Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 April	3 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete. Per nomination (why create an AfD to say that an AfD isn't needed? Go figure) (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hellosuperkidsmax[edit]

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

No need for a deletion discussion as the contributor has already indicated that this was a test page and it has been speedied accordingly. Deb (talk) 11:35, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East Pakistan—Federation of Malaya relations[edit]

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

Completely unsourced original research. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Any non-OR content from this time period should go into a historical section of Pakistan-Malaysia or Bangladesh-Malaysia relations. South Nashua (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. complete original research. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles were given ample time to be worked on after I took the time to move them from their respective talk pages. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on attempted relations between states that no longer exist. ValarianB (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is not specific enough to be clearly about anything. An article could be written about bilateral relations between most states, I suppose, but starting the article like this seems to me to confuse more than clarify. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Original research. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per South Nashua. Green Giant (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a useless stub. East Pakistan would not have had diplomatic relations with any country before it became Bangladesh, an event that happened after the Federation of Malaya became part of Malaysia. Pakistan/Malaysia relations and Banglaedeh/Malaysia relations might be worth having articles on. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Salvation[edit]

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

This is described as an unreleased film, with no claim of notability from its production. Google search reveals a 2016 film, but not a 2017 film. Either this film is WP:TOOSOON or it is really the 2016 film and should be redirected or merged. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upcomong film, non-notable yet. Sources seem unrelated. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been c&p moved to Mukti Bhawan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which seems to be the Hindi name for it. ansh666 01:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And now restored; carry on. ansh 666 18:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 18:39, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Bender[edit]

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

This aquanaut and habitat technician doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cool job, but coverage is in passign at best. Not notable per nom. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary sources, works as a technician, no claim to notability at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anycall 5200[edit]

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

Non-notable knockoff phone. Can't find enough WP:RS to indicate it passes WP:GNG - there's one article on Engadget, but everything else is just blogs and forum posts. The two sources in the article are not WP:RS. Ineligible for PROD as it was PROD'd back in 2008 right after creation, and then immediately de-PRODed by the author. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable piece of tech / product, fails WP:NCORP, etc. --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:38, 3 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. Cross-wiki spam. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Tirrito[edit]

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

Crosswiki spam, promotional only. Already deleted on itwiki for notability matters. Melos (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment probably worth noting this was deleted on es wiki for coi/promo as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:10, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson T-Bone[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 20:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Dannys-777 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable wrestler.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:54, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Watt[edit]

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who have did only Italian F4 Championship tests. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable 15-year-old motorsports driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sami Taoufik, kid driver from the same top 10 list cited in this Noah Watt article, same type of non notable sources/subject. ValarianB (talk) 16:53, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Kenneally[edit]

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

WP:NMOTORSPORT. The driver who even doesn't enter any of the professional racing championships. Corvus tristis (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 14-year-old driver who is not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sami Taoufik, kid driver from the same top 10 list cited in this Noah Watt article, same type of non notable sources/subject. ValarianB (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toufeeq Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:DIRECTOR - sources are all WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews of Khan promoting two of his films before their release. None of the sources appear to explicitly confirm that Toufeeq Khan (director of Tiger Sultan) and Mohammad Taufeeq (director of Ek Tha Sardaar according to sources) are the same person. McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 20:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with all of the issues raised Spiderone 07:20, 5 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 withdrawn by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Arkansas River Project[edit]

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

The Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo may or may not be notable, but it isn't the subject of this promotional, unencyclopedic stub. Ringbang (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI'd suggest reading the guidelines of deletion with a promotion rationale. This article hardly has a promotional tone and it isn't such that it would require a fundemental rewrite to improve it. Deletion rationale is not based on policy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made it explicit that notability is the rationale. Ringbang (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There again your rationale lacks doing any meaningful research. Google search it you will find 20 years of news results. Then read San Antonio River Walk. This are virtually identical in scope, the difference is that is a very nicely fleshed out article and this one is a stub. If you have a strong opinion about stubs expand it. It's one of the Anchors of Pueblos downtown district, is home to several significant city events and notable tenants such as the PBR. Historic Arkansas Ricerwalk [[1]] 360k results, Pueblo Riverwalk [[2]] 257k results. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, okay, I see that you wrote the article, and I understand the deletion nom is not something you wanted to see. Historic Arkansas Riverwalk is a fine topic for an article. The development project that preceded the Riverwalk, however, is of more dubious notability, and one that does not seem to justify a dedicated article.
Would a neutral account of the backstory of the riverwalk have a place in Historic Arkansas Riverwalk? No doubt! And rescoping the article through revision and a page move is an option (yay WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM). But who is actually willing to do the work? —Ringbang (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is any number of Gnomes that will do it, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Consider that when I authored this almost 10 years ago it was still very much a work in progress and at this point for all intents and purposes I'm retired due to real life commitments. I have no opposition to a rename to a more appropriate title now that it has mostly left the development phase. There is absolutely no attempt to promote this project, merely inform because it is a very notable part of the Pueblo area. If the subject meets deletion guidelines absolutely delete it, but it definitely meets the GNG and is also not promotional. I would have to opine that deletion is not a route to clean up. I recognize this article is in bad need of an update though as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently the project was eventually developed and became the Historic Arkansas Riverwalk? Great. So we move the article and develop further at that title, with mention and/or a section about when it was called the Historic Arkansas River Project. Thank you User:Hell in a Bucket for starting it. User:Ringbang, could you withdraw your AFD nomination, so that multiple others don't have to consider all this? I am willing to help develop some at the article. --do ncr am 04:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doncram, thanks for volunteering! I'll help, too. Withdrawn. Ringbang (talk) 14:46, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Ganjian[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Echoing all of the above and also the BLPPROD never should've been removed as not a single source so much as mentions him (and one is a dead link.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way WP:TOOSOON, almost no footballer meets WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG at the tender age or 15. Article can easily be recreated when the subject meets the qulifications listed above. Good day Inter&anthro (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 7 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 Little Mix#Perrie Edwards. @AnemoneProjectors: as you seem to be familiar with this process, it would be great if you could carry this out. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perrie Edwards[edit]

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

No relevance aside from being a member of Little Mix. All of that little information fits on the group's article. Although it has a lot of sources, she is still a member of the group and hasn't announced her solo career. Raritydash (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In ictu oculi (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perform history merge with Perrie Edwards (singer) (the two page histories were swapped over instead of merged), and revert to revision 767437600 i.e., redirect to Little Mix#Perrie Edwards. The article as it currently stands is mostly about Little Mix's career, outside of which Edwards holds no notability. anemoneprojectors 10:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. if it just gets redirected, I'll probably do a history merge anyway as it seems the right thing to do. anemone projectors 10:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AnemoneProjectors and Raritydash; not notable enough in her own right. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Little Mix#Perrie Edwards per AnemoneProjectors. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per arguments presented above. livelikemusic talk! 01:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect In addition to abovementioned arguments, will also encourage the removal of the tabloid sources cited. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:01, 10 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. This is closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion on grounds of failing our notability criterion.The grounds on which the nom. proposed deletion have since reversed completely and there is evidence that subject passes WP:PROF#C1. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teo Mora[edit]

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

The subject of the article asks for the deletion, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes on Teo Mora. IMO, this is a matter of WP:BIODEL, which says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. He is clearly a non-public figure, and, although he undoubtedly satisfies the criteria of notability, he is relatively unknown, as in a few minutes, I have found more than five searchers in the same area that have a similar of better notability, and do not have a Wikipedia page.

