WP:COI addition KylieTastic (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I had similarly come to the same conclusion while stumbling across this user's edits elsewhere. The account's main purpose seems to be to force non-notable, WP:COI articles about themselves through the WP:AFC process. I've voiced concerns on their talk page, though they have refused to discuss or acknowledge the concerns. Regardless, I don't see any evidence of this meeting the WP:GNG. There's also very little content present other than a promotional attempt to tie their album to a neologism - "music genre" article they also created. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J Grime[edit]

J Grime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced claims, only link is promotional. Looks like self promotion by Krisreeder10 also editing K.T. Reeder Go On Then - Kris T Reeder and Utopian Dream none pass WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had similarly come to the same conclusion while stumbling across this user's edits elsewhere. The account's main purpose seems to be to force non-notable, WP:COI articles about themselves through the WP:AFC process. I've voiced concerns on their talk page, though they have refused to discuss or acknowledge the concerns. Regardless, I don't see any evidence of this meeting the WP:GNG. There's also very little content present other than a promotional attempt to create a neologism - through the "creation" of a new music genre. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 02:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omar El Akkad[edit]

Omar El Akkad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insufficient references for notability as an author. The NYT articles is a group review of a genre, not of his book in particular. It's a 2017 book, and so far it is only in 38 libraries a/c Worldcat. If it becomes a best seller, an article can be tried again. Trying to write one so early is clearly a promotional device. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree this feels promotional. This author has not "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is in 398 libraries on Worldcat and there is a NY Times review by their lead book critic. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/books/review-american-war-omar-el-akkad.html?_r=0. It's been reviewed by multiple well recognized news outlets i.e. Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, Globe and Mail, A.V. Club, Toronto Star so seemed notable. I saw him speak, and there is a default bio the comes up on google so it seemed like there should be a wikipedia page so I started one. Echoechoe (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as the previous entry. Roger Hui (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The subject meets WP:AUTHOR, because his works have been reviewed by multiple independent reliable sources, and the subject himself has received some significant coverage. See below. North America1000 03:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Once an authors has their book reviewed in the NY Times that's sufficient to meet notability guidelines. Add in all the other coverage and notability is certain.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Guglielmo Pedrazzini[edit]

Massimo Guglielmo Pedrazzini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no reason to think notable; no special professional honours, minor publications only DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article lacks reliable sources. Could not find any reliable sources. Depth of coverage for Massimo Guglielmo Pedrazzini lacking. Knox490 (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – After several searches, not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources. North America1000 03:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  07:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ball of Wool[edit]

Ball of Wool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source for this article is unreliable, a Russian animation website that has some official funding but no evidence of authority or editorial review. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The closest I can find to a reliable source is this, a short summary as part of a larger review of a compilation. Redirecting to that compilation may be an option, but "Ball of Wool" seems to not be the actual English title of the short (it seems to be either "Ball of Yarn" or "The Tangle"). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. and salt to prevent further recreation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Uyar[edit]

Emir Uyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable businessman; significant RS coverage that discuss the subject directly and in detail not found. Article appears to have been deleted at least once already judging by the Talk page of Special:Contributions/Marcopolo02, which also shows that the article has not been accepted at AfC. It's possible that the article has been deleted a second time, in Dec 2016. This latest version was created in Jan 2017.

Hence the AfD, with the possible salting at this time, due to lack of notability and persistent recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you click the blue "logs" link above, you will see the article has been deleted 3 times already. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in WP:RS of this businessman instead of the company. The most significant article available (including Turkish-language press) is [34], which is mostly about a real-estate transaction and features elder family members instead of article subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda Hanna[edit]

Kinda Hanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Current sourcing is a few blog postings from celebrity magazines - I looked and could not find better. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see much real discussion of her in reliable sources. I see brief comments, some 'facts' which might have been user-generated, etc. I'm not sure about Al Bawaba though. I see several articles on their website (from GNews) on her. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When her one role is not even named we have no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist 03:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Simone[edit]

