Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 December	22 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pittsburgh sports seasons[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:LISTN as too generic of a topic (as it a "List of X of Y" as it is actually a List of Lists of Pittsburgh-based sports seasons and possibly a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization) and as a compilation of other lists making this appear to be WP:LISTCRUFT.

This appears to have been unmerged from a section in Sports in Pittsburgh#Performance of the 4 major sports and then further expanded to include other popular teams. However, this list is huge and not what would be considered generally helpful. Each list has to be abbreviated to the point of being incomprehensible even to those who understand which each abbreviation might mean. In reality, this is just a confusing compilation of lists that already exist, in a better format, found at List of Pittsburgh Steelers seasons, List of Pittsburgh Panthers football seasons, List of Pittsburgh Power seasons, List of Pittsburgh Penguins seasons, List of Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball seasons, Duquesne Dukes men's basketball#Yearly results, List of Pittsburgh Pirates seasons. As this list is only link to one other article, it is also very out of date and likely to stay that way most of the time as the one editor whose pet project this was seems to no longer be active. Since this was originally split off from the Sports in Pittsburgh article, I would propose this List of Lists be deleted and the section in Sports in Pittsburgh that links here be expanded in prose with cited materials discussing the success of the teams in Pittsburgh (the list with the total number of championships and seasons won is already directly below the section that links to this list). Yosemiter (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entire article is Sabermetrics and Stats Inc. having an unholy alliance outside of Heinz Field and spewing out...I don't know what to call this, but it isn't encyclopedic in the least. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely redundant to pages on individual sports teams, and so poorly formatted as to justify a WP:TNT deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, mashed together and confusing as all heck, with a healthy dose of WP:OR thrown in (Number of All-Stars/Pro Bowlers/All-Americans+draft picks on team?). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this not at all reader friendly, but even if it was I don't think this is a route we want to go. To me, this is too much of a synthesis. Lepricavark (talk) 04:29, 28 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Clare[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NAUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage. The only "references" here are book reviews from a website whose own "about us" page describes itself as guaranteeing a review to every indie or self-published writer who submits their book at all -- which basically makes it a publicity platform, not a reliable source that's organically making its own editorial decisions about who to cover -- and her only potential notability claim is being an award finalist for that same PR platform's own internal year-end awards. But as always, every literary award that exists at all is not an automatic notability pass -- we care only about the major literary awards that get media coverage, not about small-fry awards that can be sourced only to their own websites about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no critical coverage from independent sources (WP:GNG) - all the online reviews that I could find just repeat the publisher's promotional blurb. DferDaisy (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found reviews from Booklist and Publishers Weekly for several of her novels. I added them to the article. Ping DferDaisy to take another look. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG requires that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail - of the free-to-read references in this article, none of them discuss the author at all; they only mention Tiffany Clare as being the author of the book being reviewed. DferDaisy (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author of popular novels lacking sufficient coverage to pass WP:AUTHOR. It may merely be WP:TOOSOON for this bodice ripper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WorldCat shows holdings in the low 100s for several works, which is typical for mass market "bodice ripper" (as my colleague says) novels. Booklist and Publisher's Weekly are trade mags that review a large fraction of the annual output of the publishing industry, so these listings do not go to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete yep WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Quinn (copywriter)[edit]

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

Can't find any sources to confirm this person would pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. The one RS cited in the article is from the Edinburgh Evening News, his employer, so it doesn't count. Other than that, searches of Ghits, GBooks, GNews, and Highbeam turned up nothing about this person or his work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete yep, fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator, fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 28 December 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 no prohibitions of the mentioned draft being moved into mainspace J04n(talk page) 17:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt of the Enlisted[edit]

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

This article, recently created, has a number of irrefutable and irredeemable issues with it. 1) the title "Revolt of the Enlisted" is WP:NOR, as there is no mention of it what so ever in any of the given citations. It is an attempt to relate it to the actual Revolt of the Admirals, which was an actual event. 2) The article is filled with blatant POV throughout, with a strong bias against the rating change. This can be cleaned up, but it is still a problem. 3) This article does not appear to cover a notable event. It has not been described as an event, but rather just as a part of the histories of the Navy rates - which would be more appropriate to cover with a paragraph there, rather than with a stand alone article. In fact at List of United States Navy ratings#Temporary end of ratings there is a small section, not POV, that covers everything in this article. Garuda28 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that everything (including the title) is a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR; there's a bit of WP:NOTNEWS concern as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to be able to comment here further; if the article is renamed and improved the closer should discount my vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect(see below comments) well sourced material to List of United States Navy enlisted rates for slightly more context in the brief synopsis already there. The event was real and much of the narrative is correct, even if rather sensationalized, but the article as it stands is almost entirely synthesized and unlikely to become complaint with OR or NPOV. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI agree fully with you on merging the information, but given that the title name, Revolt of the Enlisted, is original research and not backed up or found at all online, do you support a delete and merge rather than a redirect? Garuda28 (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not defamatory or otherwise unacceptable information so I prefer to keep the article history there as a resource for editors but I wouldn't be up in arms over a deletion. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The info is definitely useful. My only issue is that the title name is inaccurate and original research. Maybe rename the page “United States Navy rating controversy”, merge the history, then delete the page titled “Revolt of the Enlisted”? Sorry if that’s a lot, I’m just really not comfortable with the title or a redirect being titled Revolt of the Enlisted due to the false parallels with Revolt of the Admrials and the title being OR. Garuda28 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - While they're technically allowed, anything with "controversy" in the title causes me an involuntary eye-roll. Let me see what I can draft together; if it's deemed article worthy I don't see why we can't do as you've suggested. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I was thinkining if it more as just a redirect title to go to list of navy ratings, rather than as a stand-alone article, but if you want to go at it. Garuda28 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal Per the above discussion I have created a provisionally titled and very rough draft that I think will demonstrate the subject's probable compatibility with policy after a delete and merge to a new title. A lot has to be done still but it's a start. Any interested party is welcome to make further changes to the article and feedback is appreciated. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Full support You did an amazing job! Took an incredibly biased article and turned it into something fitting of Wikipedia. Garuda28 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barring any objections I will be implementing my draft over the 24 hours. If the closer does not interpret a "Keep" could we get a relist after the changes? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- to clarify will the page Revolt of the Enlisted still exist as a redirect? My intent would be to not have it exist at all, with your page existing as a continuation of the topic.Garuda28 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest a Delete and Merge of all draft material into a new article, provisionally titled 2016 U.S. Navy ratings change and have amended my !vote to reflect. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with @LargelyRecyclable:'s draft.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:11, 28 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haldanes[edit]

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

Non notable short-lived supermarket, They'd lasted less than 2 years before going into administration and the owner pulling the plug, Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well as the creator all those years back, I don't know if any vote from me could be considered WP:COI. If I were entirely uninvolved, i'd vote keep on the basis that it did exist as an actual mid-sized chain, and at the time got headlines as it was the first in its size sector to be launched in over a quarter of a century. There are however many articles that detail supermarket or food chains, some of which seem less notable than this, including Local Plus and FreshXpress, both of which also had a short life span but are none the less generally justified for inclusion. A short life span doesn't determine notability, or lack of. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised that I cannot find any intellectually independent references but at least two are required in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The nearest we get with the existing references rely on company announcements and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. A quick look at Local Plus and FreshXpress articles shows much the same types of references used - I would also !vote to Delete those articles as they fails basic GNG criteria for intellectually independent references also. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per Wiki guidelines, notability does not diminish. The fact that this chain only existed for a short time doesn't mean it is not notable. If you type in "haldenes supermarket" into google, there are a PLETHORA of news items from different media covering the store. Which makes me assume the nominator has not done WP:BEFORE and thus this may be a procedural keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be around only as resume filler for all the names listed under management and in the infobox. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per available sources, meets WP:N. See the list below for some of them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Guardian
BBC News
Yorkshire Post
BBC News
Manchester Evening News
The Independent
Daily Record
The Southern Reporter
Horncastle News
East Lothian Courier
John O'Groat Journal
Horncastle News
The Grocer (paywalled)