Therefore I think that we have to accept Mora's request, and I support deletion D.Lazard (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer: nom has switched from Delete to Keep,[3] see diff (or see below). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary author of the article, I do support deletion of the article; Particularly I agree with the argument that it is a matter of WP:BIODEL. IMHO we should respect Mora's opinion on not having a Wikipedia entry. Nanuvutpanther (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Nanuvutpanther (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask his permission before writing it? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No I didn't; As far as I know, no such permission is required for WP:BLP, though that would be polite! Nanuvutpanther (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and wise too. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Side Comment... I think I disagree this is actually wise, on pragmatic grounds. I don't think individual wikipedians should be contacting potentially-WP:N humans off-wiki, and asking if they want a wikipedia article. There have been problems with financial demands and impersonation of administrators in the past. It is theoretically better to know in advance whether the topic of a BLP wishes to have an article, but in practice it is unwise to make it a tradition to find this out, since it requires wikipedians to acquire a personal phone number or email to contact the subject of the BLP. In cases like professor Mora, where his faculty-page provides contact, it might be okay to discuss it with him beforehand... but there is always the risk that a misunderstanding will occur, and off-wiki communications are less-transparent than on-wiki ones. I would not go so far as to say "never ask permission" but I would also not encourage people asking permission. Too many ways it could end up unhappily. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm fine with it. TimothyJosephWood 03:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Stricken. TimothyJosephWood 12:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - imho Mora is not notable enough (from an encyclopedic perspective) to argue that public interest overrules his personal wish for deletion (and that of the article's author). In addition the article's quality/content barely good enough to keep it in the first place anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Now a weak keep--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - not because he demands it, but because he doesn't meet our standards for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject clearly does meet our standards for notability (specifically WP:PROF#C1 because of his many highly-cited works on Gröbner bases and related topics) but our article says so little about him that I don't think it's essential to the encyclopedia. So in this case I am willing to go along with the subject's wishes. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per subject. He has a good citation record on GS so I would be fine with a keep on that basis. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The weaker criteria of WP:PROF are intended to boost notability of academics in relatively obscure areas. However, while I feel that a strong pass of WP:GNG creates an obligation for the existence of an article, WP:PROF carries with it no such obligation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per below. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#1 ~~Just A Comment™ for now, but leaning keep, if the upgraded article is more satisfactory?~~[4] Agree with some of the others above, who point out that Teo Mora does in fact satisfy WP:N, quite easily I would suggest. I have cleaned up the article a bit to make this clearer and added two book-review WP:RS. (There was a related deletion on the Italian-language wikipedia in 2014, which if my guesstimate-translation is correct was "per not enough sources" but I cannot see the no-longer-visible article to verify.[5]) Mora is the 'M' in the FGLM algorithm of computer algebra, worked on the Gröbner fan concept, and has well-cited publications on Buchberger's algorithm, among other things. His most well-cited work seems to revolve around Algebraic geometry#Computational algebraic geometry generally (and Gröbner basis specifically). Mora has triple-digit cite-counts published by Springer, Elsevier, ACM, Cambridge University Press, etc. Professor for 27+ years at University of Genoa. Slam-dunk bangkeep via WP:PROF (see also WP:SCHOLARSHIP) especially WP:NACADEMIC#1, (striking as no longer true)~~were it not for the express wishes of professor Mora and professor-emeritus Lazard.~~ Philosophically speaking, because there is no deadline, deletion in 2017 and recreation in 2027 (or whatever) would not be a catastrophe... but it would be a damned shame. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated bangvote, per new comment by professor Mora below,[6] he is no longer opposed to the article being kept. Also, located a couple of book-review-refs (see Teo Mora article). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wish there was some kind of "cold storage" we could put this article in, to revisit after the subject's death, when the sum of his life's work is basically over with; it is not inconceivable that this can be recreated at some future point with clear indicia of notability. Obituaries tend to do that. bd2412 T 01:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make your own cold storage by downloading the source file. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted article content is not actually permanently removed; it can be restored by any Wikipedia administrator with a good enough reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comment This ability to undelete is traditional practice, yes... but not guaranteed. See WP:Viewing_and_restoring_deleted_pages#cite_note-2. A change in the legal system (e.g. new United States laws which made defamatory material on 'private websites' subject to lawsuits where more than 1000 people can access the material?) could force the WMF's hand and cause "temporary" removal of all deleted stuff until fifteen years of BLPVIO was separated out... effectively forever in other words. Even without worrying about the theoretical possibility of 'deleted' materials being REALLY deleted at some point in the future, there is the sociological problem of somebody needing to actually remember to undelete, and then somebody (else usually) manually performing the undeletion. Perhaps it would make sense to create a WP:BOT called ContentCyrogenicPreservationBot, which could be programmed with a Template:AutoUndeletion to automatically leave a pre-programmed note at WP:REFUND after a specified timespan had passed? The note could say something like "please undelete this material on or after 1st January 2027" but the bot could also be programmed to leave something customized like "please discuss with User:Teo Mora and User:D.Lazard whether or not to undelete the Teo Mora article" every five years or so? This is off-topic for AfD but I would be interested in seeing this happen... in addition to 'cryo storage' of WP:GOLDENRULE content, this could function as a generic reminder-bot with various uses. (We already have the G13 bot for AfC drafts which gives draft-article-creators a note on their talkpage when a draft has been stagnant for six months.) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me apologize for my hysterical reaction when I saw the article devoted to me, and let me express my sincere thanks to Daniel and to 47.222.203.135 for their support. Well, after all I, Teo Mora, think that I can survive to the existence of the article Teo Mora, if other wikipedians think it satisfies site-guidelinesTeo Mora (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Mora, since you have reconsidered your stance and no longer wish for Teo Mora to be deleted, and the article-contents have significantly been altered in the past couple days, I will ping the folks that have commented above. D.Lazard, Nanuvutpanther, Xxanthippe, TimothyJosephWood, Kmhkmh, Orange Mike, David Eppstein, Sławomir Biały, bd2412... does this new information alter your stances? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion uniquely because of the wish of Mora. As he satisfies clearly our criteria for notability for academics, I am fine with keeping the article. D.Lazard (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the article if Mora doesn't want it deleted anymore as the principle (encyclopedic) notability as an academic seems established. However having said that, i don't really regard recent edits as much of an improvement. The article is imho still in rather sorry state state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to jump in, I agree with you the article needs some help :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 now that Mora no longer requests the article to be deleted. As I said in my earlier (now struck) comment, he passes WP:PROF#C1 because of his many highly-cited publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm actually pretty torn on this. I respect the wishes of someone with an inconsequential stub to have it deleted, but what we have now is basically his CV, and Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. I would have a hard time arguing against the stub in an honest uninvolved go at it, and with an eye for what it could be, but I also have a pretty hard time arguing for keep when what we're keeping is little more than a list of publications with almost zero prose. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err, methinks WP:TOOLITTLE applies? The publication-list is important to the AfD discussion obviously, because whether Mora satisfies WP:GOLDENRULE depends on whether one sees high cite-counts as 'significant' enough to establish wiki-Notability, or not. (As first author, 268 + 245 + 211 + 129 + 126 citeCounts spanning years 1984 thru 2003, plus 679 + 228 + 204 + 170 + 128 citeCounts as co-author.) Moreover, as a professor, inherently Mora's WP:N is necessarily 100% based upon his thoughts, written down in his published peer-reviewed work, and whether those works received significant cite-counts, or not. So it only makes sense the BLP article will mostly be about "published foo in yyyy, then published baz in yyyy" type of events. That said, there are a couple of book-reviews I recently added, which need to be summarized ("reviewer qux said book baz was 'not intended for beginners' blah blah"); that will add a small Reception section, or at least, a couple new sentences in the Life & Work section. And of course, the publications-list has cite-counts in the thousands, and I'm sure that once somebody *reads* those thousands of scholarly pieces which cited Mora's work, there will be plenty of opportunity to insert additional body-prose details ("according to Faugère'99 overview-paper Mora's contribution to the 1993 paper was blah blah and characterized Mora's approach to algorithm design as blah blah blah" ... this is hypothetical, I actually looked through Faugère'99 and it has no such details,[7] but there are thousands more to look through). In short, the article is still a stub, from my perspective at least! Luckily in this case, we have access to both Mora and Lazard personally, since they are wikipedians -- my guess is that the article can be de-stubbified in short order, if we merely ask those folks for some pointers to where WP:NOTEWORTHY details about Mora's activities can be found. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is no reason to expect that the final form of the article will resemble a CV. I do feel that ultimately the article should attempt to have some more readable prose detailing his more important contributions, but there is no deadline, and WP:TNT certainly does not apply. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - I'm not sure it matters at this point, since the fundamental (and overall fairly weak) premise of the AfD discussion no longer applies, and therefore disqualifies many of the early delete !votes, meaning that no consensus (de facto keep) is probably the worse possible outcome. This is the part where normally I would brew a strong pot of coffee and try to improve the article, but I'm afraid my only mathematical background is in statistics (read graduate level spreadsheets) so I'd probably do more harm than good if I tried. Anyway, as I said at ANI, seems exceptionally well published, and probably meets WP:PROF in principle, although it's not terribly well demonstrated in the article, which currently lacks substantial independent sources. In the case someone ever wants to really take the reins on this in the future, really do their homework, and argue against notability, I would probably be more comfortable with a close of no consensus anyway.

I would add as an aside though, that this is a good example of why heavily involving the subject of an article and those strongly connected with them is overall predictably messy, and generally not recommended. We fairly easily could have avoided both an ANI thread as well as an AfD if we had just taken a deep breath, gathered some patience, and tried to recruit some uninvolved qualified editors.

However, since we're here, I would also note that the one major advantage of having the subject within arms reach is that someone should take 30 seconds, snap a half decent photo (i.e., not one taken or owned by a university or other organization) and upload it to Commons for use in the article. If you need help with this, feel free to contact me. TimothyJosephWood 12:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cc-by-sa-v2germany-licensed photo on the internet I ran across, but as you say, we have the subject of the BLP himself available, so I would prefer to wait until we can get some professor-approved. Refs are slowly improving, also thanks to having the professor immediately available. Couple new refs added today: 2002 newspaper interview in Repubblica.it.[8] 2014 television interview on Radiotelevisione Italiana.[9] 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per subject changing his mind. Nanuvutpanther (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Molster[edit]

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

no source Silver Master (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure quite what to make of this. My first instinct was "hoax" because the article appeared on April Fools' day but frankly hoaxes are usually better written. I can't find any reliable references to him or to his friend whom he's supposed to have made 'many films' with. It may be a tribute page written by someone who knew him. In any case he's not notable in Wikipedia terms. Neiltonks (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No relevant Google hits in the first couple pages. No news coverage I could find anywhere. Everything in the article is completely unverifiable, and as Neiltonks points out, it was posted on April Fools', so I wouldn't rule out a hoax. Not notable, in any case. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 16:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site. I see no evidence this person was notable outside his friends and family. The companies he is said to have founded and or worked for don't appear to be notable. I see no news results about him. I find a couple Facebook pages for people with this name and I find this, which appears to be a user-generated-content site about recently deceased people where his friends and family are encouraging each other to add to this Wikipedia page. No indication he is notable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:56, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jan-Mar Tropical Cyclones[edit]

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

We already have season articles (such as 2017 Pacific typhoon season) to cover this. Since no reliable source organizes tropical cyclone activity by quarter of the year, this also plainly fails WP:GNG. Arguably meets WP:CSD#A10. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are several issues with this article, the first of which is the apparent indiscriminate time frame. From what I can see, almost all other weather-related list type articles deal in seasons, not an arbitrary 3 month period. Second, as the nom pointed out, this info is already included in other articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flap Jack (musician)[edit]

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

Contrary to what the article states, he is not signed to a major label; he instead releases music off his own label. He does not have a single charting song or album and simply fails WP:GNG with no third-party sources establishing his notability. JTtheOG (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also previous discussion on subject resulting in redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flap jack. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:36, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Phillips (YouTuber)[edit]

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

This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, there is not enough in the article to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. –CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable YouTube personality without enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was just given a show on Comedy Central. Maybe we should wait and see how much coverage he gets for the show before we decide on whether or not to delete. Imalawyer (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC) Striking out comment from blocked user Imalawyer. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Having lots of views on Youtube is not enough, because the number of views and subscribers can be artificially inflated by bots/paid followers etc. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:50, 2 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football West Amateur League Division 1[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Currently thought that for WA (Perth) there is listing for the top 4 tiers of the various Perth-based competitions - NPL, State League 1 and State League 2, and the Premier Division of the Amateur League. These teams regularly play in national competitions like qualifiers for FFA Cup, doubling as the main local knockout cup competition - Football West State Cup. This article created in 2016 and also included 4 other even lower divisions of the Amateur league, which I consider to have been done just because the information is available in some of the on-line sports statistics packages. Therefore there is also an element of WP:NOTSTATS here. The determination of whether this article stays or goes will also influence potential AfD for the four even lower divisions here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: also placed commentary for discussion at WikiProject Football : Australia task force. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:01, 2 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Jean Kim[edit]