Andrew Simone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely messy article (all over the place), no sources, article written like an essay Hawkeye75 (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue with this article is not the notability but rather the current condition of the article. I would recommend, if no one wants to work on it, it simply get reverted to the last version before User:Bfinny1960 started the changes in 2014. This would be this version - [35]. I would be happy to do that if required. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to 2014 per YUL89YYZ and keep. He does have a valid notability claim as a Member of the Order of Canada, though the current version buries it in a flood of advertorial bumf and even the old version needs better reliable sourcing than it has — but given that there is a cleaner version in the history to roll back to, I can't come down on the side of a blow it up and start over again conclusion. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to 2014. he is notable--but the spam is unacceptable and should have been stopped earlier. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I've reverted to the 2014 version (current page); significant career achievements & the Order of Canada is strongly suggestive of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with other comments here re the revert to the earlier version, and that membership in the Order of Canada is sufficient for notability. --papageno (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SKCRIT - No reason for deletion has been stated. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illusion Transmitter[edit]

Illusion Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tommy Syahputra (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: You didn't say a reason for why this article should be deleted... Lil Johnny (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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  07:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5th Duke of Cleveland hoax[edit]

5th Duke of Cleveland hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no permanent interest. Just a curiosity. NOT NEWS, NOT TABLOID. significant BLP problems DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a minor curiosity as nom says, ideal for tabloids, social media and gossip sites but not for an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fame-seeking imposter, petty criminal lacks significant claim to notability, lacks sufficient sourcing to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with all comments above. MartinJones (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AirPatrol Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AirPatrol Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no substantial references--either mere listings, notices, straight PR like ref 7, or trivial local news. No reason to think there would be any underlying notability DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a small firm, with poor references - a mixture of routine announcements and listings - and the article creator's previous argument against deletion was largely based on notability inheriting from the company directors' roles in other firms. The company was sold in 2014 [36] but the acquiring firm has no article so is not a suitable redirect target. I am not seeing evidence that the company attained notability, either by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Koshy[edit]

Liza Koshy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

trivial award, no other notability DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article subject not notable at all. She basically is person with a couple of you-tube channels. She won one minor award it says in the article. But, on my last look at article that claim was unsourced and had a cn tag. Fails WP:GNG. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being cast in a TV series is no small feat. This page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olearyc5 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubina Bajwa[edit]

Rubina Bajwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded with the rationale, "fixed typo", without improvement. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 03:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Getting started in the same trade as a relative does not confer notability. There is a strange suggestion on the article Talk page that a lack of available sources is a reason for retaining a Wikipedia biography. My searches are finding little, the best being this piece whose focus is as much on the more famous sister. I see nothing to meet WP:NACTOR or broader biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. When notability is the issue, "fixing the article" won't fix the problem. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family Systems Engineering[edit]

Family Systems Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article promotes a program that was originated by Fowowe. A Google search shows no evidence that any independent scholars or researchers are citing Fowowe's approach. It appears to be simply the name of his traveling family-self-improvement roadshow. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert, thank you for your review. I am going to remove the aspects that may not be of compliance, and continue to work on improving the article overall. I will like to request for a bit more of time, expert support, till the article meets the Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your support. Newcreationxavier (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newcreationxavier - I don't think that you understand. My contention is that the whole article is not compliant. If there haven't been independent scholars or researchers who cite Fowowe's work, then no amount of work on the article will make it notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you have any affiliation with Fowowe? If so, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No proper references, the references that do exist are either to self-published sources or to sources that have nothing to do with the subject itself (e.g., Tony Robbins book). Attempted searches do not find any significant, independent WP:RS. There is no SNG to compare it to, and it does not pass WP:GNG. Appears to be a family- and marriage-counseling paradigm of a particular denomination in Nigeria without significant attention from any outside commentators. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JoogSquad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
JoogSquad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, poorly written Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless there is some definitive bar where "x number of views makes you notable enough for your own WP page," i don't see how this page passes WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If anything, it's WP:TOOSOON. Most of the sources used appear to be referencing one incident which is not enough for WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion does not cite sources to support its argument.  Sandstein  07:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Atlas (YouTube personality)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brian Atlas (YouTube personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, poorly written Hawkeye75 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His channel is noteable. Mjbmr (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mjbmr Do you have, uh, sources to support this? Seems like a one and done 15 seconds of fame for asking people a silly question and filming it... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not supported by reliable sources; some are provided but there is no in-depth coverage Spiderone 12:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 22:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Paulson[edit]

