Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 April 5 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Nominator withdrawn. Failed to see date of creation. Too soon. (non-admin closure) RoCo(talk) 17:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quickwater[edit]

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

Unsourced. Unencyclopedic. Pretty much just a bunch of questions with no discernible meaning whatsoever. RoCo(talk) 17:18, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jank music[edit]

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

Article, based far too strongly on primary sources and not nearly enough on reliable ones, about a musical "genre" so new and so little recognized that it's actually directly named after the only band that's actually properly sourceable as a practitioner of it. (One earlier band self-publishes itself into the genre after the fact, and one other progenitor is claimed but not sourced at all, but no reliable sources use this term to describe either of those bands' music -- the only reliable source evidence of the term "jank" being used at all is in reference to "Casely and the Jank", and despite the earlier bands improperly sourced here, one of the C&tJ sources calls C&tJ the creators of the genre. And even the description of the genre here is derived largely from C&tJ's own PR claims about it rather than from objective analysis by real music critics.) As always, every new genre term that a band invents for themselves to communicate how much more unique their own music is than everybody else's is not automatically a valid Wikipedia article topic; to qualify for an article, a genre term needs to be reliably sourceable as actually having currency in music criticism, not just in the genre creator's own EPK. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tough call here. There are several sources cited, some appear to be reliable and independent, acknowledging a new musical style attributed to that one band, although the nominator is correct, the sources are just parroting the band's own claims about itself. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Notability (music), which requires at least two of something (albums released, notable band members in a band), maybe it should be expanded to require that a musical genre should be attributable to at least two bands. But then we'd be making up new rules, sensible as it may be to do so in this case, and AFD isn't the forum to do that. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 6 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) 16:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is something off-kilter with this whole description. Normally I would propose to merge this into the next higher notable level of abstraction, but this is too obscure to appear in Pop music without having undue weight there. This seems like a sub-subgenre, but it is impossible to tell from the article as written which subgenres of pop it even resembles. However, if sources can be found associating it with existing sub-genres, merge into whichever one is most appropriate. bd2412 T 01:33, 12 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. Hut 8.5 20:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Sendra[edit]

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

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 articles creator, based on a speculative claim that he will play in a fully pro league in future. Speculation is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:36, 5 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) 09:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems more like a WP:AGF fail to me by User:Joseph2302. Personally, my Internet Provider provides me with a different IP everytime my DSL modem reconnects - so I would appear as a new IP editor if I wasn't logged in. More to the point, the IP editor is 100% correct. Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nfitz The user has admitted on their talkpage that it was them. It was obvious to me that it was the article creator block evading. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then User:Joseph2302 should have simply stated your suspicions, or at least provided the information that many in this AFD would be aware of, that the creator of the article had been blocked - though the charges seem rather trivial and trumped up given that part of the evidence is the creation of this particular article, that is clearly a keep. It's no wonder we have problems with a diminishing editing base with admins more interested in the persecution and belittling of their peers rather than doing their job and mentoring/guiding editors. I don't see what blocking the creator of this article accomplishes. Even had Sendra not appeared in this game, the media has been clear that he is expected to feature prominently this season [2] - so creation of the article was perfectly reasonable. At the same time, you did fail WP:AGF by not removing your delete vote. And I see little reason for removing the IP's keep vote - it's not like they had participated in this debate under any other persona - and more to the point, they were right, and you were wrong by failing to remove your delete vote, after he notified you of his appearance. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did change my vote? And you're now supporting block evasion? Ridiculous. If he hadn't made an appearance, he wouldn't have been notable enough. And your dig at admins doesn't work, since I'm not an admin, and clearly your vendetta is against me. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't initially change your vote when informed that the player had met WP:NFOOTBALL. You only changed it later when it started to look like a snow keep. Block evasion? An IP edit that the editor was honest about? I don't see why the editor shouldn't have some input given the claim of creating the article for a player with no notability was part of the charge in the first place. On paper it's a violation, but an application of WP:CS and WP:IAR, along with the transparency, should set that aside. It's not like they have 2 votes here. And most importantly, they were 100% correct. It's also useful to alerting us to the overzealous administration - though that's hardly an uncommon occurrence here ... Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per new evidence. @Sir Sputnik: would you be able to have a look please? It seems reliable. Spiderone 12:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has recent professional appearance for team listed as fully-professional in WP:FPL. I don't see point of wasting everyone's time with AFDs for players who are about to make their professional debut. We'd be better served if there was some more WP:UCS and WP:WAIT applied to these nominations. Nfitz (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As nominator. Given that he has now made his debut, the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they've now played in an FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 11 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 snow has fallen. bd2412 T 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Browne[edit]

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

Not played in a fully professional league. EchetusXe 22:50, 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) 09:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 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) 20:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dean O'Halloran[edit]

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

Not played in a fully professional league. EchetusXe 22:49, 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. Also a BLPPROD in its current state. Fenix down (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 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) 20:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McClean[edit]

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

Not played in a fully professional league. EchetusXe 22:49, 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. Also a BLPPROD in its current state. Fenix down (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be deleted as Patrick McClean does indeed play in a professional league. Wrong information given by person who proposed deletion. Please delete this page and please do not delete the page Patrick McClean is it is helpful to many people especially people in Waterford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.117.101 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 20:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Mulcahy, footballer[edit]

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

Not played in a fully professional league. EchetusXe 22:49, 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. Also a BLPPROD in its current state. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont delete the page as the Information that EchetusXe has given is incorrect, David Mulcahy does play in a professional league in a professional set up at Waterford and this page is relevant to many especially in Waterford. I suggest EchetusXe does his research on the league and set up Waterford play in before proposing these pages for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.117.101 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the League of Ireland First Division is definitely not fully professional. Here is just one source that confirms that Waterford, the very club relevant to this discussion, are a part-time team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 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) 20:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

African Legal Support Facility[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources are offered to indicate how this organization is notable. Though I think that the page creator should provide at least one such source- and they don't seem to have yet returned to defend their contributions- my own searches could not find anything I would consider an independent RS. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I had PRODded the page and was seconded, but the tags were removed. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 28 March 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) 22:18, 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) 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aarran Racine[edit]

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

Has never played in a professional league - in this case for any club in the English Premier League or Football League. Well-written article but not one that is merited, unless and until he plays League football or does so in another country. Monty (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of that comes close to significant coverage. The BBC links are just rehashes of local reporting none of which are of significant length at all. The only one that is of signifcant length is a local newspaper. The fact that the article is well written is irrelevant. Fenix down (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is well written shows that there are plenty of sources, which in turn means that there is significant coverage. I don't think that one footballer can be mentioned so many times in so many websites and still be categorized as WP:ROUTINE. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view is that Fenix down is right, but it's not so much a personal view as the guideline by which we work here. Simply put, Aarran Racine shouldn't have an article unless and until he plays League football or does so at professional level in another country. Being mentioned fourteen times doesn't constitute significant coverage, as Fenix down says; what matters is that he has, as yet, only played non-League football. I'm very much for improving the coverage of the non-League game here, but also in agreement with the current guidelines regarding notability. Monty (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTY is not the sole reason for keeping a football related article, in fact with so many editors [[Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate[edit]#Proposal: limit JPL's AFD-rate|saying that]] there are too many stub articles that pass WP:NFOOTY but fail WP:GNG, I think it is only fair that an article that passes WP:GNG is kept. This player has received a fair deal of coverage and to delete the article because it doesn't necessarily pass WP:NFOOTY I believe is 1.) a waste of a good article 2.) hypocritical given the fact that editors create stub after stub every day. Anyway that is the last I will comment on this discussion, good day. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 11 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) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Banim[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) as he has never played in a fully professional league - in this case, for any club in the English Premier League or Football League. He may be a notable non-league player, but this does not make him notable as far as having his own article is concerned. Monty (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't really had a chance to dig deep enough yet, but at first blush, there seems to be a lot of press coverage for this player of his 20-year history, particularly in regards to his various years with Radcliffe Borough - where he seems to be some kind of local legend. The references in the article itself are all pretty routine, but have those who have looked into this delved into the media coverage enough? Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of mentions in match reports and some coverage in local (i.e. town level) newspapers, but the only thing i have found that would show any level of wider coverage is a brief telegraph article on an award he received for consecutive goals scored. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. He set the English record for goals scored in consecutive games (at 14). Does this record still stand? [3]. I'm surprised it's not listed at Football records in England - though that seems to focus on team records rather than individual achievement. Nfitz (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with that is that it is non-league whereas the records page only looks at league football. I'm sure that he did not in fact set such a record and that someone playing at an even lower league would have done better to be honest. Would suggest that given that the rest of his career was at a low level, that that would be BLP1E anyway without wider coverage (though maybe some interviews exist off the back of it that discuss his career in wider detail). Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, that would be BLP1E in itself. But I haven't really dug yet (been out of town for a while). A record that has probably been beaten in a pub league ... though this is semi-pro. None the less, I think further digging is necessary. I'm troubled by the shear volume of primarily non-notable references over a 20-year period - and the local legend stuff. Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 11 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) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Harmful Effects of Algorithms in Grades 1–4[edit]

The Harmful Effects of Algorithms in Grades 1–4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable research paper. I'm fine with deletion, but I'm also fine if the consensus is redirecting and/or merging to the notable Constance Kamii. SL93 (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete No evidence it satisfies WP:N. Not every paper that gets published somewhere needs an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't have the coverage to meet notability requirements. MartinJones (talk) 13:37, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marty McKenna[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Absolutely zero reliable sources. The only sources are routine and trivial tabloid coverage such as the banned Daily Mail ( "Ex On The Beach's Jem Lucy enjoys steamy reunion with Marty McKenna"). Zero in-depth coverage, even in tabloids. AusLondonder (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENT #1 as member of two notable shows, Ex on the Beach and Geordie Shore. I've removed the Daily Mail ref (that sentence had other sources anyway). The article is new and the sources - from national newspapers mainly - are more than sufficient for the points they reference, e.g. that he is in those 2 notable shows, one of which is airing at the moment. There is no consensus that the other sources used are unreliable, especially 'Metro', and MTV is a primary source but not an unreliable one. There are numerous articles about him and his part in these shows, numerous with his name in the title. Clearly meets WP:BASIC: f the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The articles (there are many more on him) cover his roles in these shows and his relationships. That the full articles are often on this with his name in title shows it is not what is meant in BASIC by 'trivial coverage'. Boleyn (talk) 05:58, 22 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, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 21:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ENT #1. Abd WP:GNG. Clear Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ How on earth does this meet WP:GNG? Are you kidding? Show me just two reliable sources to demonstrate in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources? AusLondonder (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many good sources in this article. I don't like these kind of shows, and he is not going to change the world, but there is coverage there in many non-tabloid newspapers and he has been in multiple notable TV programmes. MartinJones (talk) 19:45, 11 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) 20:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Herzberg[edit]