If that's all you can give us, then that's not good vote. Where's the deletion policy basis? Where's the policy quotes that shows us companies are always accepted without a doubt? We've never had one. I actually read your sources and I don't think they add value. Sources never actually saved an article if it was spam from the get-go. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My post is not a "vote", it's an !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this is spam and that's definitely no excuse. What's the big deal about a restaurant chain? Everyone has heard of one, what I read on those sources are "the company says this", "the company says that", and that's before you get to the actual paragraphs... Spam, we all know is still spam, whether you like it or not. Spam is why we're flooding with each one every day and every hour, who says we should let them? We definitely shouldn't on a hair-thin one like this. A good article would have good sources, not the hair thin ones here that are clear promo. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This is not a restaurant chain, it's a former supermarket chain. If you read the sources I posted as you stated, one would think that you would have been able to make this obvious distinction. No offense intended, but just saying. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article is good, then prove it. It doesn't make a difference what it is, the difference is whether the sources are good and they aren't, this is spam and spam one and the same. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a YellowPages. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it spam? They're out of business. Also, if you can't be bothered to take the time to learn very basic information about the subject of this AfD, you have no business participating in the discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by NA1K. Lepricavark (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the references provided by User:Northamerica1000 and they were all about the market closing or may be closing and the jobs that will or may be lost. Not enough depth for WP:NCORP IMO. --J04n(talk page) 14:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources provided are insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a directory of nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources are available above and beyond what I provided. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 28 December 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) Lepricavark (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World 2018[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Event is almost a whole year away and the article is either unreferenced or unreliably referenced. Delete and SALT till at least July 2018. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - several contestants has already been choosen. Good references. One of the top pageants in world. TOOSOON is irrelevant once contestants has started to be choosen. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the series is notable every year, this deletion rationale is not too meaningful. No need to delete and wait certain time. Already it contained basic information and source, so any unsourced info or speculation can be removed or tagged by anyone but no need for deletion here. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The pageant is notable every year and has very good resources also several candidates has been confirmed from their national contests.--Arsh 18 (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' it's actually WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:TOOSOON that has the guidelines on future events. In general, annual events will have the next instance of the event kept. As Miss World 2017 has occurred and preparations for the next event are underway, it should be kept. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' as above. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep We have pages for all the other major pageants next event, 2018 Olympics (by country even!) 2018 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament, you name it. Major events have plenty of sourcing and per our tradition are notable before they happen, why should this one be any different?Jacona (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:CRYSTAL — "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Miss World is a notable event and there is no reason to believe Miss World 2018 won't take place. There is enough coverage on the event as well, and a handful of competitors have already been decided. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scapegirl (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 28 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for Hip Lovers[edit]

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

I like Woody and I know it is considerably more difficult to find sources for older albums but there is simply too much to ignore with this one. I found one source, an Allmusic review; the discogs in the article is user-generated and unreliable. One source actually describing the album does not satisfy GNG and there is no indication it passes WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major artist on a major record label... not enough without the sources, I know, but there are ways... It's in one of the Penguin Guide to Jazz books. I'll add info from that. Ping me if someone suggests that coverage in the two main sources of pre-2009 jazz reviews – AllMusic and Penguin – are insufficient (they are sufficient for hundreds of articles, I'd guess) and I'll try to find something else. EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EddieHugh this book? The album is not even mentioned. I have another version of the book but it merely lists the album, yet never actually describes it. A redirect is a viable option if you believe an Allmusic review merits a mention for the album in Herman's article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the widely condemned '10th edition', which was just a selection of a few albums that one of the authors recommended. The various real editions (1–9) aimed to review what recordings were available at the time of publication (1992–2008). I've added information from the 9th edition (no online view available) to the article, as I have a physical copy of the 9th and it describes the album. I hope that's enough. EddieHugh (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am generally reluctant about deletion of articles about albums about which a bylined Allmusic review exists, though I appreciate that has not been sufficient argument in some past AfDs. In this case though, there were also multiple issues onto LP and then CD, and also the coverage in another reference book discussed above. All in all, I think enough for WP:NALBUM criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just added another reference, I believe the 4 texts references establish [[WP:GNG|--J04n(talk page) 16:31, 28 December 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. J04n(talk page) 16:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Otagburuagu[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NProf. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources to meet general notability. Does have a small body of work in Google Scholar, but doesn't appear to be highly cited; doesn't look like the subject meets academic notability either.PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his work does not rise to the level of meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or have the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 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 because the article was heavily improved from this to this. And also with consideration of sources in Chinese. Ammarpad (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Li[edit]

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

Biography of non notable actress who fails WP:NACTOR. Heavily guarded by article creator. He removed any cleanup tag which can categorize it in maintenance cats despite being with only one IMDb source which is deemed unreliable by the community and is user generated. Search shows unavailability of reference to support biography. The only lingering source is put as an means to avoid deletion.–Ammarpad (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is the Best Actress of the 35th Hong Kong Film Awards for her role in Port of Call (2015 film), and based on that she fully satisfies WP:NACTOR. _dk (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom's premise is false. (Creator) Left the nom's IMDB-only tag intact and the only edit I made to the nom was removing one of their two tags, the notability one obviously.[1] A significant actress of the Hong Kong cinema. Best Actress winner of the Hong Kong Film Award and Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival. Also a winner of the Asian Film Awards and Chinese Film Media Awards. Easily meets WP:NACTOR being one of the stars of the highly critically acclaimed Port of Call and Our Time Will Come. --Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Additionally, not surprisingly it took a quick search to find Chinese language media on this person, like from Phoenix Television and others.[2][3][4][5]. There are many more. --Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It is high time to purge every article from Wikipedia that relies only on IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, delete just because IMDB ~~is currently~~ was the only source in the article? Do you not believe this is a multi-award winner? Wikipedia:GNG makes it explicitly clear that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:NEXIST. Anyway, if you truly doubted the content of the article, I've added sources so that the content currently does not rely "only on IMDB." --Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per dk. I think this is a case of "expand, not delete." It appears that there is material that can improve this article, and she does meet notability standards, even if the article needs improvement. South Nashua (talk) 14:52, 28 December 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 G7 and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'll note that this should not be eligible for REFUND since a consensus was developing in favour of speedy deletion regardless of the author requesting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Maxwell[edit]

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

This article does not establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It's a list of things that he has said and done unsupported by reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ... discospinster _talk 18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Utterly non-notable and even the non-reddit sources (which I've removed) are circular, referencing Reddit. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I changed my mind and now support deletion. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Keep. Three instances which fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (academics) point 1:[reply]

In the field of coding theory: The CELT paper has been widely cited: 61 times.

In the field of cryptocurrency research: He is mentioned in e.g. the Acknowledgements peer-reviewed search like [6].

I would argue that he is notabile simply because he is the primary author of CoinJoin. The notability of CoinJoin has been uncontested since October 2014.

~~--Ysangkok (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Calling 61 citations "highly cited" is a bit of a stretch... – Joe (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete 90% of what anyone going to find to source on something like this would be forum posts and outright paid hit pieces; as a result it is almost certain to never be a reasonable, informed, or even article-- and instead just act as an unintentional whitewashing facility for low quality material. I also think I meet every test on the low-profile side. FWIW, the creator of the article seems to be calling for brigading this AfD on the bitcoin subreddit. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not a vote, but a debate, how can more participation be a problem? So many AfD's are closed with hardly any discussion, I don't think attracting Redditors is a problem. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I've known Greg through Wikipedia for a long time now, and whilst I occasionally stumble across his name in tech news, he's not remotely notable and seriously doesn't meet the inclusion criteria at this time. I'd argue that a paper being cited 61 times is not remotely "widely cited" whilst I've an acknowledgement or two in various papers and I'm sure as hell not notable. We also must remember that notability can't be inherited just because he created something notable doesn't make him notable. Sorry Ysangkok, time to let this one go. Nick (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already did! --Ysangkok (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Speedy Delete As per the previous input. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:17, 21 December 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:SNOW TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Princeton aerial object incident[edit]

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

this article has unsubstantiated claims about a ufo incident in 2004 which is in the process of being debunked at metabunk.org (originally called the uss nimitz 2004 incident) https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage.t9190/ in short it is similar to a chilean case where "serious" authorities were 110% sure of an extraterrestrial explanation, it turned out to be an earthly airliner far away, ascending and leaving the airport this article here is part of a media campaign from Delonge ufo site https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/ with Luis Elizondo head of the former ufo investigation at the Pentagon, probably intended to secure more funds for his project wikipedia should not post incidents which has no extraordinary values and is part of standard military encounters or faulty radar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requin8 (talk • contribs) 22:07 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the metabunk attempt to discredit this story is very weak. The major criticism is that a news source once pictured a "cigar-shaped UFO" photo in an unrelated story about this USS Nimitz/Princeton incident. So, ignoring that and the ad hominems. This article is noteworthy: it has significant coverage from reliable sources who lack any interest in the subject (The NYT reporter is their middle east correspondent) and refused to work from the source material of the To The Stars Academy, who weren't mentioned in the NYT article. There are multiple interviews with gov't officials in a variety of levels confirming the source material is authentic, unexplained, and can be sourced to a Pentagon operation known as AATIP. Luis Elizondo is in some articles, and is associated with To The Stars, but Mr. Bigelow, working for Pentagon and NASA, is unaffiliated with To The Stars and confirms Elizondo's information and expands on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 22:45 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep, as creator I started the article as I was impressed with the veracity of the claims as they were published in the NYT and Politico and BBC, three of the strongest sources any current affairs article could possess. Any subsequent exploration of the story does not affect the original strength of the reporting. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the NYT reporter lacks any interest in the subject is spurious. LESLIE KEAN has been reporting on UFOs since the 90s, and wrote a book on it (#1 best seller in UFO category on Amazon). I just wanted to clarify the false claim the TheThomas. -70.174.93.74 (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep This desperately needs better sources. While we have many news articles to reference as sources for this page I am rapidly becoming frustrated trying to locate the sources that the news articles have used. If this information does come from the government, is the result of a FOIA request, then there is a more primary source out there that needs to be linked to and referenced directly by wikipedia. Interviews with pilots by news agencies are first hand information, the source of the videos, must be governmental, and needs to be clearly identified and linked here. Without that degree of credibility this article is mere hearsay and not worthy of article status other than as a footnote on an 'unsubstantiated UFO sightings' page.