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

This article's text is insufficient to establish notability. Its sole reference is also insufficient. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 03:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian perspectives on natural resources[edit]

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

Unreferenced opinion piece - see WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It took me a few minutes to decide. ~~t does lack references,~~ and there hasn't been work on the article for years. On the nominator's other comment, the article essentially refers to many sources (so it's not just an opinion piece) but doesn't set them up as references in the article. I think that the subject certainly meets wp:notability, nearly every book / article on libertarianism is going to have material on this topic. I almost said "merge" but this is a logical sub-article of the already-large Libertarianism article. I'd be willing to work on it in the future (a few months from now, not now) if it stays. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I will not be upset if it is deleted, I was just doing my best at an analysis and opinion when weighing in. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and that's fine. I just think that even if a decent article could be written, this is so far from that article that WP:TNT would apply. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a huge mess and completely orginal research mixed in with soap boxen. It's so bad and unsourced we should just scrap it. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It covers probably a dozen different views, many of them conflicting, without characterization or comment so IMHO it's not soapboxing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unsourced original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Opinion piece with zero sources. Unlikely to be notable for standalone article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:ESSAY, WP:OR and for sheer lack of sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It had a source, but Jzg removed it. Restored. I see what's going on now, though; there was an initiative to add a bunch of free market economics sites to the spam blacklist, which resulted in those citations being removed. That in turn is causing article deletions due to articles being unsourced. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Massive_deletions_of_free-market_think_tank_sources. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has potential; libertarian philosophy has long included a detailed theory on natural resources (sometimes called free market environmentalism). It does need cleanup, though. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The information that is usable would be better merged to Debates within libertarianism. I think 'free market environmentalism' is separate from 'perspectives on natural resources'. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete .. an article that starts with "There are differing views among libertarians regarding natural resources, especially land.", and where the only available source is from a think tank. If there are different views, there are different sources for each view. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a big deal if sources on libertarian topics come from think tanks. That's just the way things are done in the libertarian community. The Koch brothers fund a bunch of think tanks, while the Marxists set up collectives, cooperatives, underground zines, etc. and the feminists set up a bunch of VAWA grant-funded NGOs and women's studies departments. In each of these cases, there's plenty of grassroots support, but the choice of structure is different. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That depends also on the specific topic, but suggesting there are different views, using one ref for it reeks ofriginal research. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really old article, dating back to before Wikipedia was so strict about requiring citations, so that's probably why the sourcing is so poor. Do we really want to destroy such a vintage antique as this? It's almost like smashing a Ming vase. Who knows, this article might be valuable, even priceless. Even if it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, maybe it belongs in a museum, as an ancient artifact embodying our cultural heritage! N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it is old is not an inclusion argument. If it is that old and still has no references then that says more about the significance of the article. And if you want to save it from deletion, you still have a couple of days to come with independent sources for the different viewpoints. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, due to some underlying complexities, the whole coverage of libertarainism has been a complex issue complex in Wikipedia. I am thinking that it will need some reorganization and more work on "sub-articles" and I this that this one is a very good candidate for it. This will take some time to evolve and sort out. The existence of an article should be determined by meeting wp:notability and also complying with wp:not, both of which this certainly meets, and not on the current state of the article. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting WP:N is determined by sources, and regarding WP:NOT, in the state that we we are discussing, it fails Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. If there are "differing views among libertarians", then there should be references for libertarian 1 expressing view one, and for libertarian 2 expressing view two, and for libertarian 3 expressing view three (there should be at least 2, otherwise the article should read ".. there are two different views among libertarians .." You say above the article is based on many references that have not been (properly) used, maybe it is time to incorporate these references now so we can discuss the state after that? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an essay and unsourced (for a very long time and in a very bad state — see WP:TNT), and it seems clear that any usable content could easily fit into another/better article. The scope of the article is also highly unclear; is this about libertarian views on land ownership? Libertarian views on environmental regulation? Both? Neutrality^talk 01:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's unsourced because JzG keeps removing the sources. This is an ongoing issue that I've critiqued at User talk:JzG/EL abuse/Econlib. So where do you draw the line between an essay and an article? WP:NOTESSAY speaks of "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." I don't think that's what going on here; the article is talking about the opinions of experts. As for the scope, it's about both land ownership and environmental regulation, because libertarianism often combines the two issues and says that landowners should regulate the environment. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those source removals by JzG seem OK to me. As to source 1 ("openborders.info"), that's an unsigned blog post talking about libertarian ideas on migration and open borders. The words "natural resources" or "environment" don't appear. As to source 2, it's a simple link to a 641-page book by Bastiat (where's the page number??) that is used to support a very essay-like paragraph. (It gives an example about "electromagnetic waves" - I doubt very much that this example came from Bastiat, who wrote in the early 19th century - so this seems clearly like an essay or original research using (minimal) primary sources. Neutrality^talk 02:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed the Bastiat citation. As for openborders.info, that actually did quote from Hoppe about natural resources, but I've changed the citation to link to the original source in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the Journal of Libertarian Studies be a WP:BIASED source on the topic? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what it's used for. Given that the main purpose of the article is to discuss a debate within libertarianism, it's probably more permissible to put a source like that than it would be in, say, a more general natural resources article. While the Journal has a pro-libertarian view, it doesn't necessary advocate for any particular faction within libertarianism. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia sourcing requirement is for retention of challenged content, not for the retention / presence of sources. It is quite possible for a source to be useful for an article even when it does not have sufficient credentials to support retention of challenged content. Secondly, I don't think that it is right for the person who nominated an article for being "unreferenced" to be deleting sources while the article is being discussed at AFD North8000 (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have a wholesale removal by TheValeyard of recently-added citations, including to Bastiat's Harmonies of Political Economy, where the specific chapter and quotation supporting the content had finally been identified. Basically, no source is good enough, whether it's think tank, journal, contemporary book (viz., Libertarian Anarchy by Gerard Casey), or 19th-century treatise. And because no source is good enough, the article must be deleted as an unsourced essay! How Kafkaesque. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's like complaining about the local zoning board that won't let you build a house of Styrofoam and duct tape. You aren't being prevented from writing an article; you are being prevented from keeping a bad article with faulty sources. TheValeyard (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an essay rather than a legitimate encyclopedia topic, and the sub-par sourcing seals the deal. TheValeyard (talk) 17:10, 9 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 Central London Railway. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Hall tube station[edit]

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

This article is about a station that was proposed by the Central London Railway, but the plan that this was part of was not approved by Parliament. Dozens of stations were proposed as parts of plans for various new underground lines or for extensions of existing lines and WikiProject London Transport policy is to create articles for unbuilt stations only if parliamentary permission was granted, e.g. Bushey Heath or Emlyn Road. This station does not meet notability requirements. DavidCane (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central London Railway. Mjroots (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unbuilt, unapproved station. Does not meet GNG. MB 02:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mjroots. Nördic Nightfury 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Vlad (film director)[edit]

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

This is an autobiography (Vladxela = Alexandru Vlad), and the main premise of notability had been his direction of We Fly Again. That article has now been deleted, and this one should be too. There's simply no indication of in-depth coverage in independent sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a site for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Ramos Villegas[edit]

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

This person is studying for a PhD but has not completed it, let alone obtained a major prominent position at the university. There are sources discussing her work, but not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF I feel. A news search brings back her Facebook profile and nothing else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons set out above. Kablammo (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not remotely near a pass of WP:Prof and nothing for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the subject doesn't pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG; she's still doing her PhD, and doesn't seem to have published anything notable. I'm surprised that this article didn't get tagged for A7. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:02, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Giblin (chemist)[edit]

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

No reliable sources found for establishing notability, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be notable she would have to pass the notability for academics. The twists and turns of her career just mean that she never did so. For that matter, I don't think Alfred W. Bosworth does either. Wikipedia arguably favors professors over full time researchers, but I just don't see how either of these individuals would pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability criteria for academics. She was co-author of a couple papers that may have had an influence on formulation of infant formula but connection is tenuous. Glendoremus (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Preventing the log of April 1 from overfilling
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Four well-cited papers. Not sure that is enough for WP:Prof#C1. Can GNG help with baby formula sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This appears to be another sad case where patriarchal attitudes pushed a talented young woman out of science and then the men around her took credit for her accomplishments. But we're not here to right great wrongs, and the sources we have left from those days really don't support much, other than "she was a co-author on some related publications". We certainly don't have any sources that actually credit her as the primary inventor of similac, the strongest claim to notability in the article. The source that looks like it should be the best one, Schuman's concise history of infant formula, doesn't actually mention her (we use it in the article only for an unrelated fact about where similac got its name). This leaves us with only Rossiter (on her dinner protest) as the only secondary source; it's not enough for WP:GNG. And the full title of the most significant of her publications makes clear that it is only one of at least ten papers by her coauthor Bosworth (the only one credited as the inventor in the actual similac article); what makes this paper stand out among Bosworth's others? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Football Tournaments Singapore[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet our high school/ pre-high school sports notability guideline. — Gestrid (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Htaw Me' Bah FC per WP:MULTIAFD. — Gestrid (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not appear to be a high-school or pre-high school tournament, so I'm not sure why nominator included that in the rationale. However, I'm also not sure it's notable. Reserving my !vote until nominator provides a better explanation as to rationale. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Sorry for the late reply. Didn't see the email until just now. Anyway, I was basing my belief that this was a high school league mainly off the photos on their Facebook page, which the creator of the page listed as the league's website. I did this because I could not find any notable news coverage of them to determine both if the article needed to go to AfD and, if so, what rule on WP:NSPORTS to apply. To me, they looked high school aged, though I guess they could be a college team. If that is the case, then WP:NCOLLATH would apply. From what I can find, the articles fail that rule as well. I also cannot find anything on Saw Shalom or Gus Set, the two players mentioned in the first article. Even if these two players are notable, the league they played in does not appear to have enough notability on its own to justify having its own article.