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

Being mentioned in High Times isn't a valid basis for WP:BIO. Conspicuous absence of normal WP bio details such as birthplace, age, education, past employment, notable acts, etc. We get scads of articles like this one created by hired guns [4], who scrape up any websites that mention the person they are paid to promote, without considering the value of that citation on their true notability. The thing about this article is, there are plenty of attorneys in this multibillion dollar [5] business. One has to stand out a bit more than being quoted in some stories or one High Times interview. And there's literally nothing showing he is an "activist". Bri (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs a NPOV cleanup, however he is clearly notable. 100+ google-news hits on him, including pre-2015. He is widely interviewed as a marijuana expert / industry activist/representative - and receives quite some coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GHITS is a textbook argument to avoid. Raw ghits and a subject's opinions being printed don't make him notable. There needs to be significant coverage addressing the topic directly and in detail, per GNG. Bri (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google-News (which is much more selective in terms of sourcing, though it does contain some dubious newspapers that need to be filtered out) Not google (which can be fairly trash). And I went over the results in a cursory fashion (including checking that they go back a few years, cover a few topics, his role in the coverage). There's plenty of fairly good references in the article itself. This guy is receiving coverage - [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Both as a subject himself and as an expert. While I might not agree with the amount of coverage Marijuana as opposed to say rubber car tires is receiving - it is a field that is in the news, and Herzberg keeps on popping up in the news - enough to meet GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • man I hate it when people spam a bunch of links with no discussion. argh. waste of other people's time. Going through them
    • OC has significant discussion of him, and of Bloom and Bud
    • Forbes mentions his name once. WOT but Forbes thanks you for causing me to watch their advertisement.
    • OC Register about Bloom and Bud; passing mention of him. WOT.
    • OC Register has a significant passage on him
    • Voice of OC significant discussion, and negative at that. This is a valuable ref.
    • SacBee - a little discussion but is all CRYSTALBALL about business plans. WOT.
So 3 of those are useful. I have gone through the article and removed passing-mention references that were just padding, and all the WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:PROMO and there was outright fraud as far as I could tell with the claim that his firm had raised $20M. I added the negative content that was already in one of the sources and more from the source above.
His notability is marginal and for me, in light of the promotional pressure, my !vote is just-barely delete. However if promotional pressure arises to re-pad and re-fluff this, my !vote will change to a strong delete as it is not worth the effort to maintain an article on a marginally N figure. If some other sources arise with significant discussion (not passing-mention malarky) I could !vote keep but I reckon all sources have been found by now.Jytdog (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the Forbes reference includes the following disclaimer: The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer. in other words, it's not a staff-written article, it's a blog posting under the Forbes name. --Calton | Talk 14:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a CV in a form of a Wiki article; such content belongs on LinkedIn, not here. Sources are not sufficient to establish notability: either very local or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as of now. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments by Jytdog and search of HighBeam that found 8 articles, mostly where he's provided a quote for the article, nothing in custom search, from Google news there are 77 hits - mostly quotes, a few mention his partnership with Roseann Barr, and a few mention businesses he opened. Not finding significant coverage for WP:GNG. Not finding a specific award, contribution, etc. for WP:BIO.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete partner at non-notable company. Does not have significant coverage either. MartinJones (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt - Classic example of WP:NOT which excludes this type of article. Additionally, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:BIO. Article and references do not establish anything notable about the subject - plenty of lawyers earn over $1 mil. a year, plenty of people own cannabis dispensaries, plenty of people are partners at non-notable companies. No amount of sourcing or editing is going to make the subject notable.
note: This article was previously deleted on 25 February 2014 - A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. CBS527Talk 13:40, 12 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) 20:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Toro Bermúdez[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion on A7 grounds but declined with advise to take to afd or prod. The claim is insufficient notability for the subject material as is required by WP:N and WP:GNG. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sounds like the autobiography of an insignificant computer programmer. -Peapod21, 23:41, 2017-04-04

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:59, 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. North America1000 00:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel M. Greenberg[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Article falls foul of WP:PAID. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here to constitute notability and nothing found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article created by marketing agency for local politician with no claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serving as a tax collector at the county level is not an WP:NPOL pass, and there's no evidence of anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable politician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing here which meets the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. MartinJones (talk) 19:49, 11 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. A clear consensus for deletion exists herein. North America1000 00:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Batishchev Mark Aleksandrovich[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I can find nothing that would satistfy WP:GNG and there doesn't seem to be anything that meets WP:NHOCKEY either. Mduvekot (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why here it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americannews888 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 20-Mule-Team Delete: Hell, I can't find ANY Google hits other than this article, written in just barely coherent English. A peek at eliteprospects.com shows that the subject played but a single undistinguished season -- three years ago -- in the Belarus minor league. Contrary to the article's assertion, the subject never was drafted by the Colorado Avalanche or by any other NHL team. This is about as overwhelming a failure of NHOCKEY as any non-hoax article I've seen. Americannews888, the creator, has as his sole Wikipedia activity this article, and it's of concern that he cites his own self-published source. Ravenswing 04:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Ravenswing - it's almost bordering on a hoax with the claim he was drafted to an NHL team. The sources included actually contradict that... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Elite Prospects, subject played for one season on a second-tier club in Belarus, and was not drafted as asserted in the article. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clear, there is no sense to you something to explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americannews888 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability guidelines not satisfied. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per GNG and Ravenswing. I was unaware that mules were faster in number, though. I have never gotten my mules to turn over L3X1 (distant write) 01:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. It's not a hoax only in that the subject exists. I don't think G3 is so strict that an article that contains nothing but a real person's name and a big list of obvious lies doesn't qualify for speedy. "Candidate for the master of sports", the easily disproven claim he was drafted into the NHL in 2014, the language that indicates he had a say in which team drafted him, etc. The only source worth anything is the first, and it goes to a page that just confirms he doesn't come within a mile of passing any of the WP:NHOCKEY standards. The guy's self-composed fan fiction doesn't deserve a real deletion discussion. CityOfSilver 03:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Following the sources through, the claims in the article appear false and nothing can be found to justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a de facto hoax article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY.I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:50, 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) 20:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic authority[edit]

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

Jacques Lacan's use of the term predates Raud's, and is probably better known. This article has only a primary source and shows no evidence that the term as developed by Raud is in actual use. Mduvekot (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of citation, whether said citation be for accuracy or notability. Even with evidence that the terms was indeed created by Raud, it would still be considered non-notable by wikipedia's standards unless two non-trivial secondary sources could be provided about the term itself (as opposed to articles about Raud that mention the term). -Markeer 19:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with Nom and User:Markeer. phrase gets thousands of hits in books and articles, but scanning the first couple of pages of a gBooks search shows such varying uses in diverse fields that I am uncertain whether it is a term of art or simply two common English words that can convey a range of meanings. Either way, I don't see haw we can keep an article that may well be misleading in attributing a meaning and origin so firmly based on such paltry sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no idea what this is about. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 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) 20:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitfield (band)[edit]

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

Band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sourcing. The only claims of notability here are awards of purely local significance, such as the Toronto Independent Music Awards, which are not "major" enough to constitute a pass of NMUSIC #8, and the only reference present is one of those awards' own self-published website about itself -- and the article hasn't been updated with any indication of more notable activity since 2007. And there's a probable conflict of interest here too, as the creator's username was "Joel Bastedo" and one of the band members has the surname Bastedo. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a band is entitled to have an article just because they existed -- certain specific quantifiable achievements that satisfy WP:NMUSIC need to be shown, and a certain standard of reliable sourcing has to carry it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most notable accomplishment is winning one non-notable 'indpendentmusicawards' award for a song in 2007. No significant coverage found although I did find [12] and [13]. Fails WP:BAND. Gab4gab (talk) 18:17, 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) 20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Cam[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage. The strongest claim here is that he was nominated at the Toronto Independent Music Awards -- a local award for which even a win wouldn't constitute an NMUSIC pass in and of itself, let alone a nomination -- and the referencing here is entirely to unreliable blogs and his album's sales page on iTunes, with no evidence of coverage in even one source that would count toward passing WP:GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a musician is automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he and his music exist; certain specific markers of achievement that would pass WP:NMUSIC have to be shown, and a certain specific quality and volume of sourcing has to be present to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bearcat has put it eloquently. What they say is quite true.31.53.55.238 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Major award" means the Junos, the Grammys, the Polaris, the Mercury, the Brits, that kind of thing. It does not mean the "Toronto Independent Music Awards". And indie minded and Razmataz are both blogs — reliable sourcing for an article about a musician means Exclaim!, Spin, Rolling Stone, that sort of thing, not random WordPress blogs. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I hear you but why then are the "Toronto Independent Music Awards" on Wikipedia if they are not major Awards? MassiveYR ♠ 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's always technically possible for anybody to try to create an article about anything at all, whether it actually meets our reliable sourcing requirements or not. No process exists to preemptively stop me from creating an article about my cat if I wanted to — it wouldn't be a keepable article by any stretch of the imagination, but there's nothing to actually stop me from creating one, and once it's in place somebody else would have to actually see it and nominate it for a deletion process before it could actually get removed. And even if the TIMAs were actually properly sourced, which they're not, it is possible for an award to be sourceable enough to pass our basic notability standards for getting an article about it, yet still not major enough to confer notability per NMUSIC on every musician who ever won it. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: well all in all, I did invest some time and effort :-)). Similar remarks regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun Cam. The article should be kept I can improve the sources. MassiveYR ♠ 10:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you can improve the sources, then do that. An AFD can be withdrawn if the article is sufficiently improved, but the improvement has to actually happen first — an AFD is not going to be withdrawn just because somebody says better sources exist but doesn't show them. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 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. Such matters as being discussed on forums and being "featured on important events" do not feature in the current notability guidelines, so arguments based on those considerations carry little weight. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PACE Suite[edit]

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

No apparent evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article should be kept as it is about one of the most important tools for creating MSI installers. It is constantly discussed by Microsoft MVPs (Most Valued Professionals), on forums about software for Educational IT, on several IT-focused large subreddits on Reddit. Also, it is featured on important events for the industry (e.g. App Manage Event). According to the notability guidelines, the notability requires a full product review, which is given as a citation (an independent review from Softpedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlgrinchenko (talk • contribs) 07:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has not had in-depth coverage in reliable sources that establishes notability. --Darth Mike(talk) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (relate) 17:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication in the article of notability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Insufficient sources to establish notability. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:23, 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) 20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formswift[edit]

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

Promoy, RS issues, non notable, just reviewed L3X1 (distant write) 02:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to obtain clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distant write) 03:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NomCom Normally I spurn PROD as sneaky, but in this case it would of been mroe effective. L3X1 (distant write) 03:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) 17:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a clear case of corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I don't see anything notable about this company. The "media coverage" isn't strong enough–PC Advisor just provides a list of free software in the category. & I wouldn't even call the entry on CNET page media coverage since it is in a category with 1,442 products and has no editor rating. – gwendy (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gwendy. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 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 the keep opinions are by accounts with very few edits, which is ... not a good sign, usually. Policy-based discussion clearly points towards delete. It's surprising that the merger to Cyberpunk derivatives has not been discussed more, though, but such is life. Obviously this can be recreated if it ever gets more substantial coverage.  Sandstein  20:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solarpunk[edit]