keep - It's news? The BBC had a news article about this incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RlbqOl_4NA (Narkstraws (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I see nothing wrong with an article about the news reports because they are real and may be documented, however, care must be taken to avoid the impression of supporting a belief in the details asserted by the subjects of our article. That impression may be created easily with adoption of terms used by subjects and including them in our discussion of the topic. That may be avoided by careful editing. Mirages and such may be seen by multiple people because they are phenomena that occur. The effects are supported by physics and scientific research, however, unsubstantiated details, interpretations, and projections about them should be avoided in our articles. Although a mirage cannot be detected with radar, it is a phenomenon that occurs. Interpreting it as a spaceship rather than an oasis should be left to the subjects experiencing it, not related as a fact to our readers. I would support merging this into the article on the program, if it is included appropriately in an expansion of that article. That might put it into better perspective. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. More sources, in addition to the already more than adequate amount and quality of sources in the article: [7], [8] AdA&D 14:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this nomination was malformed so I have listed it correctly now and included it on today's AFD list rather than yesterday's. SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems notable [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets the notability threshold. A merge to AATIP could be considered, but that's beyond the scope of this AfD. Rentier (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But be sure to keep a neutral tone, and avoid drawing conclusions. This is a reported incident, and the article should focus on what was reported. A reference to any actual DOD documents would significantly boost the credibility. Hadron137 (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs a lot of work to be an actual encyclopedic article but so do most articles littered with news reports. Deletion is not cleanup and only a little more time will tell if this has any lasting significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as distasteful as it is that news organisations stoop this low for clicks, it has plenty of sources for notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We don't judge the news (except when they're the Daily Mail) on what they report, as long as they report it, and this incident has more than enough legs to pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable, not to mention extremely interesting! GWA88 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FWIW - seems worthy imo - agree with much already noted above - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 14:58, 22 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikenna Dieke[edit]

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

Can't find any sources that shows subject meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. No academic reviews found of "most notable book" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per article's author. User:GodwinCollins is here solely to promote, they know these people aren't notable, and they're attempting to force notability with weird prose like the gibberish final sentence in this article. CityOfSilver 16:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not valid under A7 and I would contest a G11. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just Professor but no reliable sources coverage to meet WP:ANYBIO and no academic achievement to pass WP:PROF. Also since the author is not heeding to warnings despite litany of deletion notices of his non notable BLPs, ANI may be necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not think I would ever read "some of his essays have been published on wordpress". Seriously, that is not a sign of notability. Even an academic publishing multiple articles in peer reviewed journals is not in and of itself to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His book did receive half a published book review (JSTOR 41849867). I'm sympathetic to Wikipedia:Systemic bias but that's not enough for WP:AUTHOR or anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 27 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Rowe[edit]

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

Article seems to be driven completely by links to YouTube videos and no reliable, third-party sources to establish a general notability guideline, or even establish BLP notability. livelikemusic talk! 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – all third party sources I can find seem to be blogs or trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. PriceDL (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 26 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glamorous (rapper)[edit]

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

Notability-tagged for more than a year. No RS. Questionable claim to notability. Thought it would be good for the community to weigh-in. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Forgot to mention that article is written by a single-edit SPA, so t may be a vanity page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to be able to dig too much, but there's some interesting tid-bits about this person. She is also known as "MC Glamorous" and is now a Muslim Chaplin for the state of New York. She was part of the Glamour Girls, recorded a record with them, Oh, Veronica Veronica. Maybe this will kick start some other peoples' searches. However, since so many women in Hip Hop haven't been properly written about, there may be nothing in an RS to turn up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm no expert in this area. If what you say is true, then we'll just have to wait to have a proper article on this person until such time as secondary sources appear and that's OK. Agricola44 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Agricola44. She seems very interesting, but until she gets written up in a RS, she's not going to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. I hope someone does write about her. I like her personal journey from hip-hop to Chaplin poet. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched under several combinations of her name, stage name and occupations and found nothing except a Spotify link and a blog. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Dearth of sources to assert notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While her story is super interesting, there's not enough RS to support an article. Here's hoping that more women in Hip Hop get their day in the spotlight. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is one of the worst sourced articles I have ever seen. We do not build articles on blogs, or at least we shouldn't. Although I have read enough poorly written Wikipedia articles to know we have a long way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 27 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Breakfast[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and poor sourcing. As well as COI issues. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. It's a declared paid edit, but someone's not getting value for money here :| I don't believe these dime-a-dozen web awards convey sufficient notability either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and salt as a redirect to The Big Breakfast; this is much less delicious WP:SPAM than the McDonald's variety which basically drops multiple blue links in a hope to clinch WP:N, which it doesn't by a country mile. Nate • (chatter) 17:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overt promotion violating policy WP:PROMO and display of gallery of awards which occupy total space more than the prose, this is blatant misusing of Wikipedia. In summary this is classic example of Vanispamcruftisement –Ammarpad (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSPAM. No indication that the company is notable yet, so there's nothing to salvage. If deleted the redirect to The Big Breakfast should be restored. – Joe (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a CollegeHumor spin-out production company that is now part of Electus. The referencing is atrocious, the content is straight off their website. The awards listed are largely from before the studio was founded. Any encyclopedic content could be added to one of the two linked articles, but I see none that needs to be merged, and as noted above there are other uses of the term that this should redirect for instead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sherlock Holmes cast members[edit]

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

really arbitrary selection of films and it could never be comprehensive with the hundreds of films that exist. Look at List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes for example. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since it becomes indiscriminate when it starts to include characters with a single appearance. However, it might be useful to have a page listing actors who have played a select set of specific commonly recurring Sherlock Holmes characters - Watson, Lestrade, Moriarty, Mycroft, Mrs. Hudson. bd2412 T 14:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Franchise is clearly notable, so the real objection is to the number of non-repeated roles, which is a fair and appropriate editorial criticism. If all the minor characters who appeared in less than three separate films were eliminated, an editorial change, would the nom's objection remain? No, it would not, hence deletion is inappropriate per WP:ATD--never delete that which simple editing (e.g., cutting down existing stuff) can easily accomplish. Many other similar tables have such an inclusion rule, for just this reason. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My objection would remain because you couldn't possibly build a comprehensive list of everyone who has played Lestrade, Hudson, Morstan, etc. in every form of media (radio, television, film, etc.) The article would be huge. It is better to have separate articles for separate characters; List of actors who have played Sherlock Holmes for example. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no source that does a comparative table juxtaposing the Sherlock Holmes media titles, only articles for Sherlock Holmes himself (254 titles) and Watson. Similar lists can be created for the major characters, but the problem with this list is that it starts calling all the guest and minor characters as starring and you would need up to 254 columns. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list presentation presumed there is a franchise of films , like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is not at all the case. Better to do the few characters that reappear frequently in separate lists per Angud. --Masem (t) 21:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First the list is subjective as it is only choosing certain titles out of the 100's of films, TV, radio and stage versions made. Second the characterizations of each character (including Holmes and Watson) can vary wildly. That edges this list into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. Last, as per Masem, this is not a franchise of films. MarnetteD|Talk 22:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is indiscriminate - it is essentially cast lists of some of the movies starring Sherlock Holmes, including not just characters original to those movies, but even "Man in Bar" and "Servant Girl". It purports to be about the Sherlock Holmes franchise, but there is no such thing, unless you consider Doyle's stories a "franchise". They are independent adaptations of a public domain character, and are no more a franchise than every movie about Dracula or Robin Hood or Hercules is part of one big franchise for that character. Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spire Digital[edit]

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

Spire Digital is a web developer based in Denver which fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. All the references given are to local biz sites in Colorado. I cannot find in depth coverage in any mainstream national independent sources. The article was created by a one purpose account. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUD if nothing else - no sources outside of colorado. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per OP, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2017[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non notable event which fails WP:EVENT completely. Sourced with single news of rescheduling. No real independent coverage. The parent event Miss Intercontinental pageant was deleted two times via AfD. And later all its dependent pages (Miss Intercontinental country rankings, Miss Intercontinental History, and Miss Intercontinental winners) were deleted via AfD as non notable entirely. This page was created after those were deleted but it would've been included. Ammarpad (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- If the parent article was not deemed notable enough (on more than one occasion), I don't see how this passes.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable pageant....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notable pageant to stand alone as an article in Wikipedia.--Arsh 18 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable pageant article and this article must be salted. Main article was deleted therefore this article must be deleted.Richie Campbell (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial page on a nn pageant. Sourcing is WP:SPIP / passing mentions as would be expected in these typs of promo articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 25 December 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. The original concern (that this was a DAB with one entry) has been addressed with the creation of Faculty of Occupational Medicine (Ireland). If editors think that article should be deleted or merged, it would need to be discussed in a separate AfD. – Joe (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Occupational Medicine[edit]

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

Not sure if this is the correct place for a Disambiguation page, but the page originally was an article for the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (United Kingdom), which was moved to create this disambiguation page. However, the other article in the disambiguation hasn't been created, so I would assume that the move is erroneous. I'd recommend moving the original back to this page, and deleting the DAB page.