Paul Paulson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor politician. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very low-level politician with no notability. AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians and judges. Please see WP:POLOUTCOMES. Otr500 (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When it comes to WP:NPOL, we have to evaluate this under criterion #2 — "local political figures" — but at that level of office, the difference between a keep and a delete is not "holds office ergo automatic pass", but hinges on the depth and quality of reliable sourcing that can be shown about their holding of the office. But none of the sourcing here is adequate, and merely being a candidate for a statewide position, where the election is still 1.5 years away so the primaries haven't even happened yet, is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself either. No prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the statewide Commissioner of Agriculture election, but nothing here is enough today. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| express _ 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iberia Group destinations[edit]

Iberia Group destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is an unsourced consolidation of pages including the same information, i.e., the destinations served by each of the airlines of the Iberia Group. All the information is already included in each individual article. Jetstreamer Talk 01:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication isn't necessarily a bad thing, many templates/lists/categories duplicate information. It's whether the Iberia Group is a reasonable search term or whether it falls foul of WP:OVERCAT. If the former, would a merge option be useful? Fuebaey (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
@ Fuebaey:
  • Iberia destinations is a list-class article that is still a travel guide. It has 15 references that include links that show places it "does not go to" (ends service), a poster (not an actual reference) that looks good for reference count, routes it is or is planning on resuming (Iberia returns to South Africa two years later and routes it is adding (IBERIA Adds Shanghai Service from late-June 2016). This list article looks well referenced, with travel guide informational references, or sources that belong (if at all) on the parent article so it could be merged. That is my opinion but past discussions might have resulted in an acceptable Iberia (airline) fork that needs a lot of work and more references.
  • Iberia Express#Destinations is a section of Iberia Express. If that article is notable then references supporting content (even on where the airline travels) is acceptable, so this is not part of the equation.
  • AirAsia Group destinations: The B-class AirAsia article is large, and has a destination section. A solution for any added relevant coverage would be trim content to the bones and slide it into the article section, that would still add to article length, exclude or delete the content, or create "summary-style spin-off's or new, linked articles for related material". See: WP:PRODUCT. I did not dig deep into these (more a quick glance) but this appears to be the case. At any rate I would imagine someone would have a better chance finding a snowball in hell than success at AFD on this one. I am not stating it would be impossible, as I was hit with an insurmountable "snowball" clause, and launched one big enough that a tiny flake made it through, just stating I don't see it happening.
    • Conclusion: Creating good looking destination travel guide lists, especially when the information is primarily derived from the parent source or article, is still just a well presented travel guide or promotional list. Many (if not all) the travel guide references will just be mirrors of information obtained from the primary source. The solution is to merge the ones where the parent article could use the help (if referenced), keep those that are clear and exceptional forks, and discuss those that are marginal. :There may be arguments that other stuff exists. I would suggest finding the other than primary or primary sourced references, certainly enough to satisfy notability and support a standalone article, then there may be a valid rationale. As for as a destination guide (list) being a "reasonable search term", it certainly would not be searched for any current relevant information, as that can change to fast to be of use. Otr500 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons why I chose not to bring up WP:NOTDIR is that many lists (like "sportsman with x statistics" lists they put up at WP:FL) are like that. Now you could say that I'm making an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but there has been prior consensus (see Jan 2007, May 2007 and Oct 2015 discussions) that pages at Category:Lists of airline destinations shouldn't be deleted on that basis. Fuebaey (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff" existing, still means articles (and lists) on Wikipedia that follow policies and guidelines. The entire concept of other stuff existing on Wikipedia, or any "stuff", is dependent on the following of these policies and guidelines. I have seen many projects go rampant, in good faith, creating articles that ultimately started to be deleted.
I AM NOT A FAN (stated many times) of mass deletion efforts, unless there is some clear reasoning, so I would have !voted keep on such a mass attack on articles or categories. I am not alone as it is hard to get mass deletions to gain consensus for a reason. I can see the good faith reasoning, as there are many of these list with problems, but it is misdirected. Articles that have a fork, because of size, is acceptable by consensus. Stub or start articles or even smaller C-class, DO NOT deserve a separate standalone (fork or split) as it is unnecessary and not helpful to the article(s). The parent article to all of theses "destination" lists are the airlines. If an article is small it should have a referenced embedded list. That is the issue: Does an individual "list" deserve standalone status if it would be better presented in the parent (or separate parents) article? Especially if it has severe issues.
"Otherstuff" does not mean that an unreferenced BLP should exist just because there are others. It does not mean that a list should exist in spite of the fact that it would be better presented in the parent article, and it certainly does not mean that a standalone list should exist because other lists exist against clear policies and guidelines like verifiability, because of no references or other severe issues.
Iberia (airline) is large enough to have the referenced standalone Iberia destinations list, but certainly does not need to be copied to a "Iberia Group destinations" list.
Iberia Express has an embedded "destinations" list so does not need an "Iberia Express destinations" list (it doesn't) or to be copied to a "Iberia Group destinations" list.
Air Nostrum is a glorified start-class article being presented as C-class. An embedded list would be better served on that article instead of the standalone Air Nostrum destinations list, and certainly it does not need or deserve duplicated material found in this article.
This article does not serve a purpose because it is duplication of material already found elsewhere. If someone wishes to use "otherstuff" in this instance that just means there is a lot of cleanup needed, with some possible merging, and possibly some deletions, not mass deletions that might take out the good with the bad. Otr500 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going a bit tangential. My comment was that WP:NOTDIR was rejected in prior discussions but, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that doesn't mean there is a precedent and that consensus cannot change. The article under discussion here is Iberia Group destinations. Neither myself or the nominator are advocating anything to be done with the other articles. I merely brought up the rest to consider other possible options that could be done to this one as an alternative. Fuebaey (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pepe the Frog. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadilay[edit]