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

Looks like a made-up genre to me. All references are either personal publications on tumblr or just questionable news articles, unrelated to actual works of fiction. Google book search struggles to bring anything up, there is just a couple of books with "solarpunk" in the title. There is actually a "solarpunk" genre on goodreads, but it's filled mostly by a single user [14]. Article itself doesn't list any works either, it's basically empty. Some more points are on the talk page Jazz (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC) — Jazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jazz (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — With no notable works in the genre (to quote a 2015 Medium article, "not to mention a literary genre that has rabid fans but has yet to produce any literature"), I see no reason that "solarpunk" is notable enough. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 21:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The discussion here seems to be approaching this concept as if it were strictly a speculative fiction subgenre (and thus, that it's somehow invalidated by the dearth of works explicitly classified as such). What it seems to actually be is a distinct, if still nascent, ecofuturist revival which owes a lot to extant works of speculative fiction.  Additionally, I see little evidence of the linked articles being "questionable" or the fans being "rabid;" and I'm not entirely sure how it's at all relevant that the other links are from Tumblr. At worst, this should be merged into "ecofuturism." 2602:306:3A29:DBF0:A957:9936:F235:F92B (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's being discussed here as if it's only a fiction subgenre, you can see on the talk page for it that it has been discussed as an 'aesthetic movement'.. yet no notable works of any kind and no real reliable sources have been added to the article. Centerone (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, concepts which owe their entire existence to single biased individuals and break down outside of a very limited perspective are deemed "notable," complete with insinuations that anyone who questions their legitimacy must be a "right-wing authoritarian." This page stands at least as well on its own as the one in question does; nonetheless, there seems to be no debate as to the notability of the other. Again: if anything, a case can be made for merging it with "ecofuturism" (of which it's a clear spin-off). 2602:306:3A29:DBF0:A957:9936:F235:F92B (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this relates to this article, how? We're discussing this article. Not any other. I don't know of these other concepts or biased individuals of which you speak, nor why we should deem them relevant. Centerone (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Y'all already know what I think based on my comments on the talk page. There is no way in heck this article should exist, and I'm surprised it lasted this long. Throwing a few words together in the *-punk methodology does not simply or automatically create a notable thing worthy of coverage. Claiming that notable authors or artists have influenced an artistic movement does not automatically bring that movement into being, or mean that they actually have anything to do with that thing, or make that thing notable. Centerone (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — There are over forty novels listed on Amazon if searching for "solarpunk". Most notable seem to be Wings of Renewal (various), Suncatcher (Alia Gee), Viral Airwaves (Claudie Arseneault) and Twenty One Twenty (Jason J. Robinson). There are also active communities on Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook with posts daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petulant Mouse (talk • contribs) 11:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Petulant Mouse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well, many of those 'novels' appear to be padded short stories about 20 pages long. Many if not all of them appear to be direct to amazon ebooks. I'm not even sure if some of them are really what one would consider 'solarpunk'... does anybody want to do a comprehensive study of them, or at least check each of them out to examine this argument? I stand by my previous statements in the talk page on the article. A subgenre of a subgenre that people are trying to wish into being simply by blogging about it and forcing an article on us. Also, if so many of them are notable, do they have their own pages, news articles from reliable sources, etc. etc. ? Centerone (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, to be under a category on Amazon the publisher/author must choose that category. Wikipedia is about reporting facts. It is, therefore, a fact that 40+ works with real ISBN numbers have chosen to be published under the genre called 'solarpunk'. To that extent, it does exist. That should be the only criteria necessary.
I certainly don't believe that it is down to Wikipedia editors to decide whether a genre exists. It is, and always must be, down to the artists working in any particular genre to name their work how they choose. They are the owners of the genre. If you want to delete the genre, ask the artists first. I'm guessing they might object.
Personally, I don't think that it matters whether a work is a collection of short stories or a single story of epic length, but if it *does* matter, then a quick review of the stats on Amazon reveals that Viral Airwaves and Suncatcher are proper length novels, and Twenty One Twenty is even longer still. Does it matter that some of those 40+ novels are ebooks? Definitely not. The Martian and many other popular books/movies began life in that way.
I do, however, agree with the point that it would be helpful if a professional and independent literary critic were to review the literature in it's totality. I'm afraid I don't know anyone at the New York Times and I don't have time to read those books myself. Many of them might actually be rubbish for all I know. Over to the solarpunk fans to read the books written for them and write the reviews. But I say innocent until proven guilty, unless you want to read those books yourself from start to end and prove they are NOT "solarpunk", then your argument does not stand. Wikipedia is about facts, and it is a verifiable fact that 40+ solarpunk "novels" exist on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petulant Mouse (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a verifiable fact that 40+ "solarpunk novels" exist. Yes, there are a few collections of short stories there. Many of the entries are also as I said, around 20 pages. 20 ebook pages does not a novel make. This is why I asked for someone to check on them. I didn't really want to go through each and every one of them to prove or disprove your point when it became clear that in a random sampling of them, several of those that I looked at were either 19-24 pages, collections of short stories, or didn't even seem to give them impression that they were really solarpunk, but rather potentially used the term as a marketing gimmick, which is common for this sort of direct to ebook publishing. Your claims are disingenuous. Centerone (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be assured that no offence was intended. Here is the Amazon.co.uk top ten solarpunk books sampled on the 21st of March 2017 (47 results returned).
Extended content from Amazon.co.uk
1) Wings of renewal
A collection of short stories by 19 authors.
338 pages
2) Twenty One Twenty
A full-length self-published novel by Jason J Robinson
405 pages
3) Elf Saga volume 4
Part of a series of books by J Lewis
416 pages
4) A solarpunk titled book in Portuguese - a language I don't read, so I can't make further comment.
256 pages
5) The Solarpunk colouring book.
6) The Eleventh Upgrade.
A (very) short story by Charlotte Tracy
19 pages
7) Greenshift
A novella by Heidi Ruby Miller
160 pages
8) In Bright Glass
A novella by Virginia Marybury
114 pages
9) Double Nocturne
A novel by Cynthia Felice
330 pages
10) Viral Airwaves
A full length self-published novel by Claudie Arseneault, also known as White Renegade in a multiparty series.
478 pages
You are correct that one of those titles is only nineteen pages long, you are very probably also correct that a large number of those are Amazon slush-pile trash, but I still assert that I am correct in saying that some of those (but admittedly not all 40+) are of a decent length and therefore proper novels. Are they any good? That is honestly not for me to say without reading them all, and in any regards it would only ever be a matter of personal opinion, but they do call themselves Solarpunk, and if at least one of them is of a passable quality in the eyes of some readers, then that must go some way towards validating the genre. That is the one and only point I wish to make and I shall say no more. I never intended an argument. My warmest regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petulant Mouse (talk • contribs) 05:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All I see in the way of reliable sources is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article. Way too soon to be called a full-fledged genre. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —An anthology called Sunvault: Stories of Solarpunk and Eco-Speculation will be released in late summer or fall 2017 from Upper Rubber Boot Books, featuring stories by notable writers such as Daniel José Older and Nisi Shawl, among many other writers who may not have Wikipedia pages, but are known within the speculative fiction community. The Sunvault anthology was successfully crowdfunded on Kickstarter in 2016. Additionally, another forthcoming crowdfunded anthology from Microcosm Publishing, Biketopia: Feminist Bicycle Science Fiction Stories, contains both stories and comics self-identified as solarpunk. Deleting the solarpunk page is premature.73.26.136.115 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Other sources dealing with solarpunk include Issue 10 of "Obsolete!," a solarpunk themed issue from an anarchist magazine, and Solarpunk Press, a web, print, and podcast magazine of solarpunk fiction that ran for 11 issues, all of which continue to be available online. Disclosure: I was one of the editors of Solarpunk Press, and I was interviewed for the solarpunk issue of "Obsolete!," so of course take those into account when evaluating those sources, but that's two more publications that heavily address and acknowledge the existence of solarpunk media. Jay of the Solarpunks tumblr also recently published a solarpunk reference guide, gathering up much of the material that has come out of the last few years to help people new to the genre get an idea of what's going on with it. I don't think this would necessarily be appropriate for a Wikipedia citation, but it might help unsure editors familiarize themselves with the genre. At this point, there's a possible future in which solarpunk turns out to have never been a very significant genre, but it's demonstrably false that solarpunk is not a distinct and recognized genre of fiction. I object to deletion on the grounds of no content; I think a reasonable discussion could be raised about whether solarpunk is sufficiently notable, about which I don't think I have a sufficiently distant perspective. But that's not the grounds on which deletion has been raised, and that's not the discussion I see happening on this page. Txwatson (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC) — Txwatson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - The way I see it, we've run into the eternal dilemma of Wikipedia: Solarpunk is notable enough that users feel it's worth adding to the site, but it's new enough that it hasn't been picked up by the mainstream. The same phenomenon happens with developing news stories that we know will be significant but just don't have all the details. So we put in placeholders with an unfortunate lack of "hard sources." In the case of Solarpunk, I'd argue that we're in the middle of that process and the timeline is just stretched out because it's an artistic movement that's still searching for its footing. But even then, it's still notable enough to have works listed on Amazon and across the internet (no, not just limited to Tumblr and blogs. Bigger sources are beginning to pick up on Solarpunk). How embarrassing will it be if this page is deleted before Solarpunk does hit its stride? "Sorry all, we thought said this was notable, then we said it was worthless, and now it's notable again." If nothing else, give it another year before considering this question. --24.158.18.218 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You've just listed all the reasons why this article should be deleted: "hasn't been picked up by the mainstream", "an unfortunate lack of 'hard sources'", "give it another year" (WP:TOOSOON). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cyberpunk derivatives. There is some coverage in reliable sources (New Republic, and Australian ABC) but most references are to blogging platforms like Tumblr and Medium, or small-press/self-published books and journals, so I don't think it quite meets notability requirements. However, the movement seems to have some supporters in Brazil so people might check Portuguese-language sources. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the name, it's more of a derivative of ecofuturism than of cyberpunk (although the concept seems to incorporate the idea of ecofuturism as pushback against the unsustainable status quo, hence the "-punk" suffix). 2602:306:3A29:DBF0:A957:9936:F235:F92B (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hi, this is Adam Flynn, one of the people 'trying to make Solarpunk a thing,' so I'm going to be very circumspect about what I add to this discussion that's not about me or anything I've personally written. So, solarpunk. It's been the subject of panels at Readercon, the prompt for at least one game jam, and has an oversize influence in visual domains: There's a seemingly endless scroll of solarpunk pinterest boards, and I've seen it start to pop up in concept art from webcomics to wakanda. Finally, in terms of the purely literary, the lineup for the Sunvault anthology (Kickstarted 2016, coming out in May 2017) includes some significant names--Nisi Shawl is no joke. I would agree that the article as it currently exists does not reflect a lot of what's percolating, in part because of how diffuse and decentralized this all is. It's not as though we're all gathering at the Cabaret Voltaire to write a manifesto like the Dadaists did. Rather, it's much more of a collective steam engine time, and by 2016 we started to see that go from a widespread enthusiasm into real works. A few years ago (circa 2014 or so), I think having a wikipedia page for solarpunk would have been premature. But I'd say that a number of developments from the past year or two are pushing it further into notability. I just took a bit of time to edit the solarpunk page to try and reflect a bit of that, without getting overly self-referential. (Also, I looked up more ion the 2012 brazilian anthology, and it had some of the heaviest hitters from portuguese-language speculative fiction writing. I'm not sure how cross-language notability works, but Draco is basically the brazilian equivalent of Tor or Baen.) In any event, I'm happy to take suggestions or otherwise add sources for this. I'd say that solarpunk is roughly on a similar level of notability as Project Hieroglyph, which seems to be safe-- there are a few articles on mainstream publications, some published anthologies, and a lot of discussion about what ought to be done in science fiction writing. It's a prefigurative movement, which can make it hard to show results early on, but they're finally starting to roll in. Threadbare (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - there are a large number of hits with Google News. This article is notable. --Oskinet (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very leaning to Light Merge (But also now lean to Light Keep) - Maybe move Solarpunk page into their Ecofuturism as subcultural section or Cyberpunk derivatives into futuristic section. But besides that most people who defending page existance has points, So I will said an popular site TvTropes already made page on Solarpunk from last year as "Punk Punk" genre see here Solarpunk page from TVTropes and movement/genre is now close to 5 years old, so yea for now merged until become mainstream genre (and than later revived the whole page) in next decade eventually like how Steampunk did from this decade. 2606:A000:85C0:E00:F155:2D8F:CDF5:2067 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All "keep" opinions are by IPs or accounts with very few edits. The discussion could benefit from the input of more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) 17:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism "genre". Can I please point out that using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia can lead to the loss of your editing privileges. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Holy WP:SPAs (including nominator, who even knew about deletion sorting). Lots of claims relating to why it should be kept, but little-to-no evidence of notability. This is what we need to keep the article: significant coverage (not mentions that it exists, not examples of the genre, not event themes, but serious discussion of it as a subject) in reliable sources (no self-published sources like personal blogs or self-published books, no company websites, no press releases or manifestos, but rather books, newspapers, magazines, journals, or websites with a reputation for accuracy and rigor) that are independent of the subject (if it's written by someone who writes in this genre, a publisher, anyone who makes money from selling books in this genre, or otherwise anyone with a stake in any of this, it's not independent of the subject). I don't see any such links offered so far. The appearance of so many SPAs means there's almost certainly some WP:CANVASSing/WP:MEAT puppetry, and seeing that automatically makes me assume go in the other direction. My skepticism increases when I see people talking about "trying to make Solarpunk a thing" (sorry to single you out) by using Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of significance, and by definition an encyclopedia would not cover something that is not yet a thing.
All that said, here's what I found that could contribute to notability: Solarpunk: a new movement sees the future in a positive light (ABC Online), This sci-fi enthusiast wants to make “solarpunk” happen (Grist), The New Utopians (The New Republic)... I see some halfway decent blogs/scifi websites, but meh. If you cannot add to this list, you should not be arguing to keep this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one? This article from last year call 'Two nerds' on the future of Earth from Arizona State University website pretty on talking about Solarpunk as genre? 2606:A000:85C0:E00:C16B:CDDD:4E2F:9860 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a reliable source to include in the article, but it's a primary source. On one hand, it's a university publication about a university contest (i.e. only a little better than a press release). On the other hand, it's two people basically talking about starting a genre (i.e. a primary source and an indication it's probably too soon). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Basically per above. May be notable in the future, but it seems too soon at the moment. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 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) 20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatic Assesment in Education[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON.Not presently notable. Winged Blades Godric 14:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's hard to tell what the article is talking about, never mind whether the subject is notable; presently, it reads like a paragraph taken from the middle of a larger document. Also, the content appears to be lifted from here, so as it stands, it's a copyright violation. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current article is terribly written and describes ideas of almost breathtaking inanity (this based on reading the sources in French; the article itself is not very informative). Fortunately, said ideas do not seem to have caught on overmuch. The ref indicates that a couple of primary schools have tried it. That's pretty much it. No notability to speak of. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 06:52, 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) 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osu!! Karate Bu[edit]