If the Irish one does get created, then a DAB page may well be warranted, or, the current article could be expanded to mention the Irish one as well. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is only one article, there is nothing to disambiguate. I would note, however, that "Faculty of" titles generally redirect to general articles on the study of the subject matter, or to Faculty (division). Faculty of Business redirects to Business education, Faculty of Medicine redirects to Medical school, Faculty of fine arts redirects to Fine art#Academic study. Meanwhile, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Arts, and Faculty of Humanities all redirect to Faculty (division). bd2412 T 14:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete -Generally a DAB page should not even be created before creating all pages to be disambiguated.~~ –Ammarpad (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , changed to keep since new article is created to fill the DAB page. But still believe the created page Faculty of Occupational Medicine (Ireland) may not meet notability guideline, as it is created only for the sake of DAB page – Ammarpad | Talk 07:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have created a redirect for Faculty of Occupational Medicine (Ireland) for now, and am convinced by this that as the "national professional and training body for Occupational Medicine in Ireland" it merits an entry, justifying the dab page. PamD 11:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not make more sense to have the page redirect to the full article on the United Kingdom, and leave a "For Irish see:" simply because this is only a small section against a full article Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You only created the redirect for the sake of it not for any guideline-based reason of WP:DAB. Disambiguation is not default. Its need is not created by creating one random redirect to section of an article which doesn't contain any information about the redirect. DAB is created when there's need for it not reverse of the case. So it should still be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now created a separate page for the Irish faculty. Just for transparency, I created this DAB page originally. --Kwekubo (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now there are 2 valid articles Atlantic306 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add 'for Irish see:' on UK page, as I am unconvinced Faculty of Occupational Medicine (Ireland) should have its own article and should instead be merged into Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. PriceDL (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#2. This nominator appears to be here only to be disruptive. This could also be a WP:SNOW keep, opinion is unanimous that this isn't a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

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

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball MCC214 (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MCC214: Keep: This was discussed before and is fine where the Nio and PTS articles are created earlier because those basins "never end". Plus, it's useless to do this when the year is going to end in several days. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC) (Edited)[reply]
Keep. My read of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically point 1, suggests that this is an event which is "notable and almost certain to take place". Per the article, the season begins in just under a week, and even if there were to be no typhoons at all in that timespan, that's probably a level of notability there as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find it very strange that an editor whose only contributions thus far are to WP:AFD, is nominating the 2018 PTS for deletion and citing WP:Crystal Ball without elaborating further. Regardless, Pacific typhoons cause a lot of deaths and damages each season to multiple nations which makes them as noteworthy as Atlantic hurricanes imo.Jason Rees (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an event (series of events?) certain to occur.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all future events are crystal ball, only those with very scarce source. But this one has reliable sources and enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. That aside the nomination seems suspicious as the only other edits of the nom is creating another AfD of related topic in November. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune. The text as it is is indeed too much crystal balling, but the topic itself fulfills the first bullet of WP:FUTURE. I would just stubify it until storms start making the news soon instead of having all the current filler. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walid–Robinson Opioid-Dependence Questionnaire[edit]

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

An article on an eponymous screening test proposed by one MS Walid, created by user:Mswalid and referenced solely to papers by Walid, MS. Google scholar shows essentially no references to this at all. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An argument can be made for notability, despite the WP:SPA involvement. I would argue that the article needs to be rolled into another article (WP:MERGE) to provide context. Walid and Robinson also devised a pain scale which is also cited in medical research. The WROD treats addiction as a psychological disorder. A well-developed article would contrast this with tests for physical addiction, for which there are a myriad of protocols. I argue that this should not be a stand-alone article. A REDIRECT, perhaps. Rhadow (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing comment by Rhadow. I too feel that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article and that it should be either merged or redirected. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per the fundamantal WP:NOT policy. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. if content belongs about this anywhere it would be in Opioid_use_disorder#Diagnosis and a brief mention would do, if there are secondary sources that discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" makes no argument. Sandstein 12:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OBASHI[edit]

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

No evidence that this methodology is notable or even that it is being used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fergus Cloughley (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — Fergus Cloughley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: @Fergus Cloughley: Please do not upload non-free files such as File:ISACA_OBASHI.jpg for the sole purpose of adding them to this discussion. Non-free content can only be used in articles per Wikipedia non-free content use criteria #9, and even only then when it satisfies all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. If you feel the information contained in that file is relevant to this discussion, then please provide an external link (if possible) to it instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fergus, you have twice now cluttered this discussion with misplaced material. By all means edit the article. Then come back here and explain briefly how your edits now demonstrate notability. Incidentally the image you uploaded is, in my view, no evidence whatsoever. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is not WP article, but a hijacked page in the encyclopedia turned into an advertising brochure. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roost Shared Storage[edit]

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

non notable company per WP:CORPDEPTH- any content could be added to Spacer (self-storage) which later acquired this company (so additionally there will be no more coverage of this company in future) jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcc: This is a shame as I've found references. How much of the article can be salvaged? UaMaol (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much of this article can be salvaged? UaMaol (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Uamaol: All subjects on Wikipedia must be fundamentally notable to have an article, and this company simply doesn't meet our guidelines. I'm sorry- I know this isn't what you wanted to hear- but if you find this topic interesting, perhaps you might want to host this content on your own blog or website? jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Uamaol: This I am aware of. As you said yourself "any content could be added to Spacer (self-storage)", how much of the article can be added to Spacer? I don't care massively about the company, but I believe in retaining and improving information instead of simply deleting it (unless it's COPYVIO). Merger into a section would be more appropriate I think therefore. UaMaol (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- 10 employees? Too soon, or -- too late, because the company has already been acquired. Way too minor to warrant a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Lyon[edit]

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

fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll withdraw this, there's more coverage here than what I found. Joeykai (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an open mind, Joeykai. Too often, people get stubborn about these things. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeykai: I'm finding a ton of coverage on this guy. Did you comply with WP:BEFORE prior to nominating? You might want to consider withdrawing it. Cbl62 (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a ton of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, ranging from The New York Times to The Ithaca Journal. This is a clear WP:GNG pass. (I have now added a small portion of the coverage to the article.) Cbl62 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^{Cbl62 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Snowball Keep Complete and utter pass of WP:GNG. Major college quarterback, head coach at two colleges, and athletic director--plus with sources provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a source that he played quarterback at Colgate? Joeykai (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's in the article. here it is--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:33, 22 December 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 G11. (non-admin closure) 108.210.216.182 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess Quiz[edit]

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

Unsourced claims, promotional slant and likely COI by author. Failing WP:GNG _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Written by software author, new app with no sourcing. Blatant advertisement. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -- agree with the above; I requested such under G11 -- let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 22 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twofold Bay Telegraph[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Appears to have been in existence for just a few months in the 19th Century, so unclear if notability can be established. Over 7,000 newspapers are in the digitisation program, so that doesn't establish notability either. South Nashua (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 2 of the media notability criteria. It is of historical value. Digitized by a National Library. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That criteria, that the newspaper "(has) served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history," doesn't apply here. The national library appears to be digitizing everything indiscriminately, and the newspaper does not appear to have done anything of historic value on its own. South Nashua (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The National Library digitized "historic Australian periodicals". Historic content is exactly what criteria is all about. You may think the paper and its history are not notable, but a national government concluded differently. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. There's a difference between a national library preserving something because they're trying to preserve everything and preserving something because that something matters. Wikipedia policy looks down on instances of the former. South Nashua (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the article shows that the newspaper existed but doesnt show how it is notable ie. articles/books that discuss the paper and its impact, any stories published by the paper that was of influence, any awards won by the paper or its reporters, agree with nominator that digitisation is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not at all notable in its own right. Merge and redirect to Eden, New South Wales. Aoziwe (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Seal Engineering[edit]

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

Company article that fails WP:NCORP with no reliable sources about the company itself, and the only additional coverage I was able to find was press releases or short mentions. PROD contested by article author. shoy (reactions) 21:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 21:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source citation added.

Due to the secretive nature of the commercial component industry, articles in engineering trade publications are the primary notable references available online, of which several are used in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overthetransom381 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company going about its business; nothing suggestive of notability or significance here. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. The fact that it supplies springs to Tesla is neither here nor there, since notability is not inherited. The content belongs on the company website, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Riding on the coattails of Tesla, this shouldnt warrant its own article. Two of these sources, Windpower and Machine Design, are editorials.Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:32, 27 December 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. There appears to be no independantly sources information here for a merge and the detailed assessment of the sourcing mean that the consenus is that this does not meet notability criteria. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Foster (Australian sailor)[edit]