Shadilay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an odd one. "Shadilay" appears to be some sort of meme about the song. However, the song itself has not received any attention that would give it song notability. Either delete, or rework to "Shadilay (meme)". Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pepe the Frog. Source searches are not providing evidence of notability for a standalone article, but a merge will improve the merge target article, which presently has no mention of this. North America1000 22:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ISO 9000. ISO 9001, the target mentioned in the discussion, is also a redirect there. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Objectives[edit]

Quality Objectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could be merged into ISO 9001 (as it is one of its requirements) but makes no sense as a stand-alone article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge - Keep or merge, as this is part of ISO 9001, and may be a useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete - Merge as to any useful information to related article and then delete the stand alone article herein as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Wendel[edit]

Andrea Wendel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would warrant a mention in coverage of the channel but no independent notability whatsoever. KaisaL (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough evidence of notability; I'm not sure if perhaps the channel 'whatever' may have independent notability enough for an article. I definitely feel that the individual pranksters aren't notable enough though. Spiderone 11:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Duncan (YouTube personality)[edit]

Danny Duncan (YouTube personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable YouTuber; sourcing is not suitable for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Atlas (sports executive)[edit]

Brian Atlas (sports executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing to fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines. With the exception of the PR Newswire link (questionable in itself as a source) all of the footnotes are about Street League Skateboarding, with only passing mention of Brian Atlas (or no mention). There is no evidence that Mr. Atlas has received any significant coverage in secondary sources where he himself is the subject. -Markeer 15:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Atlas (YouTube personality)[edit]

Brian Atlas (YouTube personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Stampede[edit]

The Royal Stampede (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JoogSquad[edit]

JoogSquad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OmarGoshTV[edit]