Also (and this is somewhat inconsequential) one of the players listed under Htaw Me' Bah FC#Notable Players just redirects back to the same article. According to the redirect's history, it was done by another editor because the BLP was unreferenced. — Gestrid (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG Spiderone 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned above, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTS. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:10, 9 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 towards a redirect. Kurykh (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina (drag queen)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON BLP of a drag queen whose only substantive claim of notability as of today is that she's a contestant in the season of RuPaul's Drag Race which just started last week. This depends almost entirely on the show's own primary source content about itself rather than reliable source coverage about her in media -- the only non-primary source here is a blog, not a notability-assisting publication. As always, just being a contestant on a reality show is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if she's named the winner at the end of the season, then she'll get an article on those grounds, and otherwise she has to wait until she clears WP:GNG for some other reason. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfiled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could probably be turned back into a redirect. It's part of a school assignment, so doing this would help the teacher see the past history if they had to go back and check over the assignment - although the editing part of the class appears to be over. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect If there is a plausible redirect target then a redirect seems fine. Not notable as a BLP though. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Bravo, Kumanovo[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio station. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources are listed. The entry reads like something copied and pasted off a website.TH1980 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent coverage to indicate notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A radio station does not pass NMEDIA just because the base notability criteria for radio stations have been claimed, if the only reference present is its own self-published website about itself — the article has to be reliably sourced to actually make it over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaolin Mushroom Farms[edit]

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

I found no notability for this company per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability, particularly per WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions [10]; [11]; [12]; and, [13]. The focus of the first two is on another farm and the latter two focus on labor issues, with Kaolin mentioned in passing in each case. Seems to be a longstanding organization, but I find little to no substantive mentions in reliable sources. And that is what is needed to support a Wikipedia article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:07, 4 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. WP:A7 NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Ltd[edit]

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

Contested CSD over sources being present in the article. Google doesn't show much in terms of independent coverage, and the source provided in the article is a PR-esqe interview. Also nominating Umeash Sahhaaii the CEO of this company, for similar reasons:

Delete as it should have been deleted under A7. No actual reliable sources, no claim of significance and a search gives tons of unrelated results and absolutely nothing that would establish notability for the subject. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, it should have been deleted under speedy delete. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the article on the firm and its founder: Press releases and blog posts are not adequate. The best source provided is a softball Q&A piece on the firm's founder, which is PR rather than substantial critical coverage. My searches using the tailored Indian search on both EFC and Eldil are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - a full AfD process isn't going to make a difference here. No credible claim of significance in either article when the A7 speedy was declined - if there is then please point one out if I've missed it. I'd ask the person who declined the Speedy to explain himself but it'd just be a load of pointless "I can't hear you. Look at this essay someone wrote that backs me up". Exemplo347 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how it would go. Lol. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the frustration, but one of the reasons I started this AfD was because I didn't want the conversation on the talk page of the user in question to devolve, because that has never really been helpful to any party in the past. I'm in agreement that the article should be deleted, but think we should try to keep the drama off of the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable Doubt: Bizarre Tales of Death & Justice[edit]

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

I could find no notability for this book per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I could not find any reviews or articles discussing the book in my searches for sources. The book fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK; I cannot find significant coverage of the book in reviews, newspaper articles etc., and it has not won any awards as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candy bouquet[edit]

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

(Serious nomination) Article has zero sources. No reliable sources online, just advertisements. Fails WP:GNG. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - started out as pure promotion ten years ago and has devolved into complete non-notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After the very obvious promotion was removed from the article, there was very little left, and what was there was unsourced. Looking for sources, plenty of hits come up, but these seem to be entirely made up of product pages or "how-to" guides and videos, and nothing that discusses the concept in any meaningful way that would give it notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:45, 4 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Ballinger[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable academic. Biogeographist (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon despite inadequate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Sorry for the concise nomination, but there's not much else to say that wouldn't sound like a personal criticism of the subject, which is not my intention. I find his work interesting, but he does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria for academics. Biogeographist (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a geographer who does not meet any academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ACADEMIC. The article does not mention whether he is a faculty member at a college or university. Although he has published papers in peer-reviewed journals, he works in a competitive field and his papers have made little impact, each having been cited fewer than ten times. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:17, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle Loumis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Icewhiz (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage of his company is not enough to make it notable, and he even less passes the higher hurdle for notability for BLPs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 7 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 Procedural close. Article was speedy-deleted per A7 by User:Coffee. (non-admin closure) NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Scrimshaw[edit]

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

No coverage in independent sources at all. Reference 1 doesn't mention him at all, reference 2 is about his father and reference 3 looks like it's supposed to be his own webpage, but redirects to some strange music website. Would've CSDed with A7 and G11, but an unknown IP removed another editor's G11 tag. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 13:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't come close to passing WP:MUSICBIO and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion, doesn't come close to passing WP:MUSICBIO and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Allmusic bio was about a different person so I deleted it, at present there is no rs in the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We probably ought to consider the very real possibility that this whole article is a hoax. The now-deleted MusicBrainz reference had the subject's date of death at 2188 (that's not a typo -- the MusicBrainz entry said that the subject would die at age 199). And if the article is to be believed, his father was age 70 when he was born to a mother who was aged 18 (and who is listed in her article as having married someone else). Let's hope this discussion ends as a snow-close delete. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd rather CSD this than waste time at AfD, but what exactly can I do when someone other than the article creator, a non-admin, removes the first CSD template placed there? Genuinely curious. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 04:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article history, I see that the original CSD was {{db-madeup}}, so that particular CSD rationale won't be available to use a second time. But is there any doubt that the now-blocked IP address was a sock for the article creator? I suppose you could take this to SPI, hope that they prove that the CSD removal was by a sock, and then reinstate it. But the folks at SPI are already overworked, so why bother them about this? There's little chance that the article will survive this nomination, so it'll all be over in a few days. In the meantime, I'll slap a {{hoax}} banner on the article and await the outcome of this nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:00, 3 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. but surgically remove anything unsourced ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish place names in Canada[edit]

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

WP:STAND states that stand-alone lists must be verifiable and not contain original research. This article is so completely unsupported, and so entirely violates Wikipedia:No original research, that it should not be saved. This article appears to be a list of places in Scotland, which coincidentally have a similarly named place in Canada. There is nothing to support that the place in Canada is, in fact, a Scottish name, or that the place in Canada was chosen "by Scottish emigrants or explorers". For example, Scotch Block, Ontario had been on the list until I deleted it. I was unable to find any source indicating that "Scotch Block" in Ontario was named after some place in Scotland; it was named Scotch Block because it was settled by Scottish immigrants. Almost none of the target articles listed say anything about being named by a Scot, or being named after some place in Scotland. The article is completely misleading, and violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a really good point. for example, article includes a Stirling with a handsome photo of Stirling Agricultural Village, I clicked and it is clear tha tthe Canadian place was name for a man named Stirling, not for Stirling, Scotland. Similarly, I see a Napier listed, but almost places named Napier are named for one of the several famous British Napiers. Terrible, terrible article. However, it's a real topic. (see my comments below).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This appears to be a list of Scottish-sounding place names, based on the article creator's opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)~~See my comment below. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for better sourcing. There are an awful lot of Scottish place names in Canada, and this is quite a usual type of article for us. See: Category:Scottish place names in other countries. List of Spanish place names in Canada is better sourced, and could be a model for improving this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting almost all info keeping title and anything else that is reliably sourced - for which purpose I just sourced Calgary. My reason for preferring this to deletion is that rather than annoying users who look for such a page, by showing the way place names should be sourced we can hope that editors and even new users will take a minute to add the town that they expected to find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This may be the best alternative, but would likely mean deleting nearly the entire article. I would withdraw my nomination but another editor had voted to delete as well. Thank you for suggesting this. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you were right to say that the text is WP:OR, not to mention filled with misinformation.@Exemplo347:, would you be willing to revisit?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Of course, taking a flamethrower to the article and rebuilding it with a clear inclusion criteria (to satisfy WP:INDISCRIMINATE) and reliably sourcing things to clear out any WP:OR concerns is preferable to deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I'm certainly fine with pruning and referencing, but I can't see how we can have both Category:Scottish place names in other countries (a category "for lists and general articles") and Category:Lists of Canada placename etymologies, yet exclude a List of Scottish place names in Canada. List improvement not deletion is the correct course, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On that note, I see the Canadian Encyclopedia has Names of Anglo-Celtic Origin, with links to ~~a lot of~~ some individual cities and towns... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 4 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 all. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope lists[edit]

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

This nomination also includes

Isotope lists, 0-24
Isotope lists, 25-48
Isotope lists, 49-72
Isotope lists, 73-96
Isotope lists, 97+
Isotope lists, all

These are nothing but effectively unmaintained duplications of each element's individual lists of isotopes. E.g.

and so on. I acknowledged that ProDuct0339 (talk · contribs) has recently taken an interest in them, and did quite a bit of work in templatifying them, presumably to facilitate maintenance, but this information is simply best presented on a per-element basis. The fact that they've been pretty much untouched since their creation is 2006 is a testament to that. And our readers seem to agree.