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

A student at Newington College, who went on to become a mid-level military officer, and in retirement did amateur research/investigation of a sunken vessel. The only in-depth source is an obit by his son ADS54 talk 11:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there are some more sources out there, but it is note clear to me he is notable (but it is not clear to me yet he is not notable). However AE1 Entombed: But Not Forgotten (book) does seem notable - it is cited and reviewed (e.g.[13]). If we establish he is non-notable, could use this article for an article on the book.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HMAS AE1; I think Foster fails WP:SOLDIER.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He would not pass on SOLDIER(topped at commander), however grounds for notability here would be primarily his 30+ years activity on AE1 (from the tail end of his military career to his death), his publishing in this regard, and various coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Nominator overlooks the obligation that those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. Castlemate (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable achievements. his research career gets little third party coverage. fails WP:SOLDIER. LibStar (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I see a lot of "fails WP:SOLDIER" !votes. Have these participants also checked vis-a-vis WP:GNG? It's entirely possible for someone to fail a specific notability guideline, but still pass the general one and, thus, be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As others have pointed out, fails WP:SOLDIER, and does not pass WP:GNG. One obit in a major newspaper does not make someone notable. It sounds like the notable topic in the cited articles is really HMAS AE1#Searches, an article in which his role in the search is already mentioned. No need for a separate article. Kb.au (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge a bit more to HMAS AE1. Does not seem notable outside of this research work. Aoziwe (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Contrary to what Castlemate claims, his actions of creating lots and lots of articles on non-notable Newington College alumni, and flooding Wikipedia with these, are clearly disruptive. There is nothing close to a show of notability for this individual, like so many other articles that Castlemate has created this is a case of flooding Wikipedia with articles on non-notable people, and hoping some survive by overwhelming the system. This is why we should go to requiring that all articles pass through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article falls on the side of notability - I don't think there would be as many delete votes if the author had done his homework properly and incorporated the non-schoolcruft reliable sources in Google into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the attack on the creator. The bio was based on an obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald and said the following on his education: "and was educated at Newington College (1944–1951)." Your attack on me is an appalling example of not exhibiting "good faith". Castlemate (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into HMAS AE1. This is one of those times I'd really like to know what the Fairfax process for obits is - do they search relatives out to write obituaries on people they think are significant, or do they accept submissions? Here it claims they're all written by staff but that clearly isn't true. In this case it's not a bad source but doesn't make much of a case for notability of Foster himself and most of the useful stuff here could be merged into the sub's article. Frickeg (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OAM and other awards received seem to indicate sufficient notability. As with other articles written by this user, it needs a lot of help, but this one seems to have sufficient notability. SunChaser (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This item by the Australian Navy does not mention Foster.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mention any individuals at all. It's an announcement of the discovery of the submarine's remains. SunChaser (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not finding anything which conclusively gets the subject over GNG, but am happy to be corrected if something specialised surfaces (no pun intended). While I agree with the article creator's point that users are free to create articles on whatever motivates them, it's important to note that the subjects of those articles do still need to be notable. "This is my area of interest" is largely the same as "The article is interesting" where deletion is concerned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (See comments below): I have "looked" for sources that would denote notability. Interesting story and person but the criteria for inclusion, according to WP:GNG, is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", with verifiable evidence. The deletion policy states reasons for delition; #7)- "The Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", and #8)- "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)", and sources for the subject are just not evident. Otr500 (talk)

Comments: John Foster was a sailor, that spent a lot of time researching and looking for HMAS AE1 after retirement, and this caught the attention of not only the Australian Government and the RAN but various others to include the Australian National Maritime Museum. The submarine was found but Foster did not live to see this.

The problems are that while the submarine is historical and the search a great human interest story, the man (subject of the article) does not pass any of the eight criteria we use from the "still considered essay" WP:MILPEOPLE nor GNG. As a sailor (part of the title) the subject is not considered "notable" and the historical records for a biography can not be just a memorial obituary written by the subjects son. Two of the four references on the article return WayBackMachine search sites, and the three awards (including OAM) are not high enough to grant inclusion. The submarine is covered by an article, the subject is mentioned there, and there are sources that back this up. This leaves the "event" of one book as an author and maybe researcher (?) under #4 (c and d)- "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" but there is only one. Without disregarding policies and guidelines the only criteria we can really use would be to ignore the "rules", claiming that inclusion does improve Wikipedia, even with serious sourcing issues. As stated above, there is no reason to have this article, no matter how much we like it. Otr500 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Doe[edit]

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

A person from Newington College who became an academic and mid-level university administrator. Being the head of a university department is not primarily dependent on academic achievement, so this is not evidence of being a notable professor. No technical contributions disclosed, and otherwise he is just another mid-level manager ADS54 talk 11:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professor at two leading Australian universities and Dean at one in the UK. Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Nominator overlooks the obligation that those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. Castlemate (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ACADEMIC says 'Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)' ADS54 talk 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject was professor at two top 20 / 50 world ranked academic institutions with highly regarded medical faculities, and medical dean at another highly ranked university. Aoziwe (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Professor at a notable university doesn't get you to individual notability alone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Drover's Wife. Would need significant coverage, which doesn't appear to exist. Frickeg (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dean of a Medical School -- or a lwa school -- (as contrasted with such positions as Dean of Undergraduate Studies, etc) is almost equivalent to head of a university, and has usually been held to constitute intrinsic notability . The two profesorial positions add to it, Unfortunately given the common name and the lack of specificity I cannot figure out a way to check the publications. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –speedy keep for this matter. Not only Provost of University but also dean of medical school at another renown university. How many of his publication have you searched for?. "Provost" also is all about semantics, in many countries it is equivalent of Vice chancellors, while in others it means pro-chancellors. In addition he have biography entry in Australia's national biographical reference " Who's Who in Australia" 2008 edition. The Who's Who in Australia is authoritative reference material used by academics as a resource that identifies Australia's leading individuals, and as a research tool by journalists and historian This entry alone made him passes WP:ANYBIO #3 as it is equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography. This is not misnomination in the least –Ammarpad (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does this article read like a very brief cv, at no point is any attempt made to establish his notability as an academic. Two brief references in this article do not cut it. If it isn’t beefed up anytime soon ( which is unlikely, given the main motivation for this page’s creations seems to be his high school) then it’s unlikely to be of any use to anyone.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Difficult to see how this article passes WP:PROF. Neither a provost nor a dean is the head of a university, and there's no reliable sources to suggest any of the other points in the guideline might be met instead. The article also doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO as there is no significant, independent coverage on the subject. Kb.au (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument for keeping this article under WP:PROF is underwhelming. Being a professor alone doesn't pass PROF and never has. And a Dean, regardless of the subject, is still the head of a department—far from the "highest level" post mentioned by C6. Same for being a Provost at AKU. There is simply no evidence that this person has had a significant enough impact on scholarship to write a proper biography. Nor is there a case for meeting the WP:GNG; as pointed out in other AfDs, Who's Who is by no means the equivalent of the Dictonary of National Biography, and is actually a pretty dubious source, since the entries are typically at least partially self-written. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed out with evidence or by mere assertion ?. You're basing your reason on someone who in edit summary says he want show irritating pedantry (for reason, of course you're not aware of).
You also got it it wrong, "Dean" is never head of department talkless of dean of medical school. In many universities Colleges of medicine are larger than many standard universities in every respect, only they don't call their head VC, Chancellor, president or whatnot. Perhaps when you understand status of medical colleges you'll know many deans of such colleges are superiors of VCs of smaller universities. :*Also your assertions that Who is Who is partially written by the nominees themselves needs and is dubious both should've^{[citation needed]}.
Then if being Dean in one university is nothing and Provost at another notable university is nothing. What of being both?. The article is in very poor shape and stub and that's why you're weighing his notability to the shape of the article and its lack of many references but notability is never defined by the content or state of an article WP:CONTN. Ammarpad (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: The somewhat incestuous and self-promotional editorial processes of Who's Who is well known and should be easily verified. For example, our article on the British Who's Who discusses it. I don't see any reason to think the Australian version is any more scrupulous in its editorial processes. It's not a bad source, but it's not entirely independent either. The (O)DNB on the other hand is a rigorously edited reference work published by an academic press and, notably, only includes entries on dead people. That is the kind of high-quality and fully independent coverage that automatically establishes notability under WP:ANYBIO; not Who's Who.

I don't understand why you are being pedantic (and condescending) about the dean issue. We're not talking about other universities. Doe was the head (dean) of the University of Birmingham's Medical School. It should be self-evident that that is not the highest-level administrative post at the University of Birmingham. In fact WP:PROF#C6 specifically excludes deans and provosts. Holding two non-notable positions does not make a person notable.

I don't believe I mentioned the state of sourcing in the article. I'm familiar with WP:CONTN and don't need it explained to me, thanks. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your analogy of UK's Who is Who and Australian to come to conclusion; they're all this and that is hasty generalization to push your point and in substance, argument from analogy which is fallacy.

2. Sorry, WP:PROF#6 didn't mention "universities" at all, and there is reason for that. So your alluded meaning that he must head Birmingham University (topmost position) before he satisfy that criteria is faulty from premise.

3. I hate pedantry myself and hope to use the most common words always (though not pefect) and avoid semantics manipulation. But the fact that you insist "dean of college (Medical)" and "head of department" is similar position is strange. I never meant to be condescending.