AfDs for this article:
OmarGoshTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and doesn't deserve an article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not ascertain notability which is also not inherited and the article is a recreation of a previously deleted article . - Pmedema (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Even if the last AFD was 'Hijacked' I still don't feel this is notable and the argument of other stuff exists like this is not a valid argument.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjbmr: that's quite a serious thing to say, in that it sounds perilously close to an accusation of stalking. Having said that, if Hawkeye75 actually added nomination rationales, their reasons would be plain. For what it's worth, K.e.coeffmann has also AfD' a chunk of your articles, successfully too. Maybe it's your chosen subject matter ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This would be a weak keep; the article cites a few news stories but they do not add up to very extensive coverage. However, nominator provided no rationale, and I can confirm Mjbmr's statement that the first delete !vote is in part based on a misapprehension; as Mjbmr says, see User talk:MrProEdits#January 2017. The article was hijacked during the first deletion discussion, replaced with one about a non-notable YouTuber who uses the same name. After this was discovered, there was no objection stated to re-AfDing this article, but it was wrongly deleted and was therefore restored; this is not an illicit re-creation. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If this was still an article about the "hijacked" subject, I would !vote delete due to a lack of coverage in reliable sources. As for this one, there isn't much under "OmarGoshTV"; however, searching using his real name reveals more hits. The citations given in the article seem to be of the "special interest" kind, but there does appear to be enough coverage specifically about him (as opposed to passing mentions) to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete per BrownHairedGirl's analysis below. Upon her closer inspection, he has indeed received coverage, but most are of questionable reliability. By the way, I forgot to mention this earlier, but I was the nominator during the article's first nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Narutolovehinata5: where is this coverage which you claim establishes notability? Per my analysis below, I see no sign of any of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which is required to meet WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry that I didn't write my side, but he fails WP:GNG and doesn't deserve an article. Hawkeye75 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reminder: your "Delete" !vote is assumed from the nomination and shouldn't be repeated. The usual thing is to call it "Comment" DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read articles about people who are barley known who only got an article because they knew the Beatles or some other celebrity. Omar is pretty popular and keeps getting more popular. I think this should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HugoTHornet (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable YouTube personality (I'm assessing the current version, not the previous highjacked version). Sources are insufficient for either WP:BIO or WP:WEB, and are mostly tabloid-like such as OhMyMag.com. Other citations include the subjects YouTube channel. Nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article now has a long list of sources, but it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. 3 of the 13 references are to OG's own Youtube channel; another 4 are to online tabloids (OhMyMg.com, PureBreak.com, Right This Minute, Manila Republic); 4 are less tabloid sources which don't meet WP:RS (San Francisco Globe, Metro, Yorkshire Standard, Christian Post). That leaves only 2:
  1. News12Westchester[37], which is a 105-word plug for a TV show, with only 45 words mentioning OG's video
  2. WFSTV[38], which is the most substantive coverage anywhere; but it a mere 305-word synopsis of a video.
I don't see how either of these plugs for a local video-clips TV show is a reliable source.
None of this comes anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is not an indiscriminate collection of things which get passing mentions in internet tabloids. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl Can you please do your analyze on Roman Atwood, Tom Mabe, Yousef Erakat, Jack Vale, Smosh, Greg Benson, etc too? Mjbmr (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjbmr. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This discussion is about the article OmarGoshTV. It is not about any of those other articles.
If you believe that any of those other articles fail WP:N, then feel free to do your own analysis and open any AFDs which you think are appropriate. But their fate is irrelevant to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl Good for you only trying to take down this one. Mjbmr (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mjbmr, I suggest that you spend more time learning how Wikipedia's policies and consensus-forming processes work, and that you drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach displayed in your attempt to characterise participation in an AFD discussion as a "take down". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If losers like Roman Atwood can have their own page why can't Omar? I seen someone on here call Omar "unremarkable", How is Roman "remarkable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.61.153.65 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering we're not discussing Atwood here, I'm not really sure how that is relevant. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per BrownHairedGirl and nom. This would be an encyclopedic (see what I did there) example of a hardly notable WP:BLP1E. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's becoming more and more famous everyday. Like the other commented said. If unremarkable people like Atwood can have a page. So should Omar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.133.45 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources do not demonstrate notability. We are not in the business of promoting pseudoscience. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sujok Therapy[edit]

Sujok Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like the promotion of pseudoscience. There are zero pubmed indexed reviews https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Su+jok+Therapy%22 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted some of the worst of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:FRINGEN. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • courtesy ping to SwisterTwister, who accepted the draft via AFC. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is written that most research so far was done in Russian language, some of the research was attached in PDF format, the fact that there is only one reference in PubMed, does not make is false or pseudoscience. [1]. It is estimated that more than 1,000,000 people around the world practice Sujok every day[2], it should have Wikipedia value...