Isotope lists should redirect to List of nuclides (just as List of isotopes does), and the rest deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no way in which these are useful or why they would be read. We have Template:Isotope index to direct readers to relevant articles. @Headbomb: Template:Isotope lists index seems to be a less useful version of Template:Isotope index, you might want to nominate it for deletion. Also, what is the point of this and the 40 of these? Laurdecl ^talk 11:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on nominating the templates as well, but I want to see how this nomination goes first. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to list the "isotope by element articles", but not duplicate the tables. Perhaps Isotope lists could become a super list of those articles. Or would a better title be Lists of isotopes by element? There is a category of the same name, but it would be better suited as an article. Laurdecl ^talk 12:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the worse it gets. For example, compare Isotope_lists,_73-96#Thallium and Isotopes of thallium. The former is unformatted, doesn't even superscript numbers, and is missing half of the fields! Laurdecl ^talk 11:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was working on that. it was terrible. so I was synchronizing them. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
  _{Contributions} 12:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and not that useful. Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am here. okay, so, basicly you guys are suggesting a deletion of that articles. I acknowledge it. but as for me, I felt it was a bit hard to see all 118 elements. when I was working on Table of nuclides (complete), I was needed to open 119 individual pages. so I decided to make that page relevant. well, ~~about the deletion. well, for me, I can't completely maintaining WP:NPOV since I was putting so much effort on that. I'd say Weak keep so my POV can be minimalized.~~ Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 12:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, you were working on it (having to open 119 pages). But that's ediiting, and would make those pages a maintenance support thing. Still, there is no reasonable angle on how the Reader is helped with these articles. I do not see how a Reader would want to arrive at these pages. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About List of nuclides, am I missing something here? There isn't actually a list; the article says "this is a list", etc. and gives an introduction. The same with Table of nuclides. @ProDuct0339: You appear to have moved the actual content into other articles (such as List of nuclides (complete)), but is this a good idea? Confused readers – like myself – will just stare at the article and think "well, where is the list?" Laurdecl ^talk 12:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just following the former article's form: Table of nuclides and it's sub-tables. and as Table of nuclides did, I left a links for every one of them with decent description. ask User:Bryan Derksen for that, since he was the one who did it first. _{even though I don't know him.} Product0339^{Talk • Project}
  _{Contributions} 12:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, sorry. I think I'll transclude the "complete" version onto the main list article, it's what readers are looking for. Laurdecl ^talk 12:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as you can see my progresses in My Project page, only the 0-24 and 25-48 are finished yet. the others are in progress. you can judge the finished ones, though. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 12:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, guys, I have an idea. I dunno its good or not. but I'm throwing it in. how about Merge those lists in one or two(individual and one-list) articles? not 5. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
_{Contributions} 12:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that what Isotope lists, all is? The question is: why? It will create a huge amount of work for you and it's not very useful; readers who are looking for isotopes of an element will go to that element's page. Laurdecl ^talk 13:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that we should list the "isotope by element" articles somewhere, but we shouldn't duplicate the tables. Category:Lists of isotopes by element is an example. I will think about creating Lists of isotopes by element. Laurdecl ^talk 13:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Headbomb: Since you started this AfD; do you think creating a list of these articles, but without duplicating the tables, is a good idea? Would it be better at Isotope lists or Lists of isotopes by element. Laurdecl ^talk 13:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and I moved those Lists of isotopes by element to Isotope lists. currently only 0-48 are done... but I can do it in a week. since I was working on it. no problem. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
      _{Contributions} 13:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - But why? This leaves us with a long list of duplicate tables that are unmaintained... Laurdecl ^talk 13:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, as you mentioned above, we need some sort of "isotope by element" articles somewhere. and since I template those tables, we can turn the individual isotope article's table into a template, therefore completing the maintaining process. also, Table of nuclides (segmented, narrow) is a duplication, too. but it is kept due to the appearance. Product0339^{Talk • Project}
        _{Contributions} 14:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see the point of a master list / a list with all 3000 nuclides or whatever on it. Per-element lists are fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        ProDuct0339 we need some sort of "isotope by element" articles somewhere.—Why? Still waiting for a first argument to list all isotopes together. -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if the reader needs multiple element's isotope lists (for compare, for making own lists, or any reason), this list will help the reader to navigate and view faster and clearer since all of them is in one article, there is no need to go through link to link, article to article. when first I template this list (well, only 40% but still.), I, too, was able to edit Template:NuclidesComplete much faster. since i didn't need to go though every single 118 articles and find List of isotopes from large amount of information. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 11:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, "to navigate and view faster and clearer" between the 3000+ isotopes: that's a very indiscriminate list, while the complete isotopes pages are just one scroll and one more click away. BTW, WP:CSC says 32K page size is an indication of a maximum size for such a list. I add that relevant comparision of isotopes is covered in the nuclides table (more complete by logic & navigation), or when mentioned as a decay product in the infoboxes.
        
        "I was able to edit much faster" — sure, but that's editing and not for our Readers. (If helpful, build the page in WP-space nort article space). -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Click in contents, and a home key is much faster than scroll and one more click, since the click in contents summary transports the reader instantly. also, there is some other lists that exceeds 32 KB. like List of Governors of Alabama(38 KB), List of Alias characters(66 KB) and List of Apple II games(53 KB). also, some readers who wants to make their own list, can see this as helpful just like I felt when I was editing pages. for normal readers, they can either choose to view individual articles to see more detailed descriptions, or this article to see more broad, all-in-one lists. sure, in all-in-one lists, there is Table of nuclides and List of nuclides, too. however, Table of nuclides doesn't show any detailed properties (approximate half-life, atomic number, number of neutrons.), It is really hard to find certain element's isotopes in List of nuclides. well, relevancy differs from readers, so I can't comment on that. I respect your reasoning, but I'd say Delete all other pages except the main one. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 14:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, also, Rename this to Lists of isotopes by element or something. (as suggested by Laurdecl), and make this page a redirect to List of nuclides. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 14:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The analogy here is that we don't have a master list of all US states governors, but rather individual lists of each states' governors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's not about speed, its about not adding any extra at all for a reader. Nuclides table already has navigation & isotopes relation nicely. "readers who want to make their own list"? They can, without these pages. Sure there are other pages exceeding 32K. Maybe there are good reasons for that (as Headbomb notes), or maybe they are to go too. Is not the issue here. In short, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, we can add some general tendency of isotope's properties to that list in the beginning, and explaining the list's acronyms, add some pictures, the list is just started to reconstruct. there are many, many ways to improve this list. also, there are sure good reasons for exceeding 32 KB lists, they are good. if the list was finished, will the readers still not going to read this page? I think not. about policy, because the information is available elsewhere is not valid either. sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is invalid. but I thought it was better than nothing. Product0339Talk • Project
        Contributions 02:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Reader's need or use in sight. I don't even see how this would help maintenance (so no need to even move & keep them into WP space). BTW, there are some 3000+ isotopes (in case the should be listed...). -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm joining the discussion because of the clutter of individual isotope list templates. I'm glad to see ProDuct0339 taking an interest, but I feel pages by element make more sense; if there's a list page, it can point to the individual element pages. I agree with what Laurdecl said above. = paul2520 21:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Dinakar[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) -down load 09:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are these sources enough to push it over the boundary? [14][15] Spiderone 07:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources not anywhere near enough to show a pass of our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN Spiderone 09:11, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theepachelvan Pratheepan[edit]

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

The article failed to prove the WP:BIO. References are given for sake of procedure, but fail to WP:VER ~AntanO4task (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a number of copyright violations/close plagiarism issues - https://www.poemhunter.com/theepachelvan-piratheepan/biography/, https://www.poemhunter.com/theepachelvan-piratheepan/biography/ that need to be addressed. Dan arndt (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete: Non-notable and the awards don't appear to be significant. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Grace Korka[edit]

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

Non- notable singer/dancer one of the members of Paradiso Girls. Notability is not inherited. The subject on their own does not have significant detailed coverage in WP:RS at this time. Could be case of WP:TOOSOON. Antonioatrylia (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search indicate there's only soical media coverage which fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:07, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottomen[edit]

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

No apparent notability for this band. I came across this as a random article and tidied it up, then realised that I had no idea why this on-off band should be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Their albums are all self-released and do not appear to have had any success. The article was created and largely edited by Jimmydonc1 who has no other edits; I strongly suspect he is a member of the band. Emeraude (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with nominators argument. The absence of sources indicates this is original research by someone with intimate knowledge of the subject, but is unable to provide any standard WP:GNG rational. Probably a vanity page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 08:33, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hirak Hemant Bhattarai[edit]

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

A search fails to find adequate RS. Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable--Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has insufficient independent and reliable sources on this subject, with searches unable to find any usable sites. Notability not established due to lack of provision of verifiable information. It does not pass WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like self promotion to me. Dan arndt (talk) 09:55, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States vice-presidential debate, 1976[edit]

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

Unsourced and partially written like an essay, most of this is just a transcript, unsure if there is a copyright violation. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Against I'm not sure why politicians would have copyrighted their comments at a public debate. Surely that falls within public domain. The debate is common knowledge and the Bob Dole comments about Democrat wars are well known and often cited. The article has been around for a decade and has been continually updated and expanded throughout that period. Surely a few newspaper articles about the debate from 1976 could be found rather than deleting it. I don't see what is to be gained for historical memory of political events if it is deleted on the basis of a spurious copyright claim.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Deletion rationale is unclear. "Unsourced" isn't a valid argument at AfD, and the rest of the rationale is... well, read it back to yourself. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is widely cited as the first such debate [16], and, certainly, both candidates were/are major figures in American political history. Article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are certainly enough sources to meet V, NPOV, NOR, and NEVENT. NEVENT indicates need for indepth, sustained coverage, which I think is satisfied. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:33, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Götze[edit]

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

Contested PROD (concern was "a notable player, he is in FCB champions league list"). Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Felix Götze has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. His inclusion in the Champions League squad list is irrelevant to his notability (lots of non-notable, youth players are included in the UEFA squads). S.A. Julio (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~: he is a notable player, he is in FC bayern Munich II but now play in FC Bayern squad, he play now in bundesliga and in Champions league FCB's list, please read:~~

http://www.bundesliga.com/en/league/Players_410384.jsp
http://www.espnfc.com/bayern-munich/story/2944063/mario-gotzes-brother-felix-in-bayern-munichs-champions-league-squad
http://www.sport1.de/fussball/bundesliga/2016/07/carlo-ancelotti-setzt-bei-debuet-fuer-fc-bayern-auf-felix-goetze --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Götze has not made an appearance in a WP:FPL, thereby failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and does not meet WP:GNG. The link you posted is WP:ROUTINE coverage about a pre-season friendly match. Being included in their Champions League squad has no bearing on notability (see UEFA's site, there are many, non-notable youth/reserve players included in the "player list B"). S.A. Julio (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Götze play one match against SV Lippstadt 08, this is not a newcomer player maybe play or not, Carlo Ancelotti already choose him for starting lineup yesterday and he has a bright future (according to his manager and the press), yesterday many People search for the player "Götze" who appear FC Bayern lineup, there are many reliable sources talk about him, the deletion of article is useless because we will create this article sooner or later --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 12:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The links above are routine sports coverage. Speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines as already stated; also notability is not inherited from siblings Spiderone 07:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(for now) - seems to be yet another case of WP:TOOSOON, few footballers pass WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG at the age of 19, subject will surley make his debut in two or three years and we can recreate the article then. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OK that make sense, we can restore it when the player make his first appearance in his club --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:58, 8 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 Technical keep, drafts go to MfD--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Avaamo[edit]