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

Contested WP: PROD. No rationale was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reasoning from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NBOOK. No supporting references, and no indication of importance (the article even states the subject is "almost completely unknown" outside of Japan). Martin IIIa (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete - Not that it matters for whether the article should be kept or not, but I think it is a little disingenuous to say that the article has no indication of importance when the first half of the sentence you quote states that it was "widely popular in Japan", a clear claim to importance (also that it ran for a decade and was adapted into a film are both claims to importance). There is no reason to misleadingly quote the article like that when there are plenty of valid reasons for deletion. Anyway, I'm not finding any in-depth sources in English (just things that show it exists and who the cast was), and it doesn't look like the Japanese Wikipedia page has any sources. It also looks like a bunch of the article as currently written is original research. Unless anyone can find sources that support the content in the article, it should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly differ in what constitutes an indication of importance. Something like "had a circulation of over one million" would suggest to me at least the possibility of importance (or certainty, if the claim was well-sourced), but excessively vague claims like "widely popular" usually stem from POV-motivated editing rather than from actual popularity.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative weak keep pending the finding of offline Japanese sources. Right now I can't much coverage in Japanese or English. However, it appears that the manga was adapted into a film, which could just be enough to establish notability. Given the manga's age and longevity, it's quite possible that there could be offline Japanese sources out there that aren't available online. If it turns out that it wasn't covered in reliable sources even then, given that it was published in Weekly Shonen Jump, I would suggest a merge/redirect to a WSJ-related article. Pinging Michitaro as it appears he has access to some offline Japanese sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see some news articles that announced a mah-jong related spinoff. [15] [16] but not much on the original series itself, which ran from 1985 to 1996 so online reviews are highly unlikely unless there are manga reviewers that have recommended it as a classic or something. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then It's pretty obvious that Osu!! Karate Bu is only "notable" in Japan, so I actually have to "agree" with Martin IIIa, there's no place for these things on English Wikipedia. Luckily it is still available through web archive, so no big deal. I can't see a single advantage in deleting such articles, but that's just me, maybe I am missing something, who knows. It doesn't annoy me the fact that a, b, or c users want to delete x article. What I found "intriguing" is the fact that... apparently these users are pretty random. I checked a little bit Martin IIIa's contributions, sometimes he edits articles (with no decent content) about totally non-notable games/companies however there's no "proposal for deletion". Other times he(?) just adds a bunch of these things in a row. Just because. I guess it's just according to his mood. There are users who have pleasure in creating things (articles in this case) while others have pleasure in "deleting" them. It's part of the human nature. Create vs. Destroy. Martin IIIa must be a specialist in destroying things. --89.180.151.8 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the article has had no references since 2008. I'm not seeing much potential to develop an article. But I agree it can be thrown into a wikia or recovered, should such sources warrant bringing it back. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same article is already over at the Manga wiki [17]. I think Dream Focus had been importing a lot (maybe all?) of our manga articles to that wiki, so I think most of our manga articles are already on Wikia. Calathan (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) 17:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search found nothing to show this topic meets WP:GNG. The article has no references and the external links do not lead to any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being made into a film isn't a claim to notability unless the film is notable, and even then we'd have to question whether the subject has independent notability. The series's longevity is a better hint of notability, but it isn't enough for us to make up our own guesses about the subject being notable; we need sourcing to establish it. No one has found any sources for the article in its nearly a decade of existence, and there's no reason to think that they'll find some any time soon. (Side note: in case no one else noticed, 89.180.151.8's vote above is his only WP contribution. Though really, his ludicrous "Martin IIIa both proposes articles for deletion and edits articles without proposing for deletion, therefore all his edits must be random!" WP: Ad hominem argument is reason enough to ignore everything he's said.)--NukeofEarl (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly re: the film. Honestly, it surprised me to hear people claim that as evidence of notability, given how common it is for Japanese IPs to cross between different media forms. We even have an infobox specifically designed around Japanese IPs in multiple media - as seen in the very article under discussion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:49, 12 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 USS Trever (DD-339). (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Trever[edit]

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

Mr. Trever doesn't appear to meet WP:SOLDIER. Dolotta (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Need to move his bio to the ship named for him though, as the ship is inherently notable, and the information about the namesake is a notable part of the ship's history. Jinian (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jinian: Sounds like a good idea. Would closing this Afd as Merge be appropriate at this time? Dolotta (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (address) 17:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USS Trever (DD-339); there's nothing to merge as the article does not cite any sources except to mention the Dictionary. The article history will in any case be preserved. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USS Trever per K.e.coffman. Seems a valid search term, but doesn't seem sufficient for a stand alone article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USS Trever per K.e.coffman. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per coffman. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:23, 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) 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Geet[edit]

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

Fails NCRIC as far as I can see. Didn't find much else on a quick Google search . Didn't prod just in case I'm missing something here.South Nashua (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I was unable to find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (speak) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona[edit]

List of historic properties in Buckeye, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:IG and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Only the Buckeye Union High School and Hassayampa River Bridge are listed on the NRHP. The rest of the photos and descriptions are of local, non-notable buildings. The history of Buckeye should be placed on the Buckeye, Arizona article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The Buckeye Union High School and Hassayampa River Bridge are listed on the NRHP as stated, however that in itself does not make those the only properties with historical significance in Buckeye. There are many properties which are listed as such by the Buckeye Valley Historical and Archaeological Society and those are the ones listed on the article. Evidence of this claim can be found in the following reliable sources: Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan and The Early Days of Buckeye, Arizona. These are properties which are important in the history and the development of Buckeye and as such may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. I have tried in the past to include them in the Buckeye article, but the nominator removed many of the images and changed the format. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:LISTCRITERIA. The Buckeye Pharmacy is not considered "notable" the same way an NRHP property is. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - Your link does not lead to a "Buckeye, Arizona#National Register of Historic Places" as intended. The section and images in the article were completely removed by the nominator. It should be noted that one end of the historic Gillespie Dam Highway Bridge is located in the municipal jurisdiction of Buckeye and the other in the municipal jurisdiction of Gila Bend. Plus, the historic Hassayampa River Bridge is located on the Old US 80 of the municipality of Buckeye which includes the communities of Liberty, Arlington, Palo Verde, Verrado and Buena Vista.
This map shows both the dam and bridge outside Buckeye's city limits. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In another note, the structures listed are recognized as historical by a local governmental organization and not just by any local group or groups. Every city has an organization which determines which structure is historical. In this case it is the Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a local government agency. This is not the job of the NRHP. Once they do that, they have the option of filling out a National Register of Historic Places form and submitting it. However, just because a property is not listed in the NRHP, does not mean that it is not historical in accordance to the the town or city criteria. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep [was "Keep"], although editing is needed / would improve the article. Some negative tagging would justified, because the article is somewhat promotional and grandiose, stepping beyond what is claimed in the itself-promotional "Master Plan" document. For example, currently the article claims "Some of the structures are listed in the National Register of Historic Properties" which is an overstatement; it should just name the ones that are (which I think is just one, the high school building). It also makes overstatement and/or nonsensical statement: "Those that are not listed are considered historical by the Buckeye Parks and Recreation Master Plan and therefore, determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion 'A' because of its association with the locally important history of reclamation and is a Section 4 (f) resource." The "Master Plan" suggests that two historic districts might be proposed for NRHP listing; that is far from anyone having determined anything eligible for NRHP listing, which is a phrase that has a very specific meaning (the NRHP itself determines that something is NRHP-eligible although not NRHP-listed sometimes in the case of NRHP nominations that meet all criteria for eligibility but where the owner objects to listing). To be clear, the town does not get to determine what is NRHP-eligible. Note, however, that buildings mentioned in the "Master Plan" are not equivalent to Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments or other local historic registry items which have individually been considered and designated by a local legislative body. Here there is no local historic register. To be clear, the town has not specifically designated any of these as official historic resources of the town. The town council or whatever could do that, but they have not. I think it is still okay to have an article about the local historic resources, but it should be edited to be truthful and careful about its claims. --doncram 01:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Truly an excellent suggestion. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I see the article was adjusted slightly. (It is a bit irritatingly vague and/or overstated still. It still claims at least twice that "some" of the buildings are NRHP-listed, when in fact only one located in Buckeye is. A change made to be more accurate was tagged "minor", as if to assert there was/is nothing wrong with the article.) Upon further reflection, it is really weak, and perhaps selective merger back into the Buckeye article is better. There is nothing particularly notable about the individual buildings listed. It is fine for Commons to have pictures of them and for that Commons category to be linked from the Buckeye article. But the documentation for most or all of these places is merely mention in the promotional-type parks & recreation plan document. They are mentioned there as having potential to be included in a future National Register historic district or two, if/when somebody actually did proper research about them and actually did determine them to be significant. The city council having approved of that plan does not constitute city action on any one of the buildings individually. --doncram 21:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (quip) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment - The list in my opinion should be retained as is. It is a well written list which serves as an educational visual instrument for those who are interested in the history of Buckeye and Old West architecture of the town which it reflects. Attempts were made in the past to include the list as a gallery in the article of Buckeye, however the format of said list was tampered with, images removed and finally the whole gallery section was also removed.
1. The list in question does not violate any of the following deletion policy criteria:

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):

  • Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
  • Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
  • Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
  • Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
  • Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
  • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
  • Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  • Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
  • Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
  • Redundant or otherwise useless templates
  • Categories representing overcategorization
  • Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy
  • Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
  • Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

2. The list does not violate what policy considers as not suitable for an encyclopedia: The following content is not suitable for an encyclopedia

  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary
  • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
  • Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
  • Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site
  • Wikipedia is not a directory
  • Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
  • Wikipedia is not a newspaper
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  • Wikipedia is not censored

3. The structures whose images are in the list have been considered as historical by a local Buckeye government agency and therefore are deemed as notable in accordance to policy:

An accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

Tony the Marine (talk) 02:36, 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) 20:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Beaton[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress, who has a potentially valid WP:NACTOR claim but does not have the reliable sourcing needed to carry it. While she has had one reasonably significant role in one television series, all of her other listed roles to date are as supporting characters so minor that they don't even have names -- and if you're going for "notable because she's had roles", rather than "notable because she won an award for one of them", then it takes more than just one role. And the only reference present here for anything is a single Q&A, which is a source that could be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG had been met by stronger sources, but cannot bring the GNG on its own as it represents the subject talking about herself. As always, an actress is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because a "significant" role has been claimed; she gets a Wikipedia article when she can be reliably sourced over GNG as having garnered media coverage for the role. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (although I would also be fine with moving this page to draft space to see if further work can be done on it). bd2412 T 00:41, 12 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abra (company)[edit]