References

  1. ^ PMID 8926713
  2. ^ https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Sujok%20
--Pashut2000 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
facebook?? please read WP:MEDRS and WP:RS Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much . I was not aware of that, however the purpose of this article is not to discuss the question whether or not the Sujok therapy is effective, but to prepare a value that explains what is Sujok and who uses it and why...so the medical research part is deleted, but we can leave some basic information about this method. It is widely practiced that is why I cited facebook, that one can see how wide this method is discussed and practiced...81.218.167.249 (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If this article were presented nothing but "complementary medicine" (which, imho, is a polite way of saying "pseudoscientific" or "placebo") and independent, reliable sources were available (Times Of India is about the only one I could find, and it's an interview with a proponent and hence not quite independent), I could envision an article about it. Being pseudoscience is, in and of itself, not a reason to delete. However, the method is presented as a viable therapy (if not to say a panacea), which would require MEDRS sources. Currently it lacks independent, reliable sourcing (let alone by MEDRS standards) and requires a complete rewrite to make it a viable article. WP:TNT applies. Kleuske (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete. It is used in many countries and the results are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:960B:9CFC:0:0:27E3:80B1 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC) — 2405:204:960B:9CFC:0:0:27E3:80B1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment We have an impressive number of new accounts working on the article. Interested in were coordination is taking place and their relationship to the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sujok therapy is a logical healing method in the field of alternative medicine. It is widely practiced in many countries. In India it is going to be included in the maharastra acupuncture bill and will be included in the council. It is recognised by saurastra university also.
On daily basis people are getting relief from this therapy.
The link below support this therapy.
http://m.timesofindia.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/Explore-the-benefits-of-Sujok-therapy/amp_articleshow/18146021.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileajay (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC) — Smileajay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • That is a published endorsement from Dr Anju Gupta, Sujok Therapist (who could also be User:Smileajay) and is in no way an independent reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. I am Dr Paawan Wadhawan MBBS, MD (Internal Medicine),a certified Diabetologist fro Cleveland Clinic USA .I use Sujok therapy for all my patients. It is really effective in curing pain and lifestyle disorders like Diabetes. My website alone has more then 100 original interviews of patients who were benefitted by Sujok therapy. Please feel free to visit www.medisujok.com. In India Sujok is used by a large no of practitioners helping around masses in India. Sujok Therapy is recognized by Maharashtra Government and Odisha Government In India. Sujok is included as a subject in Maharashtra Nursing Council.[1] Sujok was presented as a separate subject in National Conference of Integrated Healing in Sanchi University[2].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paawanwadhawan (talk • contribs) \

Your pleas here are not relevant. Wikipedia is not in the business of advertising alternative medicine. In fact, the topic area is under sanctions. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the Cleveland Clinic's Find-A-Doctor page gives me nobody matching your name. I'm going to assume you're lying to us until further notice. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Not lying. I am a Board Certified Consultant Physician in India. You can Check on MCI India IMR Register.[3]. I am Certified from Cleveland Clinic USA does not mean that I practice in Cleveland Clinic in USA. My Certificate from Cleveland Clinic is attached in the reference below [4]. I have published my articles in renowned international medical journals like BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL [5] , JOURNAL OF ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS OF INDIA [6], [7]. Does it add a value to Sujok authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paawanwadhawan (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the legitimacy of the technique is secondary to the apparent promotion (Wikipedia REQUIRES neutrality and should not be used for medical advice) and horrendous sourcing (Wikipedia REQUIRES unassailable sourcing) that is the root cause of Doc James - who is one of our most respected editors with regard to medicine as a topic area - sending the article to AfD. By focusing on whether it's "legitimate" you're completely ignoring the issues the Wikipedia article has, my guess is deliberately. Whatever sources have been turned up thus far in this AfD have also been unsatisfactory. Honestly, the more you guys post here, the more it becomes apparent that you're missing the entire point of Wikipedia and are just using it for promotion and validation. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 14:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added changes in style of presentation and remark that there are no scientific evidence that prove the efficiency and efficacy of this method, this article is supposed to be descriptive and not to open a decate regarding complementary medicine...Pashut2000 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to draft, delete or merge. Article is a vanispamcruftisement and certainly not notable. Over 50% of the sources are self-published. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opang Jamir. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delet I m using sujok therapy for my patients everyday they get fastest results becoz of sujok only.this therapy is not only the therapy its a natural medicines to cure disease from roots n recycle natural systems of body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.86.190 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2017‎ (UTC) pretty sure this comment was supposed to be on the page not the ec. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you're "using [it] for your patients everyday" is irrelevant as to whether the Wikipedia article should be kept. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and should not be used to provide medical advice. I will also note that homeopathy, as a whole, is under discretionary sanctions, and it looks to me like the Sujok therapy falls under that umbrella. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears that all the references point to works by a single author, other than refs with mentions of its use or non-use. The sentence of greatest significance for Wikipedia is "The International Sujok Association (ISA) is a world-wide non-profit organization whose aim is to spread Sujokall over the world". Independent reliable sources demonstrating WP:N are needed for there to be an article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - the article approach was changed, also there were added objective references in the russian language that were not created by the author, these are independent reliable resources (Wikipedia, see WP:RS.)[8][9][10][11], also local media and newspapers do support that this method is practiced all over the world. We do not run the discussion about efficiency but present a method that exist and widely practiced.It is the public interest to know. All data shown in this article is Verifiable.