4. Guideline is not hard and fast rule, thats why every guideline page reiterates this. Read the general notes just below the PROF criterion you qouted –Ammarpad (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More sources found. He passed ACADEMIC#8. He served as president of Gastroenterological Society of Australia for 2 years and as Editor in Chief of its academic journal for almost a decade. Described in page 318, from JSTOR source book from academic press. His "academic work" and himself personally regularly featured in the press. ABC Australia citing his academic work [14], from Birmingham Post [15], [16], [17], [18] from the Guardian [19]. Listed among select academics on Panel of experts on health reform and national health research for Australian Government [20]. He has puplished books and tens of journal papers which received high citations on Google Scholar and leading academic citation index Scopus. All these are easily verifiable, and I believe these and the sources in the article are enough to show this is Professor, but not ordinary professor. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:11, 23 December 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. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage to meet the notability guideline. Killiondude (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Ellison[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman from Newington College who was on a few boards and owned some horses ADS54 talk 11:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient reliable sources across a number of contexts. Google illustrates more sources that aren't in the article, including a bit of coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald not currently used. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many areas of involvement makes Ellison notable. Castlemate (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't quite see enough here - seems to be mostly passing mentions. Possibly I'm missing something in which case happy to be corrected. Frickeg (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – All I can find are various trivial passing mentions of this guy in relation to other things. There's no significant, independent coverage to suggest he is notable enough to pass WP:GNG at all. Even the citations the author has included are mostly mere lists with no substance. Kb.au (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:BIO. Google search gives almost nothing. I don't see an sources that would establish his notability. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 08:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 December 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. Sandstein 12:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Theatre, Dublin[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Most of the refs only tangentially reference the theatre. South Nashua (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added reference to an Irish Times article ( – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) which provides substantial coverage of the theatre on the occasion of its reopening. Aside from many production reviews (which don't in themselves confer notability) Highbeam also has a Washington Post item which offers slightly more than passing mention of the New Theatre. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a working theatre in Dublin. Spleodrach (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not enough on its own to infer notability. South Nashua (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the citations are more than a mention of events and the Irish Times is littered with promotional and peacock words that sounds more like a press release. Even the Herald citation is written by the manager. I'd prefer to see some better independent WP:RS. ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Temple Bar, Dublin. The problem I found when searching for sources is that many were of the variety of "'x' is playing at the New Theatre, Dublin" ie: lots and lots of passing mentions in sources. That suggests that some mention of the New Theatre can belong in the encyclopedia as reliable sources have mentioned it in the context of other topics, but there's nothing I can find that allows me to write a good, solid, article about the theatre itself. If the Independent or Irish Examiner ran a dedicated piece or two about the theatre, that would make it possible to write something - in the meantime, I think namechecking it in Temple Bar's article will do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (or merge/redirect) - Since the over-referencing and other quasi-promotional (and indeed copyvio) text has been removed, there do not seem to be any PROMO/NOT issues remaining. In terms of GNG, there do seem to be at least one or two examples of non-trivial coverage. If there's a consensus that those examples don't meet GNG, then the most appropriate remedy would seem to be a merge/redirect at least some of the content (minus the "review-ey" refs/text). To sit perhaps with the text on other "cultural institutions" in the Temple Bar article. Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:58, 21 December 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. Sandstein 12:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Thunderbird[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a film actor, whose roles were nearly all as supporting characters rather than major ones. As always, actors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles have been listed -- they qualify for articles if and when they can be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to properly support the article. But the only hint of sourcing here is the external link to his IMDb profile, which is not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability -- and the article has now been tagged as unsourced for almost two years. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick Googling shows that Thunderbird (Richard Davis) gets substantial attention in Reimagining Indian Country: Native American Migration & Identity in Twentieth-century Los Angeles (UNC Press, 2012), where we learn that he was "leader of a Cheyenne dance troupe, lecturer on American Indian history and culture, and actor and technical advisor for Western movies" as well as the founder of a national Native American organization called "First Americans". He shows up in other books such as [21][22][23]. And there's this about his childhood as one of the first "hostage-students" forced into the "civilizing" program at Carlisle Indian Industrial School in 1879. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment editors who find additional coverage should add it to the article under consideration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add to and improve the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:57, 21 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaafar Al Ghazal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP. -- HindWiki^Connect 12:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 12:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 12:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HindWIKI: this nom has nothing to do with Pakistan. Please remove it from here and move it to Iraq related deletion nom. --Saqib (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not for the reason that I created this article. But in fact the article meets the Wikipedia criteria. It is not certain that I am creating articles that do not meet the Wikipedia criteria because I know very well what is the Wikipedia.

My friends @Arthistorian1977:,@RingtailedFox:,@Abishe:,@Anarchyte:,@Narutolovehinata5: & @Operator873: what is your comment?--IamIRAQI (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the page creator (IamIRAQI) has specifically requested my opinion which may present the possible appearance of WP:CAN, I recuse myself from this AfD and will not participate. Operator873^CONNECT 21:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. FWIW I've reFill'd the references so that future !voters can read them easier. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Same for me. Also, not being able to read arabic references, I can't have an opinion here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is given only as links references to the songs and lyrics sites. There is no reliable sources of any newspaper site and othere provided here. -- HindWiki^Connect 07:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem - Thanks for your comment Mr. (Operator873) --IamIRAQI (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 23:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fixed, Thank you @Saqib: for turned my attention. -- HindWiki^Connect 23:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve - The main reason for this AFC is due to the use of bare URLs that can be visible in the article page. The bare URLs should be converted to full citation form. I think this biography is a notable one but this should be improved further by removing unclear citation style as soon as possible. Clean up is needed Abishe (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve - the article looks legit and seems well-written, but needs cleaning and better references. Don't delete just yet... try fixing it first. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 20:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the appareance of notability does not mean notability requirements are met. The article does not show any passing of any of the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 02:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 21 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shikin Gomez[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable model and television personality. Quis separabit? 05:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per comment given by Quis separabit?, delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5) as coverage found on Google is mostly routine coverage of that season of Asia's Next Top Model. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMODEL, clearly a WP:BLP1E. Linguist^un Eins ^uno 17:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable outside of a contest in which she did not win. All articles in reference to her participation on the show, known for this one event.Trafalk09 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of US General Officers in Three Wars[edit]

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

Not a reasonable topic for a stand-alone list; no sourcing that suggests this is complete. Data appears inaccurate as well (regarding Milton Reckord being in the Vietnam War), probably due to this being original research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This boils down to a list of people who were in the military from arbitrary date X to arbitrary date Y, so long as the U.S. was in three wars in that period. bd2412 T 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a pretty arbitrary, made-up criterion, suitable for Triviapedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This prime example of WP:OR violating WP:NOR policy. Now no independent reliable sources claim this X number of soldiers attended 3 war each. Just the author combine source A, source B and Source and come up with 3 wars and that's synthesis. Many other possibilities for OR exists if this is kept. By creating List of US General Officers in Two Wars in four wars and so on unabated. And the source will generally support all that since it's synthesis. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ammarpad.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 22:26, 22 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Kelly-Clyne[edit]

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

Google search reveals no independent in-depth third-party coverage, just the usual vanity hits.

This article appears to be part of a walled garden being constructed by the paid editor. (Declaring that one is being paid is better than not declaring it, but doesn't make the resulting articles neutral or their subjects notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the dissenting opinion may be valid, the subject maintains an extensive collection of his own published work by a reputable news outlet--if there is no reliable third-party coverage on the subject then would not his work having been published and reviewed by other editors not stand to substantiate the subjects' notability? His personal work as a television producer is also noted and substantiated through IMDB: does that not qualify as a reputable source?

While I'm sure it appears that a paid contributor would have some kind of implicit bias in the proceedings of posting this simple bio page, why then is the option to disclose pay even allowed by Wikipedia at all? If my willingness to disclose my pay is itself the reason why I cannot contribute than what if any is my incentive for disclosing my pay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pescobosa (talk • contribs) and copied from talk page by Joe Roe.

@Pescobosa: No, work written by the subject cannot be substituted for sources written about the subject. If there is no reliable third-party coverage, we can't have an article, full stop. IMDB is not a wholly reliable source.

The ethics of paid editing are rather outside the scope of this discussion, but to answer your questions: we give paid editors the option to disclose and edit because it's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit, and also because practically speaking it is difficult to stop them. However, as you should be aware from reading WP:COI and WP:PAID, the community as a whole strongly discourages paid editing. There is no "incentive" for disclosing. Wikipedia is an open community that operates on the assumption of good faith. Not disclosing your paid edits, as required by the terms of use and community consensus, would likely lead to a loss of editing privileges for abusing that trust. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability at all. A blatant misuse of Wikipedia for promotion. – Joe (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete being paid by someone to create Wikipedia articles to promote them is a violation of the underlying principles of Wikipedia. Being paid to create articles that generally increase knowledge would be acceptable, but a diffent endevor than we see here. IMDb is not at all a reliable source, and an article created by someone who does not understand this needs to be removed post haste.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 28 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Good Time[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, article based on a a few reviews *form some pretty unimportant sources as far as I can tell) and chart listings. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Multiple reliable in-depth sources. If this article cannot be kept, then it should be redirected to Aaron Watson. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a redirect, which you chose to turn into an article. And I do not agree that the sources you have added are indepth analyses if the record. They seem mostly to be about the artist.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. Album charted on three major charts, at least three reputable reviews found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is not enough (especially in niche charts), it must still meet our wider notabilty rules, and being mentioned in a chart (even in the top 5 of the US top 100) is not significant coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charting alone isn't enough, no, but generally, anything that is able to chart in a country's all-format chart, especially a major one like the Billboard 200, is generally going to get enough coverage to meet the bare-bones of the WP:GNG. It's not a guarantee, but it is a relatively good indicator, which is why people make assertions like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't actually understand the basis for this nomination, since albums by bluelinked musicians are kept generally. The "chronology" section of the infox for musicians is otherwise interrupted. Nom needs to explain how deleting this article will enhance the experience of our readership. Herostratus (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 02:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 02:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 02:38, 21 December 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 dealt with. Merged and redirected to Group velocity dispersion. ansh 666 06:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Group delay dispersion[edit]