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

Yet another article on a non-notable start-up, propped up by Churnalism. PROD tag removed, citing some nonsense about "content disputes". Calton | Talk 02:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. CNN and Forbes are reliable sources, and it is rather startling that an article including those sources would be characterized as "churnalism". With respect to deletion, the questions to be addressed are whether the subject is a hoax (clearly it is not) and whether it is notable. Non-notable entities tend not to get reported on by multiple major news outlets. This proposal for deletion clearly does not arise from a genuine understanding of notability, but on the way that the article is written. Having been an administrator on Wikipedia for nearly twelve years, I know a content dispute when I see one. bd2412 T 02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Note: I have also just added references to two Bloomberg articles. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
      • CNN and Forbes are reliable sources. Perhaps you should look up "churnalism" before making such blanket statements, or do a search for "Forbes" on the Reliable sources noticeboard". And while you're at it, look up the phrase "passing mentions". --Calton | Talk 03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, let's maintain a civil discussion. There is certainly nothing here to get angry over. Secondly, there is no need to make snide suggestions that I "look up" common Wikipedia principles. I helped create many of them. Thirdly, I will be the first to agree that there are many efforts to place non-notable companies on Wikipedia; I have deleted hundreds of these. This just doesn't happen to be one of those cases. bd2412 T 03:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I accept User:BD2412's explanation of notability. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're referring to https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2015/10/22/american-express-invests-in-bitcoin-venture-abra-which-announces-u-s-philippines-launch/#7731092f5eec, Forbes#Forbes.com has a pay-per-click business model for its online "contributors" that is quite different from its print. It's similar to Examiner.com and I don't believe it is considered a reliable source, for notability purposes. The nominator is correct, in that case, and in correcting BD2412's statement on the matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think the nominator's right about the churnalism thing: what is one to make of triumphalist articles like "Abra Just Electrified Blockchain Entrepreneurs in NYC" (Observer). I have performed a Gnews search and aside from CNN, I don't see enough media penetration beyond bitcoin trade websites, and publications of questionable editorial independence, into bona fide independent and respected business publications. Weak delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shawn in Montreal: Isn't "aside from CNN" a pretty big "aside from"? Also, I noted above that I added links to two Bloomberg articles, which are also on par with CNN as a source. bd2412 T 02:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so it's one okay source. You know that's not enough. The two Bloomberg hits are passing mentions. My !vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that one okay source is not enough - but there are more. Business Insider is a reliable source, and no one has called that into question here. I just added two additional sources to the article, one from CoinTelegraph, and another from NewsBTC. The NewsBTC article is obviously not a fluff piece, because it is in fact critical of Abra, highlighting consumer displeasure with the company's verification procedure. I think these additional sources resolve the "one okay source" question. However, even if they didn't exist, I would argue that this particular Forbes article passes muster irrespective of whether Forbes as a whole does. The author of the piece, Laura Shin, appears to have a good track record as a neutral journalist. Per WP:UGC, even a straight-up blog post is a reliable source if the author is a professional in their field. I have gone through some of her work and found some compelling, and decidedly not "churnalism" pieces like "Medical identity theft: How the health care industry is failing us". My conclusion is that discounting the source out of hand would be no better than giving the source a pass out of hand, and on balance, irrespective of the venue, this journalist is a reliable source. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON; run-of-the-mill tech startup, with "Bitcoin" attached to it, so it's able to get some press. The content is quite typical of such promo articles -- ref bombing & attempts to inherit notability from the prior companies where the founders worked:

References

  1. ^ TechCrunch
  2. ^ Rizzo, Pete (4 March 2015). "Former Netscape Director Launches Bitcoin Remittance App Abra". CoinDesk. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
Nothing stands out about this company, and the coverage is PR driven and not sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are the usual TechCrunch and coindesk.com -- which is all routine coverage: funding, product launches, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) 17:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So, the argument for deletion is the claim that the reliable sources which appear to exist actually shouldn't be considered reliable sources. The reason given is that the sources are republishing already-written material; therefore it can't be considered actual coverage. However, in my review of the sources, I can't seem to find any evidence that this is the case. The articles all look like they're authored by different writers and I don't see any indication that they're not original articles. So, the fundamental reason being put forward doesn't quite even add up. Swarm ♠ 17:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 11 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) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Anne Nelson[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR; only had six small roles and no coverage in any major entertainment sources. Though two of the films she starred in received numerous awards, that does not mean every single actor in them is notable. While she has a Twitter and personal website, they do not indicate notability and based on what she posted on her site, she has left acting to pursue other careers, particularly writing and photography. If she becomes a notable writer or photographer in the future, someone can always recreate this article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage needed to establish notability. The sources present in the article serve to verify facts but do not establish notability, and I can find nothing better than mentions of her being in Walk the Line and Big Fish. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 2 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 16:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 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) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shōto Kashii[edit]

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

Japanese voice actor only has supporting roles in some productions. Nothing where he is leading or standing out as a certain notable character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced WP: BLP. There are two external links, but at least one of them is unreliable, and neither provide significant coverage.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:00, 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. North America1000 01:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furuta Atsuya no Simulation Pro Yakyuu 2[edit]

Furuta Atsuya no Simulation Pro Yakyuu 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP: PROD. No rationale was provided by the contesting editor, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reasoning from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No indication of importance, and all the cited sources are simple database entries with no significant coverage. Martin IIIa (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one participated in first discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found no significant coverage. Not even one review. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No good sourcing, and just based on the nature of the subject (a game released only in Japan and only for a system that was at the end of its lifetime), I doubt we'll ever have luck finding any.--NukeofEarl (talk) 23:48, 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) 20:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Technologies[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. most of the sources provided are press releases. And only 2 gnews hits. Also nominating its product for similar reasons:

LibStar (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There simply isn't the sort of coverage we require -- independent of press release type items -- and that we would expect for a truly notable company. Same issue with the product, CyberRegs. Care must be taken to distinguish between the proper noun and Gnews hits where "cyber regs" is simply being used as an abbreviation for regulation of the internet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alas, the company has been around long enough that an article might be able to be written that meets our criteria. However, this one is not it. Anything that talks about solutions and platforms, when the company appears to deal with neither, and has a litany of un-expanded acronyms, signals to me it was written by marketing. W Nowicki (talk) 17:34, 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 Article speedy deleted as WP:G12. (non-admin closure) RoCo(talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hornchurch Academy Trust[edit]

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

Non-notable trust— same author has also created articles for the trust's equally non-notable schools— this looks like single-purpose editing and is being done without support from appropriate sources. KDS4444 (talk) 15:05, 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) 20:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earvin Venzant, Jr.[edit]

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

I don't really sport, but I'm not finding anything but trivial statistics, and nothing to indicate the player went on to play professionally or accomplished some noteworthy achievement as a college player. TimothyJosephWood 14:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:16, 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 merge to Human development (humanity). Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human development theory[edit]

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

Quoted, I get about 150 GHits for this. I see no evidence it's considered important beyond its original proponents. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sen's work in this area is highly influential, and I think is suitable as an article. I'd say that if it were deleted, a redirect could go to Capability approach, however, my understanding is that human development theory is a bit more broad. If the AfD is still open when I finish, I'll post an update when I've contributed a bit. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG:: I added a history section as an attempt to show how this article is different from the CA and the Human Development Index articles, as well as some more fixes. I'll do some copy editing, but let me know what you think/what could be better developed. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:29, 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 07:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 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) 20:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Alan Molina[edit]

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


Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References consist of single line mentions other limited support. reddogsix (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (jaw) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The bar for notability is: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Multiple quality secondary sources are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.116.178 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of the coverage in the article is even close to "significant coverage."
  • Delete -- typical promotional fluff; see sample:
  • He has also been featured by VH1 as a celebrity trainer in the “Hollywood’s Tightest Bodies[1]” special and as fitness expert commentator for the Oscars Red Carpet by US Weekly, In Touch, and W Magazine. He is also a columnist for Spry Magazine[2].

References

  1. ^ Tony Molina VH1 Segment, 2012-07-29, retrieved 2017-04-04
  2. ^ "One Smart Move". Spry Living. 2009-06-01. Retrieved 2017-04-04.

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 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) 20:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhartha Shishu Sadan, Hetauda[edit]

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

I cannot tell whether this is a primary or secondary school because the content is shorter than this deletion nomination and it includes no sources. There is no equivalent link in any foreign language wiki to draw sources from, and no evidence of substantive discussion in any reliable independent verifiable sources that I am able to identify and understand. While I understand that wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES means most schools get kept, that is not in itself a reason for keeping this article, whose subject may exist but for which I can find no evidence of notability. KDS4444 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (address) 17:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (express) 17:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC) bad[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I'm normally all about checking to see if a school exists, and if it does and isn't notable, redirecting, but this school has no proof of existence, and the article is just really bad. If someone can clean it up, ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now established the existence of this Nepalese school. Yes, it does exist. Is it notable? I'm still not seeing that myself. KDS4444 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still fine with TNT in this case. Redirects are usually preferable because they also prevent redlinks, but I see no mainspace links, and the quality is so terrible that there would be not much to even put in the municipality article even if there was a redirect. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 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 merge to Lajitas, Texas. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lajitas Golf Resort[edit]

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

Not notable golf resort. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's work this out. At 20,000 acres, it seems to me that it would be notable just as a geographic feature alone. It's larger than several countries. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lajitas, Texas. The golf resort is probably not independently notable, but it is the most notable aspect of the town itself, outside of its former long-serving goat mayor. Also, the airport services the resort (and exists because of it), but judging from Google Maps, it does not appear to be physically located on the property of the resort. bd2412 T 22:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lajitas, Texas, per WP:ATD-M, and the merge target has no mention of this. A merge will improve the latter article and make it more complete. North America1000 01:15, 12 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) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bio-In[edit]

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

I could find no significant independent coverage of the product, just some marketing articles and shop listings. Seems to have been created with the sole purpose of product promotion. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 17:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 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) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shivendu Ranjan[edit]

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

Fails GNG cant seem to find any independent sources. FITINDIA (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC) De-Orphan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.146.151 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no evidence that the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC. Citation count not good enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC#C1. Publishing books (even with good publishers) is not a notable feat in itself. The book that the article claims to have been adopted by several universities around the world, is one that is part of Sustainable Agricultural Reviews, a book series. However, it seems that Ranjan has only co-edited some volumes in this series, and the actual series editor is a different person. The claim that Ranjan is the first Indian to have published in this book series is also a dubious one since his co-author is also Indian. Being an associate editor of Environmental Chemistry Letters is also not good enough for WP:ACADEMIC#C8, which requires the subject to be the editor-in-chief (other journals cited in the article feel like borderline predatory journals to me). Other categories of WP:ACADEMIC don't seem to be applicable. Most of the newspaper articles cited in the main article are not directly related to the subject, and apart from this brief article in the Dainik Jagran that borders on being a hagiography of the subject, there's no real coverage for WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON perhaps. — Stringy Acid (talk) 08:19, 12 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 deleted per G12 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scargill Infant School[edit]

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

Infant school. With no references and no indication of its notability, and with none forthcoming (a Google search turns up countless directory listings but no substantive discussion in reliable independent sources), I nominate it for deletion. KDS4444 (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Searching found no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Best found was this blog post. Fails WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (warn) 17:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) 17:22, 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) 19:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinga Ilgner[edit]

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

References given here are only the equivalent of directory listings. No evidence of substantive coverage or discussion in reliable independent verifiable secondary sources, no national awards, none of the right kind of evidence to substantiate a notability claim. Google search turns up her Facebook profile, IMDb listing, and this Wikipedia article, among a number of Polish sites that I am not qualified to evaluate. The article on her in the Polish Wikipedia contains no references. KDS4444 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (soliloquise) 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (push) 17:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I listed in on pl wiki, but the notability criteria there are usually much lower. We will see how pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2017:04:06:Kinga Ilgner turns out, currently the best argument there is that she is working for a major Polish theater. Regardless of whether this will carry favor with pl wiki discussion participants and the closing admin there, I am afraid on English Wikipedia workplace does not confer notability. Positions sometimes do, but she seems, at best, to be a regular member of the troupe there, and that is unlikely to suffice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:38, 11 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 Auckland local elections, 2016 (and the 2013 and 2010 versions- I've fixed the merge templates). Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland licensing trust elections, 2016[edit]

Auckland licensing trust elections, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see how local elections of representatives of a few Auckland liquor licencing trusts are notable. The representatives are not inherently notable and only a few are because they have been notable politicians in the past and the elections themselves received very little significant coverage. WP:NEVENT applies Ajf773 (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons, they just occurred in different years:[reply]