References

  1. ^ http://www.maharashtranursingcouncil.org/Admin/Files/Documents/291_1.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF_OR8MxGls&t=127s
  3. ^ http://www.mciindia.org/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=821172
  4. ^ https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/photo/114650410628438818235/6410443114962128354?icm=false
  5. ^ http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2014/bcr-2014-205363.full.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.japi.org/june_2013/15_cr_tuberous_slcerosis_with_bilateral.pdf
  7. ^ http://www.japi.org/december_2009/neurology_poster.htmlhttp://www.japi.org/december_2009/neurology_poster.html
  8. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/opyt-ispolzovaniya-su-dzhok-terapii-v-praktike-vracha-stomatologa
  9. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kompleksnye-metody-vosstanovleniya-zdorovya-cheloveka
  10. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodologicheskie-paralleli-bazovyh-ponyatiy-su-dzhok-terapii-i-teorii-veduschih-tendentsiy
  11. ^ Метод Су Джок акупунктуры в практике лечения ортопедических больных
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashut2000 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Pashut2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Those sources are still terrible, and it is unclear what the last one is. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have policies that require people to disclose their connections to the subjects they write about. User:Pashut2000 were do you describe yours? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one more reference regarding the use of Sujok Therapy for the treatment of Migraine, this study was done in I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, and published in scientific magazine[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashut2000 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26423858
  • Where should I disclose my connection to the subject? here?Pashut2000 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This page here [39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable fringe therapy. If it was truly notable, it wouldn't require all this effort to promote it on Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I think this debate shows how notable this issue is, I have made some revisions and added new resources from governmental bodiesPashut2000 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC) You're only allowed one !vote.[reply]

Thanks for disclosing your COI on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article stands in the standards of wikipedia General notability guidelines (WP:GNG), we have shown that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It just resources from Russia (official government) and India (Indian times and Maharashtra Nursing council).

According to WP:NEXIST, ″...The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. I think we have shown that there are reliable resources without any COI such as the Russian Federation Ministry of health. And last but not least, please, WP:5P4 - ″Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,387,270 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.″

According to WP:IRS, ″Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.″ Citation are made in this article from Universities, and peer reviewed scientific journals, the only ″problem″ is that they are in Russian, but that does not make them pseudo-scientific or false, especially due to the fact the mostly are written and approved by medical doctors and representatives of the scientific comity. Let us be careful not to be biased by prejudice. Pashut2000 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London) philosopher Martin Cohen describes Wikipedia as having "become a monopoly" with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators," which he calls a "youthful cab-driver's" perspective. Cohen concludes that "[t]o control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world. Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought." That freedom is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia, "not your sources but the 'support of the community'."Pashut2000 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's that old lawyer's adage? "If the case is against you, pound on the facts. If the facts and case are both against you, pound on the table." None of us have personally attacked you, and the consensus seems to be your sources are still lacking, to which you do the equivalent of pointing behind us and shouting about a simian with three craniums. It's also worth noting that there's a reason for pseudoscience and homeopathy topics to come under greater scrutiny; both topic areas are under discretionary sanctions because of egregious behaviour, mainly by proponents, in those topic areas. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep"117.239.230.244 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)— 117.239.230.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • "Keep"Jugal Chahal (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Jugal Chahal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Bare !votes are not given much weight, if any, by whomever closes the AfD debate. You need to provide a coherent policy-based argument as well. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • why are the references not valid? Are Russian ministry of health and medical universities not a valid source in wikipedia?Pashut2000 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask the ones who are making that argument, not me. I have no dog in this fight (I don't edit in ArbCom-sanctioned topic areas). I'm only interested in trying to educate the new(ish) users that are only here because they were canvassed from off-wiki. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:MEDRS for refs required for health claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since there are claims around treatment, reliable sources are needed. There are currently 47 references, but I can't see that any of these meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. 25 are by Park Jae Woo and several by the "International Sujok Association" so these aren't independent. As noted already WP:FRINGE applies. I don't see that notability has been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up or delete I've stripped out the youtube and facebook pseudorefs. I've tagged most if not all the self-published sources, including one to a "journal" published by the promotional association. If there are wp:MEDRS available to replace them, by all means these should be inserted, but if none can be found the text should at least make it clear that claims are not endorsed in the voice of the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I was not even able to read the full lead sections and by reading few sentences, one can find out that it needs to be deleted. One definitely has the right to have multiple number of hypotheses and that can mean that anything can be claimed as a therapy / medicine. But unless and until proven scientifically, it is not not a theory. Wikipedia is not a collection of hypotheses hence it should be deleted. As Doc James has clearly pointed out, there are no proper reviews, hence it needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is no place for original research as well, so if I have any hypothesis in my mind, the proper place to write about it is scientific journals and not WP. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a lighter note, it is not Sujok but a joke! :D -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds a bit peculiar not to say biased "I was not even able to read the full lead sections and by reading few sentences, one can find out that it needs to be deleted". But the notion that no review was written about this method was very helpful so I added one on the text. Please note that this is not a private theory but a method. The use of this method can be controversial and that is ok, it is not the scope of this article. The article present a method that is becoming more and more prevalent all over the world. I add here few references, I do not want to add them to the text since it seems to crowded anyway, more references than explanations...so I add some here:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