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

This article appears to be advertising the subject. The article does not show the subject to have notabilty. The article lacks good sources, and lacks citation of good sources. CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard 03:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California (1963 film)[edit]

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

Low-budget film with C-list (at best) stars (Faith Domergue). No reviews that I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael pate and Jock Mahoney are well recognised names - Mahoney has had a book written about his career. I've added some extra references.Dutchy85 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If this was a new movie, I would expect more coverage than what I found, but this is a movie from 1963. My keep is per [17], [18], and [19]. SL93 (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like plenty of Google Books search results when searching for keywords here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the book reliable sources identified by SL93 Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found above get it over GNG for me. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Plaza[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable condominum; all I could find are passing mentions, promotional advertisments, short news stories on companies based in the building (rather than about the building itself), and the like. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. A couple of mentions about an award granted to the shopping mall within, but no detailed coverage of the building itself. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable. —JJ Be rs 08:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable building. Wikipedia is not a directory. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with above. WP:Mill building. MB 03:53, 3 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 procedural close. Wrong venue. Please nominate drafts at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ellp[edit]

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

This draft is an advertisement for a product. This article gives no notability to the product. The references and source material are mostly First party affiliated sources and they are not cited in the article. CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard 03:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Daho[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete raw twitter follower numbers do not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Fernando Neto[edit]

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

References only show that he exists. No evidence of any notability. Earlier PROD removed hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG. Were it not for the unsubstantiated claims in the bullet lists (there is no prose here), this should have been a speedy A7 Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as written; alternately, if requested by the article creator, move to draft space to give them an opportunity to provide sources and otherwise bring this article into encylopedic shape. bd2412 T 22:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck'n'Shit Baby Love![edit]

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

Delete. Album with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NALBUMS -- the only claim even being attempted, in fact, was airplay on a single local radio station, but (a) I've removed that as unsourced, and (b) to count as notability for an album, an airplay claim has to be tied to a national radio network and not just to one standalone station in a small media market. And, in fact, even the artist's article is so inadequately sourced that it's up for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to justify this having its own page. I would discourage a redirect as the primary artist's page is up for AfD as well. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas Petroleum Company[edit]

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

General Notability Guideline not met by this company. I have been able to prove that this company exists, that this company is publicly traded and that they hold a licence to explore off-shore - and that's all. It's just a routine company going about its routine business. Nothing I have found proves notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple google search showed me that the company does exist and is in fact publicly traded: https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=%22Bahamas+Petroleum+Company%22&oq=%22Bahamas+Petroleum+Company%22&aqs=chrome..69i57l2j69i59l3.2622j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 It's important to distinguish "importance or significance" from "notability": A7 does not require that an article indicates that the subject meets a notability guideline, merely suggest that the article could be improved to a state where it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpkersbergen123 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpkersbergen123: You clearly didn't read my rationale properly. Read it again - and then tell me why you're talking about WP:A7 when it doesn't apply at Articles for Deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing stands out about this company; the coverage is routine, not rising to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is nothing notable about this. -- Dane ^talk 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZAPPAtite[edit]

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

This article shows no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" with regard to "ZAPPAtite". Eddie Blick (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is of certain interest in a series of similar articles, as can be followed in the chronology timeline in the inforbox. Removing this article will cause interruption of that chronology. - DVdm (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: You will need to develop a stronger argument to keep this article, preferably by either listing articles supporting that it has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources in this AfD or incorporating them into the article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Would something from jazztimes.com, music.mxdwn.com, liveforlivemusic.com be approprriate and sufficient to keep the article? There's about 12,800 Google hits on this album, but most are places where tracks can be bought online. - DVdm (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: The JazzTimes source seems strong; I am not certain about reliability of the other two sources however, but they also seem applicable to this article. I would suggest doing further research to possibly find other sources as well to add more to your argument to keep the article as I do not believe that three sources alone could satisfy an ironclad keep (but that is just my opinion). Just as a word of advice, I would not use the amount of Google hits or the fact that you can buy something online as markers of notability as those are in fact not clear indicators of notability so be careful when relying on that for your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Well, I didn't create the article and I'm not married to it, so to speak, and I'm not inclined to put time and work in it. If someone feels like it, they can use the link(s) to add content. My only argument, which is more like a remark actually, is that deletion would interrupt the chronological albums chain (in which I did invest some time and effort :-)). Similar remarks regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meat Light. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: I understand. I would have to respectfully comment that I do not believe the chronological albums chain is not a strong argument for keeping this particular article or Meat Light. If a reader really wants to access the next album or the one released prior to this one, then they can reference the infobox or reference the artist's discography page. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also confirm that there's no policy precedent for keeping articles for the benefit of an infobox chronology, each item must be notable independently. KaisaL (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with all of this, but I personally would just keep it nevertheless per, well, no harm and no big deal

. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG not met. If the deletion of this article breaks a template or infobox, well, it takes a few seconds to fix that. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 9 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 Merged to Rogue Trooper. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norts[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Better discuss this deletion :: the Rogue Trooper scenario is well-known. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was a PROD, not a speedy delete, and "Well known" is relative. It may be "well known" within the Rogue Trooper circle, but it's certainly not "well known" like Superman, Casablanca, The Great Wall of China, or the planet Mars. After Southers was originally PROD'd by @Soetermans: with the rationale "Article on a fictional faction, written from an in-universe tone. Not a single source, and nothing that can't be covered by the article Rogue Trooper." I supported it with the statement "no indication of notability outside of the fiction, sufficiently discussed on Rogue Trooper." Because of the similarity, I copied the PROD to this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages Norts and Southers have stood since May 2006 unqueried. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- C'mon, do I really have to cite WP:LONGTIME here? Just because they've been around for a while is no argument to keep something. The article Southers doesn't have a single reference, while Norts only one is an issue of Rogue Trooper. We need independent, third-party coverage to justify an article on the two factions. There's nothing in either article that isn't already mentioned on the main article, the rest is more suitable for a personal Wiki. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Anthony Appleyard:, are you actually in favor of keeping these articles, or do you just want them to go through the full AfD process because of their age? The article condition seems pretty close to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drowtales (3rd nomination), which closed on Delete. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion method used seemed a bit hasty, so I felt that they should go through a full AfD, whatever the result is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As regards references, some may say that the publications that contain the Rogue Trooper stories, are enough reference. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To which I would respond those publications are primary sources, and only prove notability within the fiction. As such, I feel both Norts and Southers are covered in sufficient detail on the Rogue Trooper page. The level of detail on the individual pages is both excessive and insufficient - the list of "well known" Norts doesn't link to a character article or provide anything beyond a name and rank. The breakdowns of armed forces and war machines have similar problems. That leaves the History section, which duplicates material from the Rogue Trooper page. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rogue Trooper - not notable outside the comic strip. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Norts and Southers are now text-merged to Rogue Trooper. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 5 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 Merged to Rogue Trooper. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southers[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Better discuss this deletion :: the Rogue Trooper scenario is well-known. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was a PROD, not a speedy delete, and "Well known" is relative. It may be "well known" within the Rogue Trooper circle, but it's certainly not "well known" like Superman, Casablanca, The Great Wall of China, or the planet Mars. It was originally PROD'd by @Soetermans: with the rationale "Article on a fictional faction, written from an in-universe tone. Not a single source, and nothing that can't be covered by the article Rogue Trooper." I supported it with the statement "no indication of notability outside of the fiction, sufficiently discussed on Rogue Trooper." Because of the similarity, I copied the PROD to Norts. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages Norts and Southers have stood since May 2006 unqueried. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norts. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rogue Trooper - not notable outside the comic strip. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:38, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ScriptDash Pharmacy[edit]

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

subject fails WP:GNG. Only press release from primary sources could be found about the subject which makes me suspect a publicity stunt —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguously promotional - right down to the $20 gift card offer. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: How is this Nigeria-related? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Exemplo347: sorry about that. Corrected. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm not familiar with articles for deletion discussion formatting. I've removed two references (expansion & charity) to address concerns about WP:PROMO. Thank you flagging this. To Oluwa2Chainz's comment, there are two sources that are not press releases: San Francisco Chronicle, and StanfordHealth.org. Looking forward to your feedback. (from Tapestry415) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapestry415 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss changes to the article that removed some promotional material
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm sticking with my !vote. The GNG isn't met by this company. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:21, 4 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: M. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Yogi[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this comic book character. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. BOZ (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters. That list exists for characters like this one who are only notable within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M. As the nominator stated, there is next to nothing out there, as far as reliable sources go. Every source present in the article currently is just the comics he appeared in themselves, and searches bring up nothing but brief mentions and plot synopsises. Personally, I'd be fine if it was deleted due to its lack of reliable sources, but as the appropriate list already exists, a (very sparing) merge would be an OK solution. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: M per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Crochemore[edit]