Auckland licensing trust elections, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Auckland licensing trust elections, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information into Auckland local elections, 2016 and similar. Mattlore (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only source in each of these three articles is the city government's own self-published website, which is not a notability-conferring source — there's no evidence of the licensing board elections being the subject of any significant reliable source coverage or interest. And I find it remarkably unlikely that anybody would actually be looking for information about these — it's a remarkably low-interest topic at best. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mattlore.-gadfium 19:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Licensing trust elections are a quirky historic relic in New Zealand. It's certainly not without interest, although such interest would not be widespread. As the elections are always part of the local body elections, a merge is most appropriate. Schwede66 08:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding merging: Licencing trust elections are held concurrently with triennial local elections. They aren't exactly "part of" the local body elections. The importance of them is significantly lower compared to those of mayors and councilors, many of them who become elected aren't even notable as part of the Wikipedia notability guidelines (and thus neither would a Licencing Trust chairperson or member). While these articles certainly aren't notable for their own articles, the question is whether the content (full results of elections) is significant enough to be included elsewhere. I don't believe so. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming that "held concurrently" with local elections is a better description than "part of". Schwede66 08:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To establish a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, at a push, Merge. Trivial. Can't see how anything this minor justifies a stand-alone article(s). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 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 no consensus. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Schindler[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a music supervisor, with no strong claim to notability per WP:CREATIVE and no strong reliable sourcing to support passage of WP:GNG. The referencing here is parked almost entirely on primary sources -- and the Pitchfork reference, the only one that isn't a complete non-starter right off the bat, verifies the existence of a song named in the article while completely failing to name Frederic Schindler as having had anything to do with it. As always, Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn -- a person gets an article on here by being the subject of media coverage, not just by having and doing a job. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Best to err on the side of over-inclusion because the references are pretty complete. --Oskinet (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The references here are entirely to primary sources, with the exception of a single reliable source which fails to contain the subject's name at all. What's remotely "complete" about that kind of referencing? Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 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 07:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To attract more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 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. unsourced spm posted by paid editors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selux[edit]

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

Self-sourced promotional piece by "the official editorial office of the company", relying on inherited notability through some vague unspecified contribution to the 9/11 Museum. Also falls foul of WP:PAID. Cabayi (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. A search on the web turned up nothing of note either for Selux or Semperlux. Domdeparis (talk) 13:37, 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) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media Panache Nigeria[edit]

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

PR-like material of a subject which does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I can only see press releases of some activities which I think isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 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) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wontstop Records[edit]

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

No evidence of notability passes WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. MassiveYR ♠ 12:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- wholly unremarkable. No claim of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 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) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagendra Ji[edit]

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

per WP:POLITICIAN. Lift incident is definitely not encyclopedic. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has worked over multiple states namely Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Also, name "Nagendra Nath Tripathi" has been included in his Wikipedia page along with "Nagendra Ji". "Ji" is widely used among Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Getting stuck in lift got wide coverage by many newspapers as it was during time of Bihar elections and was called controversy by senior leaders as also mentioned in article. (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honorific titles such as "Ji", "Sri", etc., are excluded from article names (see WP:NAME). As people have argued here, getting stuck in a lift is a single event, and it didn't even attract substantial coverage. For a politician to have an article on Wikipedia, they need to pass WP:POLITICIAN — Stringy Acid (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just to be clear, the subject is an officer at the state level of a particular political party, and is not an elected state-level official. Hence, no inherent notability under WP:POLITICIAN. And as noted by the nominator, getting stuck in a lift doesn't confer encyclopedic notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject's name could be a source of confusion. The surname "Ji" doesn't seem legitimate to me, and is most likely the gender-neutral honorific used in India. I see a Hindustan Times article stating his name as "Nagendra Nath Tripathi". In any case, apart from brief mentions, either names don't return many results, despite the recent Bihar/UP elections getting wide coverage. — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:45, 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 'No consensus to delete' the Fucking sign . Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking sign[edit]

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

This article is basically just a paraphrase of the content at Fucking, Austria#Name, with the apparent intent to prefix "Fucking" in front of as many things as possible in what I would guess is meant to be a rather feeble attempt at humour. It's not even worth merging it as there is no content in it that is not already in the parent article. There is also no point in having it as a separate article as there is no reason to think that the sign for a place has any notability independent of the place itself (compare Shitterton#Disappearing sign, which I wrote). So this article fails on two counts: notability and as a redundant content fork. Prioryman (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Added) For the sake of getting rid of this junk article, I'll record my !vote as de facto delete or merge, even though there's actually nothing to merge as it's merely a poorly executed paraphrase of the original article section without a single word of new content. Let it go back to being a redirect to Fucking, Austria#Name, which it was for the last eight years. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the best, salvage whatever there is here that could usefully be merged into the Fucking, Austria article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fucking, Austria#Name, where the signs are mentioned. Since the primary claim of Fucking, Austria is its name and sign a WP:CONSPLIT is no necessary. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing independently notable about the sign. Anything Wikipedia needs to say about the village's sign can be said in the article about the village. Deli nk (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Under WP:UNDUE, to include all information about the sign in the village article puts undue weight onto the sign in it. The village is more than just a sign. If anything, the content in the village article about the sign should be merged into the sign article. Not to mention that the sign article includes information about it being the most stolen sign in the world, the statistics for the thefts and info about websites offering guidance on how to commit them. And furthermore, what is the difference between saying "Fucking taxpayers" and "London taxpayers"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Lots of sources. No compliance with WP:Before. Article is about a different subject than the town, although they are interrelated. Article is not a copy violation or a lift from the town article. I agree with User:Patar knight that the primary claim to fame of the town is the sign, which is in turn a play on the town name. There are many more sources (not yet in the article) that document the notability of the sign itself. Indeed, the sign removal problem was the primary impetus on a movement to change the town name – which was defeated in the name of tradition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed lengthy side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Earwig is clear, except for the common word. And Compare write does not show the copying someone apparently alleged. See Template:Did you know nominations/Fucking sign 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for the second time, it's not about copyvio, it's about duplication of content. Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight. Other than being defamed by User:Floquenbeam, who made a wild and wrong assertion of off wiki collusion. I acknowledge the overlap, and I see arguments against forking, which nobody has even raised. As I read the DYK rules, if this is merged the DYK won't run. In any event, Floquenbeam has expressed reservations. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"... I see arguments against forking, which nobody has even raised. ..." are you joking? I've mentioned this about five or six times. This is an inappropriate split from the main article, something which seems commonplace in order to create new articles which suddenly became valid DYK targets. As for what Floq said, there is some question over how you conducted a satisfactory QPQ review completely un-notified within 12 minutes of the DYK being posted. But I'm sure that's just because you were keen. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did say they had common subject matter. You never used the word "forking." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12 minutes? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forking? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forking? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per " Article is about a different subject than the town, although they are interrelated." please, the town and the sign for the town are inherently related. Trying to claim they are somehow completely worthy of independent articles is bizarre per WP:SPLIT. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've said it.
But splitting and overlap is not impermissible. Whether it should be permitted or is worthwhile here is the question involved in this discussion. Reasonable minds may differ. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted that I'd "never" said "fork" but I proved above that I did, more than once. Please respond to that and correct your incorrect assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:7&6=thirteen, I'm still waiting for you to redact your false assertion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's be honest about what has happened here. This article was clearly intended to serve as an April Fool's Day article for Wikipedia:Did you know, as this was explicitly stated in The C of E's nomination here. The way it was created appears to have been an attempt to game the rules for DYK, which prohibit "text spun off from a pre-existing article". No new content was added; instead, the existing content was simply paraphrased to disguise its origins. The entire purpose of the article seems to have been an effort at rather poor schoolboy humour ("did you know that people have sex in front of, then steal, this fucking sign?", "the Fucking signs", "the Fucking officials", "the Fucking residents", and the edit summary, "create this Fucking sign article". [18]) Judging from the editing history, there seems to have been some collusion between The C of E and 7&6=thirteen in this effort. Frankly, it's disingenuous of them both to claim that everything was above board in this. There's no good reason for an entirely duplicative article to exist, and making a funny for April Fool's Day is definitely not a good reason. Prioryman (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No collusion. You can question the article and the DYK, and you can say it should not run, but this personal attack and speculation by you is bullshit. You can take a long walk off a short pier. There are no facts. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it's a coincidence. No need to tell people to "take a long walk off a short pier", although my 90-year-old grandfather says that about people he wishes were dead, so perhaps that's your point. Either way I'd suggest turning it down a notch or three. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued and unwarrranted comments are harassment. None of this was worth this aggravation.
What I meant was that your reach has exceeded your factual grasp.
Back at you. Either way I'd suggest we both turn it down a notch or three. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I disagree, your tone has turned sour and hostile and threatening. It's completely unwarranted. My comments have stayed on point and have asked, continually, for clarification of your (to me) muddled threads, and the fact you used a phrase which is analogous to hoping someone disappears and/or dies is an unfortunate choice on your behalf. I'm unclear what you mean by "your reach has exceeded your factual grasp", do you mean I've made an error somewhere in my posts? If so, let's discuss that rather than being so nebulous. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You republished the lie that there was some sort of collusion. You are being dense (deliberately or not). I'm done with you. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I'm not following you. I think it's pretty clear that it's better to leave others to decide upon this based on the facts, good luck!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lest there be some confusion, Prioryman added the following to top of the discussion. So this article fails on two counts: notability and as a redundant content fork. This is a newly formed argument. I don't want subsequent readers to be misled by its belated insertion at the top. But they should note that those words came later. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion is entirely yours; I didn't add that argument at any point, it was there in my deletion rationale from the start. [19] Prioryman (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you (7&6) say a lot of things, many of which simply aren't true. I'd be careful with that in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because I received a "complaint" about this, let me be clear, you said above You never used the word "forking." and I refuted that with two diffs where I used the word "forking". I asked you to redact your claim, you didn't. Apparently, Prioryman thinks this is "snarky sniping" whereas I see it as "addressing the false accusations and setting the record straight". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable. The claim of the nomination that there is no content which is not in the more general article is false. There are clearly sensible alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was originally tagged to merge into the main Fucking, Austria article. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to any content in this article that is not in the main article? The whole thing is a paraphrased duplicate. Prioryman (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course I can; it's just a matter of comparing the two texts and detailing the additions. But what Prioryman needs to look at is WP:REDUNDANTFORK which states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." Merger is not deletion and so AfD is not appropriate in such cases. See also WP:SPLIT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of notes, merge is an acceptable conclusion to an AFD, so no problem there. SPLIT backs up the fact that there should not be two separate articles, thanks for that. The Rambling Man (talk)
    WP:SPLIT does not support any particular conclusion; the point is that splitting an article is not unusual and is not the occasion for an AfD as deletion is quite inappropriate. When the sign for a place attracts a lot of attention, it may well be sensible to split off the coverage. See Hollywood sign, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPLIT says "splitting an article is not unusual", yes, that's like Basil Fawlty telling me we're talking about the "bleeding obvious". And as you've already been told just above, "merge" is a perfectly acceptable result to an AFD, so this discussion is just fine. The point here is that splitting from a start-class article into another start-class article information which is much better suited to remain in the main village article is patently silly. As for the Hollywoodland sign, well, in extremis any argument holds some water I suppose. That's probably the most famous sign in the whole world, while this is a village sign for a tiny conurbation in Austria which happens to amuse idiots. Do you think Encyclopedia Britannica would have an entire article dedicated to the sign? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – do we have a page for "World's Biggest Cheeseburger"? "World's Most Stolen Street Sign" is something for the Guinness Book of World Records, not a serious encyclopaedia. This article seems to be a joke anyway, the see also section links to Climax, Michigan. Laurdecl talk 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – on second thought, I would prefer a merge. There is some good information here, even if the topic fails WP:GNG. Laurdecl talk 10:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agnostic on whether to delete or keep, but if it is kept, the work of the authors of Fucking, Austria needs to be acknowledged. There was no attribution that I could see. I've added a {{copied}} template to the talk page; if there is a more appropriate template that better describes what happened here (the creative content was obviously copied, but the actual text was sufficiently massaged that I wouldn't say the text was copied) then please change it, or let me know which one to use and I'll change it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm all in for attribution, and its a requirement. And if there is any question, obviously credit should be shared. And you could give them credit for the DYK, too, if it runs. DYK is not a Zero sum game.
If it were a cut and paste, I also think it should not run at DYK. Old wine in new bottles, so to speak. And indeed, the same article is ineligible for DYK. But I still don't think this was cut and pasted, and I would think that if The C of E copied he would have noted it in the edit summary and the talk page. He didn't. You are fast on the accusations (this time of 'plagiarism', last time 'off wiki conspiracy', and short on proof once again. Whatever happened to WP:AGF?
If there was a cut and paste then it should be admitted and corrected. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon review of the links provided by User:The Rambling Man, it appears that I was wrong. He did earlier mention WP:forking, etc. I had several discussions going on at the same time, and erred. I apologize.