[10][11][12][13]

References

  1. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodologicheskie-paralleli-bazovyh-ponyatiy-su-dzhok-terapii-i-teorii-veduschih-tendentsiy
  2. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/opyt-ispolzovaniya-su-dzhok-terapii-v-praktike-vracha-stomatologa
  3. ^ Abuzyarova MB ,Zhanaidarov SA. SU JOK ACUPUNCTURE IN INTENSIVE CARE COMA. Bulletin of the Almaty State Institute of Postgraduate Medical. Vol 3. 2-8. 2011
  4. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kompleksnye-metody-vosstanovleniya-zdorovya-cheloveka
  5. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metod-su-dzhok-akupunktury-v-praktike-lecheniya-ortopedicheskih-bolnyh
  6. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/refleksoterapiya-v-kompleksnom-lechenii-bolnyh-s-distsirkulyatornoy-entsefalopatiey-i-ii-stadii
  7. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodologicheskie-paralleli-bazovyh-ponyatiy-su-dzhok-terapii-i-teorii-veduschih-tendentsiy
  8. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/effektivnost-akkupunktury-pri-kupirovanii-bolevyh-sindromov-razlichnoy-etilogii
  9. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/razvitie-artikulyatsionnoy-i-melkoy-motoriki-starshih-doshkolnikov-netraditsionnymi-sredstvami-su-dzhok-i-bioenergoplastiki
  10. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/dinamika-fizicheskoy-podgotovlennosti-studentov-s-sochetannymi-narusheniyami-funktsiy-oporno-dvigatelnogo-apparata
  11. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/klinicheskie-sluchai-vosstanovleniya-respiratornogo-drayva-pri-ispolzovanii-metodov-chzhen-tszyu-terapii
  12. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kupirovanie-bolevogo-sindroma-u-lyudey-molodogo-vozrasta-stradayuschih-migrenyu
  13. ^ http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/medikamentoznaya-i-nemedikamentoznaya-terapiya-posledstviy-sotryaseniya-golovnogo-mozga

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashut2000 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America1000 22:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foody World[edit]

Foody World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local market which gained notoriety for a case of Listeria last October. Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Deprodded without rationale or improvement.Onel5969 TT me 00:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All coverage I found was based on the one event, not significant enough to establish notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem to be any sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; debatably could fall under WP:ILLCON. First link that pops up for me that isn't about the outbreak is about a unrelated store with a similar name in Toronto. If the outbreak is notable name the article after it, not the company, like the 2008 Canada listeriosis outbreak. Fuebaey (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, I don't see how a single event at this store makes it notable enough for an article. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied as a blatant hoax. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

88th Discord Division[edit]

88th Discord Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perceived hoax, content doesn't make sense historically and no sources cited, couldn't find any verifiable sources online. DPdH (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy - As obvious hoax. Probably also easily qualifies as invented. And somebody needs to sort out the licensing of the image as a derivative work of File:3rd SS Division Logo.svg, which is apparently banned in 9000 countries... and... someone should probably look through the author's edits in more detail. TimothyJosephWood 13:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_April_16&oldid=1142620263"