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

Subject does not hold a named chair, does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC, and refs consist solely of non-independent sources. Subject needs to have evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. KDS4444 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability claim: subject is notable for having a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates: 100 peer-reviewed publications in reputable academic journals and close to 1400 citations in ACM DL. [20] Subject is also notable for having an honorary degree from a reputable university. TheoreticalComputerScientist (talk) 16:51, 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 03:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His many highly cited publications (14 with over 100 citations each in Google scholar) give him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. And the honorary doctorate and festschrift, although not definitive, are highly suggestive of notability, and they also provide non-trivial coverage about the subject, already cited in the article (falsifying the nominator's claim that the sources are all non-independent). Also note that holding a named chair is in no wise a requirement for having a Wikipedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David Eppstein, please, I never suggested that having a named chair was a prerequisite for notability— how ludicrous. I indicated that this criterion had not been met, by means of listing the criteria which I felt had not been met to establish notability. If you want to criticize my nomination, please do so on other grounds, yes? I have known you here for years now, and am surprised you would make such a suggestion. KDS4444 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very first criterion (WP:PROF#C1) is about citations. If you were merely "listing" various criteria, why didn't you discuss the citation record then? — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep as the subject is a well-cited researcher. The nominator should understand WP:ACADEMIC properly before nominating articles for deletion. The references being primary (even in a biography) is absolutely no reason to delete an article (see WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Stringy Acid) Great. Can you provide evidence of coverage of this subject in independent reliable secondary sources? That would be great! Thanks! Also, "Snow keep" is not a kind of vote. If you wish to vote "Keep", you can simply write "Keep." No need to bring in the snow just yet. References being primary are, indeed, not a reason for deleting an article, I grant you— my argument is that they are not grounds for retaining it. N'est-ce Pas?? Lastly, I don't think it is my obligation to specifically state each criterion which has not been met— I merely mentioned that one by way of example of criteria which looked like they had not been met. I don't need to be insulted or told to review the details of a notability guideline. This is clearly getting ridiculous. If you want to bite people, perhaps you have other friends you can lay this on. You have only 223 edits to your name— you need to act somewhat more professionally here. KDS4444 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's your obligation to make good arguments if you want this article to be deleted. You have to at least discuss why this subject's citation record doesn't give him notability, especially when as per WP:PROF, a high citation count is good enough for it (e.g., is the citation count high due to self-citations?). I'll ignore the sarcasm and snide remarks, and simply point out that it's highly unlikely that this article is going to get deleted (and therefore the "snow" vote). — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: Since you were also concerned with the lack of non-primary sources, the forward to the special Theoretical Computer Science issue on Prof. Crochemore's work gives more than an adequate biography. The special issue was edited by independent authors, and was published in a reputable journal. I hope this satisfies you. Now only if you'd take down this bogus nomination. — Stringy Acid (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could, but I have already left this conversation. Too acid for my tastes. KDS4444 (talk) 21:06, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Yadav (Sambo wrestler)[edit]

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

subject fails WP:GNG. Winning non-notable competitions isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant independent coverage of him and the only result I can find of him at the world championships [21] shows that he won no matches. That is not enough to meet WP:MANOTE and has not been considered anywhere near close enough to show notability in TKD or judo. Papaursa (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:05, 2 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Baku World Cup[edit]

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

Not-notable to have an event page, possible deletion or merge is what I suggest. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 2 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 Japan–United States relations. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California–Japan relations[edit]

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

we only create articles between nations not states and nations. The only information of value here is on Japanese Californians which can easily be covered in Japanese Americans. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep California is a state which has a government which passed relevant legislation, e.g. California Alien Land Law of 1913. Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content about the subject present in the article and no indication of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The nominator's claim that the topic is inherently non-notable is problematic. We can create articles on any notable topic, and California does have particularly strong trade and cultural links to Japan. The real question is whether the topic of California–Japan relations has been widely discussed in reliable sources, and I believe that it passes that bar: [22], [23],[24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Additionally, the governors of California make frequent trips to Japan representing their state, and, as Andrew D. pointed out, California has had legislation specifically targeting Japanese nationals and immigrants. The current content of the article is weak, and we won't lose much if it's deleted, but I'm convinced that this is a notable topic. Pburka (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- the article as it currently stands does not make a strong case, but the sources presented by Pburka is indicative of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Japan–United States relations (do not merge) There is not enough unique content to justify an article. Currently I see a comparison box, which is not necessary. A couple of badly sourced sentences about Japanese Californians, which seems to be largely WP:OR. A 2 sentence random content about economic links which isn't even that important. Articles like these do not contribute anything. I would suggest a redirect. In case there is information in the future, it can be restored. But the current information is not useful. I am opposed to a merge because I do not consider the information useful and a forced AfD Merge is messy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, are you OK with a redirect here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Japan-United States relations. Under the U.S. Constitution, states technically aren't allowed to have their own foreign relations. It's common for governors of U.S. states to go on foreign trade missions regardless, but beyond that, I think the waters are muddy here. Anything worth keeping can go into the national level article. South Nashua (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Anything that is particularly of note can be included on the main Japan-US page. I think it is generally not a good idea to have bilateral relations pages between sovereign nations and non-sovereign subregions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Japan-United States relations. Anything can easily be covered there. Not independently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 06:04, 3 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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two c's in a k[edit]

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

Lacks notability and encyclopedic value. TheDracologist (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact the 2nd nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Cunts in a Kitchen. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is one of a series of ill-considered AfDs by new editor User:TheDracologist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 01:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the four citations, one is a list in The Guardian, another is dialogue between fictional characters, and a third is a website called Your Mum. I'd also like to ask someone to check the Danse Macabre citation for me because I don't have access to it. Google searches of "Two C's in a K" and "Two cunts in a kitchen" yielded no other sources, unless you count TV Tropes and Urban Dictionary. I therefore believe that this article does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. TheDracologist (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One item in a list does not count as significant coverage and the Danse Macabre citation is likely to be nothing more than a passing mention. The fictional dialogue also seems to be a passing mention from the information provided. The subject of this article has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. TheDracologist (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Millions Saved[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable project. The book that is the product of this work is in only 132 libraries, according to WorldCat. This is trivial impact in this subject. As for promotionalism , see the section "Elements of Success". As for inappropriate content, see the listing of multiple individual projects. As for COI editing, note the emphasis on GiveWell and GoodVentures, the beneficiaries of an elaborate campaign by multiple Wikipedia meatpuppets pretending to be an effort to build our content, but it turns out they mean by that to build our content for the projects they sponsor. Of the 33 references, 29 are by them or their sponsors. I doubt there is evidence for notability -- the NYT article reviews this book along with many others. DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- such content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 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 03:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vacs (musician)[edit]

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

found nothing substantial to show that this artiste meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI have all prove and facts that the the artiste meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC requirement. His name is that of a house hold one as he has in his production credit several records he did for Sarkodie, Joey B. The reference all prove valid. You can cross check. Thanks Oluwa2Chainz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofiowia (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a household name is not a guarantee for a subject to pass WP:GNG. You should understand that the musician lacks detailed analysis from reliable independent sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Kevin12 xd 23:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources in the article discusses the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article and delete Speedy DeletionWP:GNG or WP:MUSIC requirement met WP:MUSICBIO well sourced and referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofiowia (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 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 procedural close. Wrong venue. As noted below, please nominate drafts at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ShrinkTheWeb[edit]

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

1. The subject is not notable. Screenshot service is not proprietary to ShrinkTheWeb. The subject did not invent or revolutionized screen shot service, as this article states the subject sells this service to the consumer. This is not notable. The sources are not unbiased journalism. CatSleepingOnTheKeyboard 02:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: This is a draft and needs to be nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, not here. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:46, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Baliles[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate that Jon Baliles meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability for politicians. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Richmond, Virginia is not a city that gives the council members default notability and the coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what are you assuming this off of? Quidster4040 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quidster4040 Our policies and guidelines located at WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator or vote for deletion have mentioned any guideline where this article does not meet criteria for deletion. I believe Richmond, Virginia is a default city giving notability contrary to JPL's argument. It is one of the 100 largest cities in the U.S., one of the 5 largest cities in Virginia, and a state capital. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 17:30, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agena (computer virus)[edit]

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

Non-notable computer virus per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely no notability to this virus. -- Dane ^talk 01:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Cutter[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability, per WP:MUSICBIO. Short and unsuccessful pop music career, not covered in reliable independent sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I have had a look at her session work and she has worked with some prestigious artists. Lead singer of what I believe to be a charting theme song. May have also appeared in The Rockford Files. Karl Twist (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant, independent sources. Fails as a claim of notability by association. Basically, an largely uncredited session singer who had a 4-year career without achieving any of the criteria necessary for WP:MUSIC. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the claims by Karl Twist can be verified. NOTINHERITED applies to her backing credits, so it's really down to whether the theme song charted, otherwise I see no justification for an article. KaisaL (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The theme song, "This Is It", did not make any charts of which I am aware. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 9 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aannengilum Alenkilum[edit]

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

The source mentioned in the article says that the movie will begin principal photography only in May. Fails WP:NFILM and is WP:TOSOON Jupitus Smart 14:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon as per nom Spiderone 13:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON as filming hasn't started so there is a lack of rs coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 16:14, 8 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ying[edit]

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

Promotional content, founder of an unremarkable company. Timmyshin (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator User:三人成君 is a confirmed sockpuppet. Timmyshin (talk) 22:40, 9 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) – Train2104 (t • c) 19:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skyland İstanbul 1[edit]

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

This article fails to meet the notability guideling: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Only one source is listed, and it seems to be from the company responsible for the building. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tallest buildings in Istanbul/Turkey make it notable. Here is a news source [30], and independent skyscraper database [31], a real estate news source [32], and there are certainly many more in non-english. MB 04:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be plenty of coverage in Turkish language sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 9 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolla Zap[edit]

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

I find very little coverage of this person that would establish notability, and I don't think a Young Entrepreneurs of the Year Award from the Small Business Administration[33] suffices to get her over the fence in terms of notability as an artist. Largoplazo (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note for context - this is a new article created 20 minutes ago, as part of an editathon that I'm helping with. I'm working with the author on developing and improving the article today. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are the sources of notability we found: a student grant from CMU, SBA award, MTV interview, a few newspaper articles. I fleshed out the article a bit to make sure they're visible. It's something, but I'm also not sure if it's enough to get the article over the notability fence. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main contributor to the article appears to have a COI. It is unfortunate that this wasn't brought up during the edit-a-thon. Perhaps this article could be userfied until more sources are added, then sent to Draft to let other users write the article, and minimize the COI. Mduvekot (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I wasn't looking for COI during the busy editathon, and I should have. I don't think the article suffers much from it though, other than that it probably wouldn't have been created without a personal connection of some kind. After the deletion nomination, we put a copy in User:Claudinezapfriedberg/sandbox so it can be further developed if other sources turn up later. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references do not establish notability. The achievements here, and the reporting that proves them, are routine and non-notable. someone should also nominate the linked aritcle Andi Irwin for the same reasons. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet guidelines of notability. Somethoughtsaboutthings (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaii Future Bass[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this music genre. The creator has no article. SL93 (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This genre was created two years ago, according to this article. Maybe, if it becomes more popular and gets more press, the article can be recreated. For now, it should be deleted. Imalawyer (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; despite its delightful name, this genre fails WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 9 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 speedily deleted by DGG per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shorena Chertkoev[edit]