I would say that the many sources in this article (it was just an 8 year old redirect before his edits) share the basic concept, e.g., provocative name, stolen sign, and public sex. So the wikipedia article may or may not be the source. When one of our editors put the COPIED template up there (which doesn't fit), this may be helpful in providing credit. We should give EVERYBODY credit, and over inclusion is not per se bad. But there is no evidence. I don't have an objection to the credit, where credit is due. I do have a disagreement about the choice of this template.
The use of that template is an attempt at Poisoning the well, and has broader purposes than mere attribution. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per all the keeps above. The subject of this article is more notable than the subject of Fucking, Austria, so if one of the articles has to go, maybe it's that one.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no advantage to having this separate from Fucking, Austria and there doesn't appear to be much in the subarticle worth merging back into the parent article that isn't already there. Peacock (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a duplication of Fucking, Austria#Name and per comments above. --NSH001 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary content fork, as said above. BencherliteTalk 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing independently notable about the sign. Merge it back. Rcsprinter123 (reason) 16:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any unduplicated content back to the town's article. This can then be returned to redirect status as it is a plausible search term. Otherwise, this article is a completely un-needed fork. WP:UNDUE mainly applies to viewpoints about a topic, not really aspects of the subject. The one line in there that might apply here states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. This actually strengthens the policy basis to delete it, as the coverage of the sign vis-a-vis the town in the main article is heavily tilted towards the sign in reliable published material. So having the main article focus heavily on the sign matches the focus of sources. CrowCaw 18:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fucking Merge' it. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any non-duplicative content into the parent article on the town, then return to being a Redirect. The page need not be deleted as a plausible redirect. The sign could have a stand-alone article if there were sufficient content for it to be overwhelming the parent article and needing to be forked, but I don't see that point has having been reached. The debate / discussion about DYK does not belong here as it does not pertain to the deletion criteria, and is moot as far as April Fools Day goes in any case. EdChem (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason for deletion. It is a bit controversial I guess but that is not a reason for deletion. The article is well written, good sources. I see plenty of IDONTLIKE it rationales above. This article should not be deleted or merged.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale I see is that it's a non-notable content fork, not "IDONTLIKE". An article being "well written" does not make the subject notable. Laurdecl talk 08:20, 11 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) 08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PodCast Of 1000s[edit]

PodCast Of 1000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable podcast. No significant independent coverage. References relate to a couple of the guests, but don't mention the podcast. Also included in this nomination is the related subpage below. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of PodCast Of 1000s episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete: Indeed doesn't seem notable. The "Notable guest performer interviews" section is mostly redlinks, so they don't even have a claim of inherited notability (which, of course, would be invalid in and of itself). bojo | talk 13:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: The podcast is non-notable and Wikipedia doesn't need a list of episodes of a non-notable podcast. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:22, 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 Left-libertarianism.  Sandstein  20:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding-heart libertarianism[edit]

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

This article consisted mainly of self-sourced comments from proponents and opponents, primarily from blogs (including the bleeding heart libertarian blog, which seems to be the primary source).

I looked for sources to replace these and maybe build a better article, but this topic does not really seem to be much discussed outside the fringes of conservative think tanks. In short, I am not convinced it's a notable philosophy. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I was going to reflexively say this is a WP:NEO eligible for deletion but lo and behold, non-zero books in a Google Books search have the term. Other than Brennan already cited in the article, I found Gaus, published by Princeton Univ. Press [20], and an encyclopedia of politics published by ABC-CLIO [21]. - Bri (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's been discussed in depth on blogs by several academics who have their own Wikipedia articles and seem to be respectable: [22] [23] + one more on the blacklist (by Bryan Caplan). I dunno if they warrant mention in the article, but it at least hints that the topic is notable. These aren't think tank propaganda, Cato Unbound is a debate blog. K.Bog 05:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gaus, Gerald. The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society. Princeton University Press, 2016. pairs it with left-libertarianism. I'm not sure if redirecting to that term makes sense, but that may be a possibility. I don't know much about it and can't really say. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a junior synonym of the well-established Left-libertarianism, aka Left-wing libertarianism. The "bleeding-heart" epithet is essentially mildly derogatory, but does not introduce a new variant of libertarianism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Left-libertarianism. Seems pretty similar. If it is different enough, maybe a section could be added to that article. Doesn't seem unique and notable enough to warrant its own article. bojo | talk 15:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 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) 01:26, 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) 08:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spuf don[edit]

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

Suspected of Failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Minor producer with single EP release. New EP release about 1 month ago hence this article. Article was previously sent to WP:AFD on the 10th March (Talk:Spuf don) but nobody voted on the Afd, and result was no consensus. Article was created by SPA account.


Can people please vote for this article to achieve some kind of consensus! scope_creep (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article attempts to suggest notability by association (i.e. the Scarface album) but no evidence of individual notability beyond that. Sources are few, and even then they are the usual promotional/new release post/primary source type stuff. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 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. per WP:SNOWBALL (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of May 12, 1706[edit]

Solar eclipse of May 12, 1706 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply put: what makes this event notable? Natural phenomena are not auto-notable, not unless they generate some coverage / research / etc. Solar eclipses have happened for millions of years, I don't think we need articles about all of them... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of the eclipses listed in Category:Total solar eclipses have no mention of coverage, etc. Indeed, there are *predicted* ones even a 100 years from now, that have their own articles. Should they all be deleted then?? Fmitterand (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with the OP, Piotrus. There is nothing about this eclipse which is even remotely remarkable, other than it was an eclipse. I don't think we need to keep hold of this, and in a similar way, I don't think we need to keep hold of any of the other articles about eclipses as individual events. Maybe merge them into one page containing a List of Total Solar Eclipses. But on their own? Not worth it. Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be notable as an astronomical event, but it had a scientific and historical impact. Flamsteed reported to the Royal Society that someone "took notice of a red streak preceding the emersion of the sun's body from a total eclipse ". Moreover "It need not too much time that common speak treated the eclipse as the “eclipse of Sun King” i. e. the eclipse of the power of Luis XIV, king of France". Should English Wikipedia let such juicy tidbits go to waste? :) 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear anon, the addition of Scientific and historical significance goes a long way to making this more notable. However, those two mentions in passing (we could probably find a few more) still don't seem to help that much. I would draw a line at a single reliable source discussing this eclipse. For example, did any scholar wrote as much as a paragraph on the relation of this eclipse to the reign of Luis XIV? If not, I see no reason not to endorse the merge into a list of solar eclipses as suggested by User:Sunil The Mongoose], where most eclipses can have a short paragraph about the few mentions in contemporary sources they generated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of primary sources online relating Louis XIV to the eclipse, see e.g. this and this one where "prints gleefully note the total eclipse of the sun that occurred on 12 May 1706, supposedly the day Philip V abandoned his siege of Barcelona (which had been taken by the British six months earlier), presenting it as the total eclipse of the Sun King". In this French contemporary source the eclipse is interpreted as a "sign of the decadence of the two Crowns" (The Bourbon crowns of France and Spain). According to the Académie des sciences Louis XIV actually observed the eclipse with Cassini, who had predicted it. This admittedly borders on original research, but it points clearly to the historical impact of the eclipse, from English caricatures to French "histoires". Finally I found this essay, where the contemporary "political" vs. "scientific" interpretation of the eclipse in relation to Louis XIV is discussed in detail (pp. 32-35). 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:21, 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 11:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consensus is that eclipses are notable. If you do not feel they are inherently notable, nominating a single one for deletion is not the way to handle it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the large number of sources discussing the event in conjunction with Louis XIV's campaign, even if eclipses aren't generally notable, this one seems to be. It also passes V and NPOV. NOR is more borderline, but not an overlarge problem in this case. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smmurphy. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another obviously notable eclipse is Halley's eclipse of 1715. Actually this AfD caught my attention because a total eclipse visible in Europe at the height of the Scientific Revolution could hardly fail to have a notable scientific and historical impact. I've added further sources. In my opinion it would also be nice to have an article devoted to the Flash spectrum of the Sun or add a relevant paragraph to the Solar eclipse article. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 11 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) 08:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Pundir[edit]

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

No evidence of notability: sources are passing mentions, and heisn't even included in the Guinness World Record Book yet, only applied to (inclusion wouldn't be sufficient either, but would at least be a step in the right direction). Seems like a WP:BLP1E at most. Fram (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there are many, many world records and not all of them are encyclopedic. Typing the alphabet in less than two seconds is cool and all, but it does not make an individual notable by Wikipedia's definition. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG.FITINDIA (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:29, 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. Category pages are discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not at AfD. North America1000 11:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian parties[edit]

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

duplicate article List of libertarian political parties Darkstar1st (talk) 11:03, 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 procedural close. Category pages are discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not at AfD. North America1000 11:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libertarian socialist parties[edit]

Category:Libertarian socialist parties (edit | [[Talk:Category:Libertarian socialist parties|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate page List of libertarian political parties Darkstar1st (talk) 10:58, 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 redirect to Princess Christina of the Netherlands. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Guillermo[edit]

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

The son of Princess Christina of the Netherlands. Because notability is not inherited, he's apparently not in a line of succession and has done nothing important himself, he is not notable enough for an article (WP:BIO). The two newspaper items referenced in the article are two brief notices of his marriage to another non-notable person. This is not the sort of substantial coverage on which an article could be based, and the article is mostly unsourced, in violation of WP:BLP. More sources could conceivably exist, but the previous discussion didn't find them and I can't read Dutch.

This is a renomination after the previous, rather superficial discussion was closed as "no consensus" (see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 2).  Sandstein  10:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge and Redirect to Princess Christina of the Netherlands, his mother. Most of the sourced content on this page is also on his mother's page, where it belongs, and a brief mention of her three children is appropriate. Currently, his two siblings are redirects to their mother. Apart from being children of their notable mother, there is little more to say that can be reliably and independently sourced. The children do not meet WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with SmokeyJoe. Not enough in the article (or that I can find) which meets WP:N (though there is quite a bit out there, it all appears to be from less-than-reliable sources and basically "royal" gossip). So the merge seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Princess Christina of the Netherlands. Does not meet WP:N, and I don't see any content worth preserving that isn't already covered there. Reyk YO! 16:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, or delete. Notability is not inherited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Same reason as before: there are multiple reports about him in Dutch main stream media. The article should not be deleted, unless there is a convincing argument that these reports don't establish notability. – Editør (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is. The "multiple reports" are two brief notices of his marriage. This is not the substantial coverage required per WP:GNG. We need sufficient material on which to base an article.  Sandstein  14:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are suggesting that the two sources mentioned in the article are the only existing sources, which is simply not true. Here are some additional sources [24] [25] [26] [27] from a quick search (all publications have an English Wikipedia page). Also his birth and baptism were widely reported and can be found via newspaper archives such as Delpher. These profiles and these reports of major events establish his notability. – Editør (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    when your sources include obvious passing mentions or short low content paragraphs then its obvious that the in depth sourcing is lacking, for me that makes this a clear delete Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this an in depth newspaper article. – Editør (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That he married an non-notable person is irrelevant. That information in the article is unsourced is only an argument for deletion of that particular information, not the article. That sources are in Dutch is not an argument for deletion either. – Editør (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I've removed the unsourced material, rewritten part and added new sources. – Editør (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire article is now cleaned up and all information is supported by sources. – Editør (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Notability is not inherited, but royal titles are. He is a member of the Dutch Royal Family (but not the Royal House). Does that make him notable or are only members of the Royal House inherently notable? Mduvekot (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this man is not notable. It doesn't matter if he has a title. His mother is notable, and so he can be mentioned there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      His notability is not inherited from his mother. He is notable as a member of the (extended) royal family and there are various mainstream news reports and profiles written about him. He is not notable as a furniture designer alone, but I believe the current article reflects that. Maybe people are confused here because being royalty is inherited by definition, which is something different than inherited notability. – Editør (talk) 21:05, 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) 08:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mullarkey[edit]