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

Group delay dispersion (GDD) is reasonably well covered in the article on group-velocity dispersion (GVD). The two are closely related concepts, and since GVD is more commonly used (as per my understanding), it makes sense to move the content from this article into the article on group delay dispersion. I have added content from this page into the GVD page. I suggest we create a redirect for GDD to GVD. If the GDD article can be significantly improved with substantial contributions, feel free to suggest a keep. I do feel that there won't be a lot to add to this article beyond what is already there on the Dispersion (optics) and Group velocity dispersion articles. Quantumavik (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Optics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Please ignore the AfD nomination. I instead chose to merge and redirect. Quantumavik (talk) 03:16, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Young (filmmaker)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, who does not yet have a strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE or strong reliable source coverage to support it. The main notability claim present here is a student film award, and other than that all she has so far is honourable mentions and top ten lists rather than actual wins of major film awards -- and two of the three references here are primary sources, while the third is a mere blurb in an alt-weekly. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and/or better sourcing -- but as of right now, nothing present here is enough to qualify her for inclusion yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such as here. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same blurb in an alt-weekly that I already addressed in my nomination statement. It is not substantive coverage for the purposes of clearing GNG, and even if it were it still takes more than just one source. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added another award she received. And here the Toronto International Film Festival chose one of her films as the 10 best of 2016. She's clearly. Notable. Winning awards and receiving coverage. How many "blurbs" and awards does it take? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making a top ten list is neither a notability claim nor an award. As for how many awards it takes, one award would be enough if that award were a Canadian Screen Award or an Emmy Award or an Academy Award or a BAFTA, but a hundred awards are not enough if they're all student film awards or mere honorable mentions at second-tier film festivals — the "notable because award" test for a filmmaker requires major awards, not just any award that exists at all. And as for how much coverage it takes, if she doesn't actually have anything (like winning a CSA or an Emmy or an Oscar) that would constitute an automatic notability pass, then it takes actual substantive and reasonably long articles, not just a blurb, to make a person notable just because media coverage of her exists. GNG requires substantive coverage, not just one blurb. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto International Film Festival is one of the world's most prestigious film festivals, akin to the Venice Film Festival and Sundance Film Festival with major studios from around the world frequently using the festival to make their films world premieres. Having an award at this one is a major notable accomplishment. --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, TIFF is one of the world's most prestigious film festivals — nobody said otherwise, and I live in Toronto and do a lot of Wikipedia's work on TIFF-related articles myself (you might, for starters, want to check who created all of the actual articles about TIFF's awards), so you ain't schoolin' me nuthin' about TIFF that I didn't already know. But she didn't win any award from TIFF — making a top ten list is not an award. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You implied the TIFF was one of "second-tier film festivals," hence the schoolin'. Sheesh. --Oakshade (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. I was referring to Montreal and Vancouver — the festivals where she got an honourable mention and a student film award — as second tier film festivals. She didn't get anything from TIFF that could be characterized as an award. "Sheesh". Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The TIFF, when even you admit is "one of the world's most prestigious film festivals," considering one of this person's films as one of the ten best of 2016 is a huge honor and an indication of notability. the Montreal World Film Festival is a highly respected film festival too. --Oakshade (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That fact could potentially support an article about the film (the condition being that we would still have to find reliable sources which addressed what the film was about.) But it's not an "award", or a notability claim, for the purposes of supporting a standalone WP:BLP of the filmmaker — because apart from a single human interest piece in her local media, all it got her otherwise was to have her existence glancingly namechecked in articles about the overall list rather than any noteworthy increase in coverage about her. And lots of film festivals can claim to be "highly respected" without actually being on the TIFF/Cannes/Berlinale tier of top-prestige festivals — Montreal's film festival isn't nothing, I didn't say it was, but it's not so very massively uber-notable that a student film award from there would confer an automatic must-include in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for filmmakers. Student awards and blurbs in alternate weeklies are just not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the awards and the coverage indicated by FloridaArmy, very in-depth coverage from CBC News. [24] --Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's from CBC News's local bureau in the subject's own hometown, not from the national news division, so it's not evidence that she's getting wider coverage for more than just "local woman does stuff". And even if we accept it just because it's the CBC, it still takes more than just one piece of substantive coverage to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the province-wide CBC Nova Scotia, not just some "local bureau." Between the major Toronto International Film Festival and Montreal festival awards and the province-wide in-depth coverage from now at least two sources, notability beyond a local interest has easily been established per WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the CBC does not have provincewide news bureaux as a separate level from its local news bureaux in the cities — "CBC Nova Scotia" is just the branding that CBC's local news bureaux in Halifax and Sydney both use in lieu of "CBC Halifax" or "CBC Sydney", not a separate division in its own right or a higher notability standard. Secondly, she did not win any award from TIFF (making a top ten list is not an award), and her award from the Montreal film festival was a student film award, not a notable film award that passes WP:CREATIVE. And thirdly, we do not have in-depth coverage from two provincewide sources — we have one piece of in-depth coverage from a local source, and one blurb in an alt-weekly, and nothing but namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBC Nova Scotia is a province wide service for the entire province. Just because the it's based in Halifax doesn't mean it doesn't have coverage for the entire province and in fact covers stories in Yarmouth and Sydney which are hundreds of kilometers away from Halifax in either direction. --Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CBC coverage is sufficient as the basis for an article, together with the other coverage. Sandstein 12:37, 28 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidme[edit]

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

Stillborn startup Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- there are some mentions of it in reliable sources. Here's a Forbes article: [25]--Rusf10 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "some" buzz about startups is always here. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Forbes "contributor" content has extremely little fact-checking or editorial oversight, if any, and is not reliable. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't trust mainstream media myself but I've known how to find a list of their investors for a long time now and Alexis Ohanian is in fact on the list and they ultimately gained over nine million in investment funds, most of which were spent frivolously as mentioned in below edit. This by no means makes the site legitimately notable however. Mattwo7 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premature - The delete rationale is very poor. Closing business after 3 years is not a "stillborn startup". Vidme seems to have generated some attention as a potential independent competitorto Youtube, but Vidme seems to have generated much more attention for giving up, unable to compete with the established tech behemoths. There is a rash of sources but I have no clue as to judge their quality. I believe deletion is premature though. FHHedlund (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. A business is dead. There was some buzz when it was struggling. What novelty to remember it was tried to deliver beyond being "a hybrid between"? I.e., what is its encyclopedic value? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 02:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not exactly sure why you want it to be deleted. Is it because of notability? If so, I disagree per the references already within the article. —cnzx 05:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what is deemed to be worthy of being deleted here. Its sad that the company went into a shut down. Nevertheless, I don't see a reason to delete the page. It has encyclopedic value, it has notability of being existential as a video hosting website. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd argue that it has encycopedic value in the case of wanting Wikipedia to be legitimately encyclopedic but much as Vidme's staff didn't want the site to live due to frivolous spending of of startup money on things like the ever overpriced Amazon Web Services and random luxuries, the staff here at Wikipedia don't want Wikipedia to be legitimately encyclopedic. If Zippcast wasn't worth keeping around, neither is Vidme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwo7 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 December 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. Sandstein 12:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Passarelli[edit]

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

created as an WP:autobiography, can't find any reliable sources to support this article. Rusf10 (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a musician and I am not sure if guitar professor at Berklee College of Music fulfills WP:NACADEMICS. References to "Lauren Passarelli" seem to be passing mentions and I am unable to find in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- "first woman to graduate from Berklee College of Music as a guitar performance major" seems a weak, but passable claim of signficance. A later career academic who had a number of notable students. Although I would probably stubbify the article, keeping mostly the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the reliable and verifiable sources in the article, Passarelli is "the first woman to graduate the guitar performance program in 1982, the first female faculty member of the guitar department in 1984 and the first female to be promoted to full professor in the department in 2009" at Berklee College of Music, a more than credible claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The "first woman" arguments are really weak. If she was the first woman to graduate from Berklee College then maybe it would make her notable. But "first guitar major"? Do we also need articles for the first female piano major and first female violin major? The only real news coverage of her I could find was a single quote from her in a CBS news article about the Beatles.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As to the "first woman" part, it looks more like a LinkedIn profile but a passable claim. Her discography and career sections are acceptable as well. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as "first woman" being used you have to take into account the year this happened.