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

There are not "significant" numbers of reliable, independent sources to meet general notability guidelines. –CaroleHenson (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Searching did not turn sufficient coverage (hardly anything). MB 04:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:12, 2 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. However, "inarticulate and unencyclopedian" is not a policy- or guideline-based reason for deletion. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pull Up refactoring[edit]

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

not a notable subject. It might be worth merging some of the article into the refactoring article and leaving a redirect Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice): Only one sentence (the lead) of this article is valuable. That sentence is already in the code refactoring article. —Codename Lisa (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inarticulate and unencyclopedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010: The Graphic Action Game[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this. The only source in the article is to a website to play the game. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 22:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable game/website combo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No third party coverage. -- Dane ^talk 01:29, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Rosales[edit]

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

Delete for being a non-notable person. There are many local reporters in the US (I having been one of them myself). We can't create an article for every single on-air reporter in the US. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 01:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article entirely sourced to employer bios.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 9 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Knight's Cross recipients 16th SS Panzer Grenadier Division Reichsführer SS[edit]

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

The list article contains two entries, one of each is a redirect to a list. Per the recent discussion (Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners), it's highly unlikely that the redirected subject would be considered notable in the future and the list is not needed.

For full disclosure, I've edited the article in the past (original version) to remove intricate detail, but it has always contained just two names.

The article was created by the same editor who created about 500 articles on the members of the Waffen-SS, and the cross caterigorisation of "Knight's Cross winner" by [X] category strikes me as excessive. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- We have been getting rid of a lot of material on German Knight's Cross recipients. This appears to be an effort to save it by providing lists by regiment. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the list was created in the same timeframe (2008) at a time when the Knight's Cross recipients were presumed by default to be notable. This has changed recently, so both the articles created by the editor in question, along with the lists, are no longer encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 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. Article subjects are found to meet the notability criteria for inclusion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1983 Blue Swords[edit]

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

This article should be deleted (or redirected to Blue Swords) as it duplicates information already found in Blue Swords I am taking this to AfD as South Nashua reverted my redirection of this article to Blue Swords. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 21:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate these articles in the same vein as they are duplicating information already found in Blue Swords -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 21:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{1969 Blue Swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Strong Keep I found these articles a week or two ago, they're all fairly new. The main article meets the nominal criteria for figure skating competitions, but it only includes the top three finishers in each event. That's understandable, but if you look at these articles, most of the finishers are also notable enough for articles of their own. This is a clear DINC situation, these articles need expansion and cleanup. If there's no chance of that, then deletion is understandable, but it seems like there's a strong possibility of cleanup with some insight from experts in German and figure skating articles. South Nashua (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only the names of the medalists are duplicated from Blue Swords. Information on other participants should not be deleted since many are notable. Alternatively, these articles could be merged with Blue Swords (however, this would make that article unwieldy). Hergilei (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect the pages lack sources to prove notability and are a simple list of stats with a repeated lead. I would suggest having expandable lists in the main article Blue Swords Domdeparis (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment. It's true that these pages are underdeveloped but WP:RUBBISH: "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." It's difficult to find news articles for topics from the pre-internet age, however, many of these events appear to have received national media coverage. There are photographs in the German Federal Archives, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Pokal_der_Blauen_Schwerter This indicates notability. Hergilei (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but on the condition that the root article be massively expanded to hold all the information on the current pages listed here for deletion. –Vami _IV✠ 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per South Nashua. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As South Nashua says the main article is clearly notable but there are no sources for the 18 articles to prove their notability. the DINC argument does not apply here IMHO because it's not the quality of the article that is in question but the notability. If there were sources proving the notability then the articles are fine. The argument from Hergilei that "Information on other participants should not be deleted since many are notable." is suggesting that the notability is inherited and that everything that a notable person does should be kept. I personally do not agree. Domdeparis (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. My only real problem is the lack of sources demonstrating notability. I'm well aware of the warning in WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but I suspect that in this instance that WP:RS printed sources may exist but are not online. All the events listed in this AfD took place in the former DDR, and write-ups are likely to be in German or Russian. Searching isn't easy: even if you try to search in German and force a year into a Google search, a whole slew of false positives overwhelms the possibly-relevant results. (I failed to dream up a Russian search expression - that language lacks a general word which means "blue".) The 1987 article cites Neues Deutschland and de:Pirouette (Magazin) as sources. I wouldn't trust ND for political reporting as far as I could throw it; but it was a mass-circulation newspaper in the former DDR, and reports of sporting events are another matter. I am not competent to comment on whether or not Pirouette is WP:RS - that definitely needs input from a figure skating expert. Narky Blert (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(For completeness - I found 14 articles in German Wiki which mention "Pokal der blauen Schwerter". That is neither here nor there, under WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if dozens of thoroughly notable people have triumphed in the Little Wittering Kindergarten Under-5s Egg-and-Spoon Race (and for all I know, they have), that wouldn't make the event notable.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Swafford[edit]

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

Non-notable model. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable significant coverage. It also looks her modeling career didn't amount to much because the most recent thing I found was about her being broke and missing teeth. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 3 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. Nomination withdrawn without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edidi[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Has no sources whatsoever, does not cite a single source. Could be merged to Kwara State as a section rather than having It's own page. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nominator failed to do this before nominating this article. The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:GEO per The Nation and this. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Oluwa2Chainz. Is a real town. Barring serious BLP violations, not having sources yet in an article is a reason for improving an article, not deleting it. --Oakshade (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The town passes WP:GEOLAND. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This passes WP:GEO easily. Shouldn't have been nom'd. -- Dane ^talk 01:34, 6 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) —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N0thing[edit]

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

The article subject has not had "significant coverage in reliable sources" as the references each only mention him in passing. One sentence in three references (the fourth doesn't even mention him) does not meet WP:NOTE. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the best American esports players of all time. Numerous sources go in-depth on him (including some on the talk page at the time of this nomination), and many more have brief, but non-trivial mentions of him, enough to meet WP:BASIC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is deleted, the title "n0thing" should redirect to nothing (disambiguation) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also: [34] [35]. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:44, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in science fiction[edit]

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

Not notable Robynthehode (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ALMANAC Wikipedia covers topics by year, this would be no different. WP:NN does not apply in this case, since 2018 is next year and SciFi is eminently notable and a high profile topic for the 21st century so far; though WP:TOOSOON might apply. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough content yet and a WP:CRYSTALBALL article so delete per WP:TOOSOON. AusLondonder (talk) 06:08, 3 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. Michig (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eight lines of descent of John Prescott, founder of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1645, from Alfred the Great, King of England, 871-901[edit]

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

I don't see anything about this book that makes it notable. All references on the page are either to the book itself, or fall within a list on the page of genealogical studies that cite the book as a source, and a Google Books search returns similar results, the book and 10 matches that cite the book. I could find no evidence of discussion of it as a work by any source - no reviews or other summaries. Thus the book seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books), and further, given the lack of such a summary, it clearly represents WP:OR, the compiler seemingly just taking a book off their shelf and mostly just typing up the table of contents. There is nothing of value to merge. Agricolae (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - it was created by a now-blocked sock. Agricolae (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We would need reviews of this work to show it is notable. Of Weis's works, this is not even one of the more notable ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant see anything noteworthy in this, wikipedia is not a family history site. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, Wikipedia is not some sort of ancestry site. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This is not even a decent genealogy; even if it was it would not belong in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I think Wikipedia can often include information and articles that might be also found on a family history site. I also think microhistories and genealogical studies can be reliable sources. I'm not an expert on the issue, and Peterkingiron may be right that this is not well researched genealogy, but there is no reason an article about a genealogical book couldn't be suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. However, this article does not satisfy NPOV in that it does not give any discussion about the quality of the work or even the context in which it is cited (are the citations favorable? Do they assume credibility with or without evidence?), merely stating that the book exists and is cited. A review of the book or at least a discussion of the quality of research in the book would be helpful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its accuracy is irrelevant. The genealogy in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is complete nonsense, but the book is (regrettably) notable nonetheless. The problem with this book is not whether or not it is inaccurate, but that it is completely non-notable, failing the most basic criteria of WP:NBOOK. Unlike Weis' well-known Ancestral Roots and Magna Carta Sureties and less well-known Colonial Clergy works, the complete obscurity of this book would make any discussion of its quality WP:OR. Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a web host for genealogists for profit. We are a charity. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is for profit, the author being long-dead and the findings of the book largely superseded. It looks to me like 'here is a book about my favorite ancestor', which is also what Wikipedia is not. Agricolae (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Peacock (United States Army officer)[edit]

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

Peacock was an officer in the 101st Airborne Division. He jumped into Normandy on D-Day but joined E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) after the fighting in Normandy. There is no record of him being awarded any medals. He was not generally well regarded. He served until the end of WW II. He was killed in an automobile accident in 1948. He does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there are some mentions of the subject in Band of brothers, but this looks like a journalistic account, with plenty of dialog. Insufficient to build an NPOV bio article. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not everyone who has been portrayed in fictionalized coverage of WWII is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant see anything that makes him noteworthy for a stand-alone article, like thousands of other soldiers he did his bit but nothing outstanding. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Being a member of a notable military unit is not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article is kept (not likely), newspapers.com has an account of his death, which could be an improvement of the find-a-grave source. This account is routine, and doesn't add to the case for the article's inclusion here, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 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.