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

Article about a local politician, composed almost entirely of trivial, unsourced detail, e.g. what colleagues attended his funeral. I have a feeling this article may have been created as a well-meaning tribute following his death. Guidelines state that, as mayor of a locally-important city, he might be deemed notable, but this is dependent on decent sources, which I can't find. No other post-WWII Derby mayor has been considered significant enough for an article, other than one who became an MP. Jellyman (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From my understanding he was only a ceremonial mayor, not an executive mayor with any greater powers than a regular councillor. Fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per our article on Mayor of Derby, it is not a directly-elected executive position but a ceremonial one that rotates yearly among the councillors — so even as large as the city is, there's still no automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL the way there would be for the elected sort of mayor. He could still be considered notable under NPOL criterion #2 if there were a lot more referenceability than this, but what's here isn't even close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 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) 08:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K. B. Naseem[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Notability hasn't been adequately established either. The subject was the head of Persian studies at a university, but such a position alone is not enough to pass WP:PROF. The books the subject authored/translated don't seem to be notable, and the references in the current article are on Sufism, and they don't even mention the subject's name. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:GNG and, more pertinently, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. If the subject was known for his translations, then there would be reliable sources other than those published/plagiarized by the Sultan Bahu cult. The group has seen a string of accounts created by its supporters blocked for systematically using Wikipedia as a means of promotion for anything related to their cult, and this article appears to be a prime example of that: no actual notability except for this Wikipedia article itself, which is the entire goal. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be a WP:Coatrack to promote the ideas, and the books, (one of several started by the same author), rather than a biography of a notable person - Arjayay (talk) 10:26, 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) 08:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mortality drag[edit]

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

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I nearly put a "hoax" tag on it, as the article's explanation of the topic is almost the exact opposite of the (correct) description to be found in the (sole) source. Most of the rest of the article is incorrect, its author showing little understanding of the topic. Not surprising that it's wrong, since with only one source (and even that used incorrectly) the whole thing is a pile of OR. I'm nominating for deletion as I don't think the topic justifies an article of its own, though it might be worth a paragraph in another article. NSH001 (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up. This article should not exist in its current state.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there an actual notable topic under this name for which an article can be made? If not, then delete; if so, then move to draftspace and clear out all the incorrect material so that the correct article can be made. bd2412 T 02:23, 12 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Gravity (theatre group)[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. My HighBeam search found three additional articles: Dec 2010, Feb 2011, Nov 2011, All mention America's Got Talent . Still a delete although additional sources could change my mind. Gab4gab (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:41, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Murray[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the CIS is not included in those criteria, could you explain in more detail exactly where you are getting that from.18abruce (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CIS is the equivalent of the examples in #4. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: I know it doesn't directly mean anything, but there is not even a wikipedia page for CIS/USports Hockey All-Canadian Teams, so I am not sure if notability could be implied. Yosemiter (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google seach also brings up a number of articles on him being the award winner etc. And then the typical routine ones which of course don't actually confer notability but often indicate more coverage to be found. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not currently meet NHOCKEY: "Those leagues not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability to players." The CIS is not included, if it is believed to be equivalent then that should be discussed in the appropriate place, not here.18abruce (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As per always that list is an essay, and thus the appropriate place to discuss it is at Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete He has several accomplishments in the CIS/USports (which I would argue is not equivalent to NCAA or CHL leagues and not listed in the assessment, though I am not the best person to decide that). Searching through the news clippings, the best articles I could find about him could all be routine (such as an article from the Drummondville paper about his signing with the B-Sens). I am leaning towards WP:TOOSOON based on my searches, but if someone finds a good article on him, I would quickly change my view. Yosemiter (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 01:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I am sympathetic to but not entirely convinced by the argument that CIS All-Canadian should be treated as equivalent to NCAA All-America, but for hockey in Canada I think the argument is stronger than in other sports. And while I am not finding as much coverage as I would like, I am finding some (such as this and this) so I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The daily siasat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Can't find reliable sources other than the primary reference in the article. RoCo(talk) 06:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. It's mentioned a lot in passing but there is nothing to establish notability. -- Dane talk 20:02, 12 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. per WP:G4 as similar to article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Howard (nomination) (non-admin closure) -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 19:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Howard[edit]

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

A self-written vanity page, but some claim of notability, so can't speedy. I don't think he meets the notability criteria on the strength of one mention in a local paper. I fixed the refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Amazing what you find when you label something a stub and then google something. Jimnsaw one newspaper reference already listed but a google search has found plenty of references from major media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Note that this was deleted after an AfD in 2016. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:38, 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) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the cover of Rolling Stone[edit]

List of people on the cover of Rolling Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is really listcruft that violates the WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE sections of WP:What Wikipedia is not. We're not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of statistics, and this is very excessive. While magazine covers do generate publicity for people, any significant attention they bring individuals can easily be discussed on their own articles instead or perhaps the main Rolling Stone article itself in certain cases where the magazine itself faces controversy for its covers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: We have a lot of lists on Wikipedia, but can't keep deleting everything claiming WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Readers would have to struggle to find people on covers if they're mentioned only in their own articles. RoCo(talk) 04:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting we delete "everything" per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and please keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE in mind, which says that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be full of excessive statistics. In many cases, being on a magazine cover isn't nearly important as the work a subject does anyway, and it isn't always even worth noting when someone is on a magazine cover to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Making the cover of Rolling Stone has been a particular kind of validation for celebrities and musicians since the magazine began; Shel Silverstein wrote a Top Ten hit about it, and a few examples from the plentiful coverage noting the significance (and controversies) of the cover include [28][29][30][31][32][33][34] etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't indiscriminate. This is not a directory of everything that ever existed. The list has lots and lots of bluelinks in it(and very few redlinks). We have secondary sources that discuss being on the cover.Burning Pillar (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Keep" might not be the best description, but I'm fine with ValarianB's suggestion of breaking out into separate lists. Not sure if I can withdraw an AFD I started when I think splitting an article out is better than keeping it in the pre-AFD state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this might not be as significant as being declared the Time 100 Person of the Year, having separate lists by decade like Time magazine does would certainly be better than this nightmare of a page. I hadn't thought about it before, but have no objections to splitting into separate articles like that as those would be much easier to manage and have clearer scopes less likely to get blown out of proportion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Could use better sourcing, lead, and presentation, but it's a notable and appropriate list subject. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, this is by definition non-indiscriminate (so it is... discriminate??) by virtue of having a specific inclusion criteria, and one that is somewhat tantamount to an award in itself. It definitely could stand with some formatting/tablizing(???) and so on. CrowCaw 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As already mentioned, being on the cover is considered a noteworthy accomplishment (probably moreso than being on the cover of Time). I agree with the idea of tabulating the list, and possibly splitting it up based on decade or issue number (for example: List of people on covers 1-500, 501-1000, etc.). Also, this page should probably be renamed to indicate that these are for United States covers only (have often seen people from international editions' covers added to the list). JLThorpe (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to voters I can see how there's clear opposition to outright deletion, and splitting has been proposed to help make things more manageable, which I feel could work well. Given JLThorpe's comment on location, would List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (*year*–*year*) (i.e. "List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (1970–1979)") or List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (*name of decade*) (i.e. "List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (1970s)") be a better format to use? I don't know if me withdrawing the AFD is appropriate at this point when I'm not in favor of simply keeping the list as it was before nomination, and it might take a while to carry out a split into subarticles. An uninvolved user would probably have to perform the split. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently there isn't strong enough consensus for a split here in this discussion. You may wish to close the AfD as keep as no other opinion got stated, and propose splitting the article on the article's talk page, through which an appropriate plan could be laid out. RoCo(talk) 07:17, 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. with additional thanks to Jytdog for going to the library and researching this thoroughly. Damn. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Therapy[edit]

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

This thing is horrible and fails GNG by about 10 miles; I just lost an hour of my life at the library looking for sources with significant discussion of the company per se and found only a few - not enough to tell the story of this company in WP.

Here is what I have been able to gather. This company was apparently started back in the US in the late 1940s. They sold vibrating chairs and other stuff. They apparently had some "fairyland" marketing thing for kids in the 1950s. The founder died in the 1960s in some accident in Ireland (tiny obit in the Chicago Tribune) and then a guy named Michael Riley took over and in 1988 he or somebody sold the company to an entity called "Northstar International Inc.", which did what i think was a reverse merger in Florida and apparently got on NASDAQ for awhile as "Niagara Corp." (not the steel company), but I can't find any sign of the company after that. Anyway there is no sign of a US presence now, or of what happened to them. There have been a great number of subsidiaries and shell companies etc. There are apparently independent companies in each of the UK and Australia that have ~some~ unidentifiable relationship with the original company and if you look at the infobox you will see a confused mishmash of information about the UK company and the Australian company. Their sales people appear to get in trouble for selling old people very expensive massage chairs. That is all I can tell you.

The current "article" is about 80% sourced to company websites (I cleaned most, not all of them out, and it looked like this) and it has been getting edited by people who keep adding more bad content that is badly sourced. See also SNOW deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycloidal vibration technology (this is what they hype as the "magic" in their vibrating chairs)

This too should be a SNOW delete. There is no way to write an NPOV article about this company. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is a clear attempt by a company to write its own page in order to bring legitimacy to what appears to be some vibrating chairs and beds. As per Jytdog's analysis the article is sourced from the company's own deliberately obfuscating heirarchy of companies, who have also been found to sponsor their own quasi 'medical' research. I have spent some time in the past attempting to bring sources to this article and all of them were negative. Consequently I spent the next couple of months watching editors with a conflict of interest or paid coming along to remove it from what they perceive to be their advertisement. I'm sick of watching it. Jytdog is correct, the Fairyland concept was back in the 50s and it now appears to be a way for the company to bring positive publicity by donating play equipment to specialist schools which are state run anyway. This whole page and the distastful editing of the presumably paid editors falls way below what Wikipedia should be. It should also be noted that it doesn't stand in isolation, there are several pages being edited by similar (or possibly the same) company attempting to lend legitimacy to the vibrating beds, pads and chairs industry. I brought some of them to the editors over at Wikipedia project medicine who have suggested a new page on the subject so that all those promotional pages can be deleted en masse. No question, this page shouldn't be here. Mramoeba (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains nothing that establishes notability. It references the subject's website as primary reference. It obviously fails WP:GNG.--Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 11 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 nomination withdrawn. Article subject is apparently notable enough. (non-admin closure) RoCo(talk) 18:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English version school[edit]

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

The reference provided indicates "English version school" is an alternative naming of English medium schools in Bangladesh. Not notable and no substantial content about English medium schools in Bangladesh. Suggest deletion or redirect to Education in Bangladesh. RoCo(talk) 03:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- English version follow the national curriculum while English medium schools do not. I will try to add more sources and improve the article but the topic is notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vinegarymass911: thanks for that information. Would you suggest renaming the page to something more appropriate, such as "English version schools in Bangladesh"? The current title seems too vague. RoCo(talk) 18:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vinegarymass911: I am renaming the article to the one specified by you. Also, I'm withdrawing the nomination as you clarified the term. Thank you. RoCo(talk) 18:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JumboMail[edit]

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

Promotional. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG RoCo(talk) 02:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Continental Forum Arad[edit]

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

First, the sourcing on this is wretched: three hotel booking sites. We shouldn't be citing those on an encyclopedia, and if that's all we have, then the attached article probably shouldn't exist. Second, none of the claims to notability is especially impressive. "Largest hotel in Arad" - not really. "Tallest building in Arad" - I doubt it. Maybe if it were one of the tallest buildings in Romania, but it isn't, by far. It's a perfectly bland communist-era pile with no distinguishing features, historically or architecturally. - Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - kind of spammy and seems to fail NPOV. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:23, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dexta daps[edit]

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

He has received the Int'l Reggae and World Music Awards Best New Entertainer award in 2015, has been on tour, and issued singles and an album. But, there is no contract with a record label, no chart history, and no significant coverage. This appears to be a case of an early career (just a couple of years) and WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. I posted a message on the WikiProject Musicians talk page and no one has weighed in the discussion regarding notability. –CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Even though he did win that award, I'm not sure if it would really qualify as a "major music award". Also, I have a hard time finding significant coverage of the artist. --The Wrong Tea (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_April_4&oldid=1142223885"