In 1982 it was a big deal for that time, as well as 1984 being the first female guitar instructor and both occurred. Lsurber (talk) 4:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment- It should be noted that Lsurber is a single purpose account Wikipedia:SPA that has contributed heavily to this article and likely has a conflict of interest here.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I have contributed heavily with everything linked. I do not add things that are not true. My comment is because I do not think the phrase "first woman" is "weak" and that the decade it took place in should be considered. I would make a comment on anyone's page regarding this if I felt it was appropriate." Lsurber (talk) 4:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My point was that you've been here for about four years and have contributed to this article and little else. It seems that you may eithier be the subject of the article or someone closely associated with her. If you have a conflict of interest, you should disclose it, see Wikipedia:COI. As for the notability, I still believe that simply being the first female to graduate with a certain major (as opposed to the school as a whole) is not notable by itself regardless of time period, but I'm open to other opinions.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to put a couple of good citations to sources with substantial coverage of her in the beginning of the article. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' According to WP:PROF,m, academic who work in the practice of one of the arts are judged by the standard of that art, not by the standard for researchers. This corresponds to the way academic faculty in those fields are appointed, where the MFA or equivalent professional degree is the highest degree, not a research doctorate . DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 02:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

,

Keep - She seems to be a pioneer in her field, especially in the early 1980s. Scanlan (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm troubled by the number of deletion proposals that seem to be focused specifically on Teaneck, New Jersey, as well as a handful of other specific communities in NJ and New York. (Clinton, Hamilton Township, Rumson). Just glancing at the New Jersey deletion proposals, in addition to Lauren Passarelli listed here, you as have Rabbi Howard Jachter, Rabbi Steven Weil, businessman Bill Zanker up for deletion - all residents of Teaneck - as well as the previous proposed deletions of the Mayor of Teaneck list and nearly all of its mayors - all proposed by the same user. I'm sure I could find more if I had more time. This seems troubling and we should proceed with caution with any of these deletions. Scanlan (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you and your two buddies have created hundreds of unnecessary articles over the years. You can choose to believe alansohn's wacky theory that I hate Teaneck or you can look at the facts. Can you explain to me why there are 206 articles on mayors from New Jersey (more than any other) and California (a much bigger state) is only at 196? What is troubles me is there is such a low standard for inclusion here.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 26 December 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. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Freeman[edit]

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

Questionable notability, but even if marginally passing NSPORTS, this is a predominantly negative BLP issue that leads me to think it's better to err on the side of deletion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Medalist in notable athletic competition. --bender235 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article gives undue weight, no need to have what amounts to an attack ad on a minor living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTRACK (1) by competing at 2009 World Championships in Athletics – Men's hammer throw. Appears to also meet WP:NTRACK (5) since in 2010 he won national title (see [26]) and IAAF says he was ranked number 31. Also helps that he won Gatorade Player of the Year awards#Track & Field, giving weight towards WP:NHSPHSATH. In view of everything given, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wanted to comment on what User:Rhododendrites said in the nom. For your comment about marginally passing NSPORTS, I don't think that is the case since it is passed at least two separate and distinct ways (WP:NTRACK 1 and 5). Further, I don't think it matters if it marginally passes - we have bright line rules for a reason. I don't know if I have ever seen the opposite (e.g., a player playing 198 games for the American Hockey League, where 200 would pass WP:NHOCKEY, and editors agreeing that since the subject marginally misses we should just keep anyways). The community of editors have selected these as standards and we should not get into the practice of knocking the standards by adding our subjective views, such as something being marginal. For your second point, that it is a negative BLP, I always think it is better to try to clean up than to have the err side of caution be delete. Under that logic, any controversial subject could be deleted if it gets too negative. Better to fix than just delete. RonSigPi (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have said "even if marginally notable". We don't have bright lines, though. At least not in that sense. If someone passes an NSPORTS criterion that doesn't mean they're automatically considered notable regardless of the sourcing that exists; it means sources likely exist which would show notability. When I say marginal I mean in the sense of the number of sources that provide significant coverage of this person, not a numeric goal. I should have been more clear. Even if found to be notable, that doesn't necessarily mean someone should have a stand-alone article (i.e. if there's little content to be written and the person can just be mentioned in another article -- which is the case here). The coverage issue leads into the second point. If there's not much material on which to base an article, but there is material that's negative, it would be an NPOV issue to simply remove the negative, but a BLP issue to have a biography that's heavily negative. To me, we would need to see significant coverage in reliable sources with enough breadth and depth that it outweighs the negative coverage. It's unclear to me that exists. When dealing with matters of BLP like this, of course, it can come down to subjective judgment, to be sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources that can be used to expand the article. Subuey (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWiki^Connect 02:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have added a source for his appearing at the 2009 world outdoor championships, which is enough to meet WP:NTRACK. Sandals1 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 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 Brink's robbery (1981). Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward O'Grady II[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems lurking in these two articles. Nothing shows notability for these two officers besides being killed in the Brinks' robbery. That alone is not a reason to have articles on them being that we do not have articles on every single cop killed in the line of duty nor do we have an article on the third person killed in this robbery. Neither article contains much information that does not already exist in the robbery article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads very much like a memorial and an obituary. Concrete notability is certainly not established , so delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brink's robbery (1981). Subjects are not independently notable of the CRIME, however they are a plausible search term (as evidenced by a BEFORE for their names).Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Brink's robbery (1981) as plausible search term. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Wikipedia is not a memorial, and that is all these articles are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 12:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Philippines[edit]

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

We already have a List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon so repeating mostly the same content on a country specific audience is not needed. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE with dozens of schedule listings and WP:NOR as list article is completely unsourced Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's already a list of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon then this list seems to maybe be list cruft (see WP:Listcruft). Tell me weather or not you think that's a stretch. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, yes. Ajf773 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it redundant to have another branch out from the main list when it is essentially the same. Merging the dissimilar content onto the main list would do. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 06:50, 21 December 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett M. Brown[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article qualifies per WP:ANYBIO since Brown garnered the Best Actor Award at the Manhattan Film Festival for his performance as the crucial and titular role in Hello, My Name Is Frank. The article also qualifies per WP:NACTOR as he has had significant roles as: Bob Russell in Uncle Buck (he plays Uncle Buck's brother); Mr. Lizewski in Kick-Ass and its sequel Kick-Ass 2 (he plays Kick-Ass' father); and (as previously mentioned) as the leading role of Frank Brown in Hello, My Name Is Frank. He also had recurring roles as Philip Evans in the television series Roswell and John Whitsig in the television series Sisters, not to mention being a regular as Taylor Brown in the sitcom What a Country! Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I counted fifteen notable films (with articles already on Wikipedia) that he's had a role in. This easily satisfies the WP:NACTOR guideline: to "have had significant roles in multiple notable films". [email protected], you should withdraw this nomination. —cnzx 05:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 "fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection". The AfD process is not for content issues that should be resolved through editing. I encourage the new editor who nominated this page for deletion to discuss their concerns on the talk page, or to add other sourced content to the article themselves. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ejipura[edit]

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

I am familiar with this part of Bangalore. The article is nonsense and is a deliberate attempt to discredit a good neighbourhood. There have been a few problems as there are anywhere but this is sheer exaggeration by an irresponsible editor. He uses biased newspaper sources in which the reports are largely untrue. Forgive me if I misunderstand site procedures but I believe you expect all primary sources like newspapers to be verified by reliable secondary sources. There are no secondary sources supporting this garbage and never will be. The article is an insult to everyone in Ejipura. Bangalore Dhoni (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:PRIMARY is the policy about such things, but I thought that newspapers were secondary sources? The subject appears notable, so it looks like rewrite from bottom up may be in order. Thanks L3X1 (distænt write) 02:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep All three of the sources are secondary, independent, and reliable. Nominator, please see Secondary source -- newspapers are secondary sources. —cnzx 03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article shows something in 'bad light' is no valid criteria to nominate an article; you can improve it yourself provided it's accompanied with reliable sources. Moreover, all three sources provided are reputed news agencies. MT Train^Discuss 12:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and snow close - Another newbie editor targeting me with nonsensical AfDs. "Irresponsible editor"? Yeah right. I smell another WP:SOCK here. Try harder buddy, I have 500 more articles for you to AfD. Dee 03 15:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above is sourced by the The Times of India ,Deccan Chronicle and The Hindu.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Meets SNG.Clear-cut case. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 15:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malak Singh[edit]

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

Article is a microstub about a supposed player with mention in a generally unreliable primary source. I understand that the site requires reliable secondary sources to verify such content. I am a follower of field hockey in India and I know nothing of this player. I suspect the newspaper report to be bogus or grossly mistaken (it is possible that there is such a player but with a different name). I would say that this is irresponsible editing with scant regard for verification and a possible violation of your no original research policy. Bangalore Dhoni (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stubby and short article with scarce sources which shows no depth in coverage. I Googled the player and found nothing from third party sources. I think this player is just another run-off-the-mill hockey players and for the time being doesn't warrant an article yet. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernestchuajiasheng: "Stubby and short article" is not a valid rationale for deletion. The man has won a silver medal at the continental championship, and there are plenty of sources out there to show WP:N and WP:V. Dee 03 15:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an international player, there are several sources mentioning his name 1, 2, 3 and 4. The issue here is we don't have a notability criteria for field hockey players. MT Train^Discuss 13:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The man has played several matches at the international level in a sport which was once the country's national game. Another newbie editor targeting me with nonsensical AfDs. Smells like WP:SOCK spirit. Dee 03 15:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played Field Hockey for the Indian National Team .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 27 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg[edit]

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

No independent notability from Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County. Unsourced for over 11 years. Analogous to a similar discussion. —cnzx 00:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't meet WP:CITE, is mostly a collective of every village, town, etc. in that county, and just seems not to serve any purpose. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, unsourced for 11 years, that is sure a very long time. Anyway, I looked it up on Google and found a corresponding article on the Hungarian Wikipedia and it is extensive there. Maybe, have someone to translate from there to here? Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you link to the article on the Hungarian WP? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ernestchuajiasheng and Lugnuts: I couldn't find the article on the hungarian WP either, could you please link it? —cnzx (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page here. I am not sure if this page matches ours in discussion here because now that I have translated the title of the Hungarian counterpart, it says Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg county in English which en.wiki has an article of that. RedFlame (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to split this off from the article on the county itself with no sourced information in it.John Pack Lambert (talk)

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